Skip to Content

Asian Tribune is published by World Institute For Asian Studies|Powered by WIAS Vol. 12 No. 2585

Pro-Democracy Groups and Ethnic Nationalities Should Unite in Face of Formidable Force

President Franklin D Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston were all smiles as the Allies made a successful landing on D day the 6th of June 1944.

A Piece of History

Previously, four years earlier British had shown a clean pair of heels in Burma and have retreated to India, together with the British army were several contingents of the ethnic nationalities of Burma especially, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Karen, Chin, Kachin, and the Arakanese contingents including Muslims. When the Imperial Japanese Army pushed on to India, the British made a stand at Imphal and Kohema where together with the Indian and British armies the ethnic contingents made a solid stand on April 1944. The British side sustain 12,500 causalities while the Japanese lost 35,000 men. Unaccountable ethnic nationalities of Burma give up their lives. Since, then the Fascist Japanese never made an attempt to link up with the German Nazi army. In fact the Imperial Japanese Army never recovered from that defeat.

As the War drags on, the ethnic nationalities have started their partisan guerilla war against the Japanese army with any available weapons and the allies have started dropping arms and ammunition to the ethnic resistance fighters, having a disastrous effect on .the morale of the Japanese army. Heartened by the guerilla army the 14th British Army launched its third and decisive Arakan offensive. The 11th East African Division advance to the River Chindwin, capturing the town of Kalewa, the key port of Akyab (Sittwe) was secured by the Indian 25th Division in January 1945. On the 14th of that month the 19th Indian Division crossed the Irrawaddy north of Mandalay, and a month later Mandalay itself fell on 19 March to the 19th Indian Division. The Myanmar Resistance to the Japanese has not started yet. The Army Day celebrates every year on 27th March with pomp and ceremony in Burma has to be taken with a salt.

On May 1st.Indian paratroops landed to the south of Rangoon; the following day saw unopposed amphibious attacks into the city. By 3rd May the Burmese capital Rangoon – along with most of the country - was back in Allied hands. The 2nd. World War soon ended. That was 70 years ago and now the Allies leaders especially Britain and America could not recollect their faithful ethnic nationalities of Burma. Of course at that time both David Cameron and Barrack Obama were not born yet.

The First Betrayal

But Burma happens to be led by a far sighted, well- meaning young leader, Aung San who manage to organise the Shan, Chin and Kachin leaders The British thoroughly exhausted by the War hastily granted independence to Burma without properly taking the consensus of the ethnic nationalities. As a matter of fact they have promised the Karen a separate state in the delta region, as well as to protect the Muslims in Arakan, the Karenni was an independent entity, while Nagaland was never ruled by the British. The Shan and Kachin have their own hereditary independent chief Duwas and Saophas, who had all experience peace and prosperity living under the British if compared than under the suzerainty of the Myanmar monarchs.

With the 2nd World War the whole country had witness the ravages of the advancing Japanese army in whose heels the Burma Independence Army (BIA, the embryo of the Myanmar Tatmadaw) committed horrendous crimes and cruelty on the ethnic nationalities, accusing them as British collaborators, which became the embryo of the ethnic nationalities resistance. But the ethnic nationalities love democracy and remain true to the allies as described. However, as soon as, Independence was gained the Myanmar killed Aung San and deliberately try to forget all their promises made to the ethnic nationalities and treated all of them as servants of Myanmar colonial subjects, if not second citizens spearheaded by the Tatmadaw which imposed a reign of terror on the whole country for more than 70 years. There is no other choice left for the ethnic nationalities but to resist them with whatever weapons they could laid on. Today there is no ethnic nationality that did not rebelled against the Myanmar imperialism. In this aspects, the words of Thomas Jefferson, “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, are pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, to plainly prove a deliberate systematically plan reducing us to slavery,” seems to ring true in today Burma.

The Mahar Myanmar chauvinist policy led by the Tatmadaw from its military coup in 1962 had fought not only the ethnic nationalities but also those who aspire for democracy and other means to improve the country. At first it adopted the “Burmese Way to Socialism”,fenced off the territories under their direct control, and made Burma a hermit kingdom until it collapsed in 1988. It must also be taken into fact that, all members of the Myanmar race were not chauvinistic like their Tatmadaw counterparts, there were many Myanmar who want to see the genuine federal Union of Burma, the old generations of NLD and the younger generation of 8888 are prominent among them. Since the Tatmadaw is behaving like an occupational army they arose en masse and overthrow the Burmese Socialist. Right after the bloody crackdown of the 1988 uprising in the heartlands of the Myanmar majority, that united the mainstream society across ethnic and professional lines, the new crop of generals who are more than happy to switch ideologies decided to open up the country to international capital as a way of shoring itself up – and filling its empty coffers. The “Burmese Way to Crony Capitalism” began around December 1988 when the military signed away $US120 million worth of logging and mining concessions, as well as fishing licenses, to Thai companies that has a close links to the Thai army. Similar concessions were also made to China, which produced and exported over 2,000 commodities designed for Burma’s 50 million-strong market, while importing teak, minerals, forestry products, and agricultural produce from Burma. That turned China-Burma cross-border trade into a multi-billion dollar business.

Strategically, the Tatmadaw pre-empted, rather successfully, any inter-ethnic alliance between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi-led Myanmar ethnic majority in “mainland” Burma and about 20 different armed ethnic movements across the country’s vast frontier territories of Shan, Chin Kachin, , WA, Karenni, Karen, and Mon states. Between 1989 and 1999, as many as 17 different ethnic resistance organisations struck ceasefire deals with Rangoon, reasoning that a truce would at least bring some developmental benefits for their own ethnic peoples, and lucrative personal businesses for the ethnic leaders. The loss of military, ideological and material support from their neighbourhood backers such as China and Thailand had forced some of the staunchest foes of the Burmese regime, like the KIO, to sue for ceasefires in the early 1990s. Because these agreements included concessions for top ethnic leaders to do business in their own areas and get rich quick, they created, accelerated and deepened the new class division within the ethnic resistance communities and eventually fractured them, to the Burmese regime’s strategic advantage. In the meantime, the Junta was able to woo Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the charismatic leader and the only Burmese Noble Peace Prize laureate to join the government and the reforms started.

The international community, which so readily flocks to Rangoon in both good will and selfish interest, are unwitting contributors to Burma’s instability. This is a glimpse of “What wrong looks like”. It will likely lead not to intended peace, but to unwanted war…and more of it until full facts are faced. The simple truth today is that Burma is essentially the scene of a massive Land Rush, the likes of which the world has not seen since sooners swept across Oklahoma grabbing up the lands of Native American Indians who were in the way of progress. Burma as Southeast Asia’s “Land of Sighs” is now everyone’s Cash Cow and cause célèbre to promote their causes, agendas and destinies. Long-oppressed ethnic nationalities will likely be the casualties of all this…and so they seek champions committed to reasonable causes and aspirations for Liberty. For all of President Thein Sein’s reformist professions and gestures that leverage international favor for Myanmar elites’ immunity from close scrutiny, the facts about real reform in this troubled, but promising land, are ominous and enduring. As the saying goes: “You can run from the Truth, but you cannot hide from it forever.” In this regard, the clock is ticking as Burma now sprints in desperation for critically needed legitimacy in 2014. The pressure mounts in the face of national elections in 2015, ASEAN chairmanship status and Burma’ dynamic balancing act leveraging Western economic alliances vital in countering expansionist China’s intentions. Base Survivalism, not Enlightened Reform, is what is on the march today in Burma. Naiveté on this count is dangerous.

The Second Betrayal

The glaring betrayal to the ethnic nationalities of not only in Burma but also that of the world was led by the Anglo-American intellectual team under the guise of spreading liberal democracy. This is partly because the gene of a great nation is inborn in them. History has proven that when William the Conqueror conquered England the natives Saxons resisted but as the years go by the Normans either exterminated or intermarried the Saxons and became a great nation called England, where at one time the sun never sets in its empire. So also starting with Christopher Columbus landing in America, the Europeans either killed the natives’ aboriginals, intermarried them or invited the immigrants where finally a great nation of America was born. Now they are indirectly encouraging the Myanmar major race to rough ride shod over the Non Myanmar ethnic nationalities of Shan, Chin, Kachin, Karenni, Mon and Arakanese not to mention a much smaller ethnic nationalities of Pa Os, Palaungs/Ta An etc. with the hope that Burma will one day became the Asian Tiger, a bulwark against China.

Even now the British government is spending £87,850 on military training for the Tatmadaw without setting any preconditions on their improving human rights and supporting democratic reform, even on the issue of ending the Burmese Army’s use of rape as a weapon of war. The training is taking place despite the Tatmadaw still committing serious human rights abuses which violate international law, since the reform process began including gang rape of ethnic women, including children. This contravene the declaration on ending sexual violence in conflict which the British government has spearheaded. The Tatmadaw deliberately targeting of civilians, arbitrary execution, arbitrary detention, torture, mutilations, looting, bombing civilian areas, blocking humanitarian assistance, destruction of property, and extortion. Many of these abuses could be classified as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In October 2013, 133 ethnic civil society organisations from Burma wrote to Prime Minister David Cameron, US President Obama, and Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott opposing the current form of military engagement and training with the Burmese military until key conditions have been met. As of January 2014, several months after sending the letter, they have yet to receive a response, and military training has gone ahead regardless. It is clear that the British government policy of moving as close as possible to the government of Burma in order to secure current and future trade and investment opportunities, as it is part of a strategy to secure future arms sales if the European Union arms embargo is lifted as Burma’s military budget is still significantly higher than spending on health and education.

The Unkindest Cut

Isn’t it ridiculous to learn that the Brussels based ICG, which focuses only on the economic aspects and not on the people of the world has nominated Thein Sein to be a Nobel Prize recipient last year and when it failed give an annual in Pursuit of Peace Prize of its own knowing full well that Thein Sein was a regional commander in Shan State in the 1990s had wittingly allowed his soldiers to rape at least 45 Shan women with impunity. Moreover, Thein Sein still remains one of the few top military leaders in Burma who has been personally named by the UN for ordering soldiers to commit human rights abuses. Even this very ICG cautioned the Burma census set to begin next month because it was deliberately design not only the method of “Divide and Rule” but also out and out to marginalize all the ethnic nationalities and religious minorities of Burma. No doubt the census was planned in conjunction with the United Nations and with significant international technical and financial support. The census is expected to cost around $60 million. Only $15 million was contributed by the quasi-military government of Burma, while Britain’s Department for International Development gives more than $16 million. Other contributors include the Western donors like Sweden, Australia, Finland, Germany, Norway, and Switzerland. “UNFPA is providing technical assistance in mapping households, training enumerators, setting up data processing systems, and analysing and disseminating the results. The Fund is also helping to mobilize financial support from international donors.” UNFPA media release. The international community is not only providing the technical expertise and finance which has enabled the government of Burma to go ahead with this census. That is how the international donors being fooled by the witty Burmese Ex Generals?

U Aung Zaw, chief editor of the Irrawaddy said, “The world is going to Burma and they praise the regime for making the changes. They were just fooled by this reform process,”

While the collection of accurate demographic data is crucial for national planning and development – it has been over 30 years since the last census – the coming census, consisting of 41 questions, is overly complicated and fraught with danger. There are many flaws in the ethnic classification system being used for the census, which is based on an old and much-criticized list of 135 groups produced in the 1980s. In some cases, this creates too many subdivisions (the small Chin group, for example, is divided into 53 categories, many of them village or clan names, which has no justification on ethno-linguistic grounds).In others, groups are lumped together who have separate ethnic identities (for example, several groups in Shan State such as the Palaung, Lahu and Intha are included as subdivisions of the Shan ethnicity when they are not related in any way ethnically or linguistically). A number of these groups – including ethnic political parties and ethnically based armed organizations – have issued statements highly critical of the census, some demanding a postponement and reclassification based on consultation with ethnic communities. It will have direct political ramifications. The constitution and election laws provide for a set of ethnically delineated constituencies for those groups that meet a certain population threshold, with representatives being appointed as ministers in local governments. Groups fear that if their communities are subdivided or misclassified, they may be denied that political representation. There is no possibility to report mixed ethnicity, forcing people into a single identity, to the potential disadvantage of some smaller groups.

Burma is still in a very sensitive moment in its transition. The peace process with ethnic armed groups is in a delicate phase, with all sides engaged in a concerted effort to bridge gaps and build trust. Elections will be coming in late 2015 if fairly implemented will radically transform the political landscape. The next two years will thus be highly volatile. A poorly timed census that enters into controversial areas of ethnicity and religion in an ill-conceived way will further complicate the situation.

Furthermore, some ethnic nationalities and religious minorities who have been suffering repression and discrimination see the census as an opportunity to be officially recognised, seeing this as a step towards asserting their status and rights. However, in the current Burma context, the census could also lead to violent attacks against religious minorities, increase ethnic tensions, and provide inaccurate data. On balance, the potential risks appear to outweigh the potential benefits. These concerns reflect the challenges faced by a fractured country after more than 60 years of conflict and 50 years of direct dictatorship, they are concerns that people have expressed, and as such are genuine concerns felt by people are

• Renewed anti-Muslim violence

• Fuelling ethnic tensions

• Unfair to ethnic nationalities

• Inaccurate data

• Reinforces illegal statelessness of Rohingya

• Negative impact on peace process

• Negative impact on 2015 elections

The census process should be urgently amended to focus only on key demographic questions, postponing those which are needlessly antagonistic and divisive – on ethnicity, religion, citizenship status – to a more appropriate moment. By doing so, the government, United Nations and donors can demonstrate that they are sensitive to the serious risks presented by the census as currently conceived, and that they are willing to respond to the deep reservations expressed by many important groups in the country. There is still time to adjust the process by limiting the census to just the key demographic questions on age, sex and marital status – that is, the first six questions on the census form. This will provide the most important data without touching at this stage on the controversial issues of identity and citizenship. The limited technical complication of adjusting the process pales into insignificance when placed against the much larger risk – to the very fabric of Myanmar society at this delicate stage in the country’s transition – of proceeding with the current, ill-thought-out process.

Thein Sein Administration is not sincere

The idea of pacifying ‘unruly areas’ with spoils of economic development has increasingly shaped military counterinsurgency campaigns world-wide. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military has attempted to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the local populace with humanitarian and development programs in order to undermine support for insurgency. Burma has practiced economic counterinsurgency—in the form of ceasefire agreements accompanied by lucrative business concessions—to end various ethnic rebellions in its borderlands. Naypyidaw business-only engagement with the country’s armed groups has hitherto prevented genuine political dialogue on issues including minority rights and federalism. Moreover, economic collusion between warlords of both sides—individual rebel generals as well as the Tatmadawfrontline commanders—has not led to development but to the full-out plunder of ethnic territories. Hence, root causes of conflict—socio-economic marginalization and political grievances—remain unaddressed.

More than two years since ceasefires were signed, not all ceasefires have been formally confirmed. For example, the ceasefire with the Karen National Union is only provisional, and the Burmese government is failing to enter into proper discussions on finalising details of the ceasefire. The government of Burma also appears to be attempting to ‘buy’ peace by giving car ‘permits’ to armed ethnic groups, and buying cars and other gifts for leaders. Attempting to bribe people in this way rather than negotiating in good faith should be causing great alarm in the international community about the true intentions of the Burmese government.One of the least compromising groups of the 1990s and 2000s, the KNU (Karen National Union), signed a ceasefire with the government in 2012. Economic interests of the new Karen leadership have facilitated this development. This has led to major discontent within the group and considerable disagreement about the way forward, particularly about the pace and degree of cooperation.

There is a growing perception among civilian populations in conflict affected ethnic states that their political leaders are being bought and not representing them anymore. This could also cause significant problems in the future, as ethnic communities may not accept any future agreements with the government if they feel their leaders have been bribed to accept compromises which don’t protect them. The focus of the Burmese government is almost entirely on securing a nationwide ceasefire that it can trumpet to the international community at a ceremony with world leaders in attendance. It is also attempting to focus on development issues rather than political issues, in the hope that development can ‘buy off’ demands from ethnic people for political reforms to protect human rights and their culture. This approach, and the unwillingness to attempt to address and understand the genuine concerns of ethnic people, is only storing up problems for the future, leading to the current ceasefires to be described as pressing a pause button, not a stop button.

It seems that the world looked insurgency in Burma as a greedy criminal network that rely on support from the local ethnic populace. But what they forget is that their legitimacy largely derives from the protection they offer against widespread human rights violations by Tatmadawand their struggle against ethnic discrimination and socio-economic neglect by the state. The economics-first and politics-later border policy of the state has had the contrary effect: Infrastructure development focuses on mega-projects, such as hydropower dams, which do more harm than good to local communities. Extractive industries – including teak logging and mineral, precious metal and gemstone mining – have exclusively filled the coffers of local and foreign businessmen, army generals and corrupt individuals within rebel groups, rather than communities as a whole. The economic forces entering Burma’s border areas do not simply convert rebels into businessmen who wine and dine with Burma’s generals and investors while clamping down on their own insurgency movements.

It should be recalled that one of the armed groups most willing to compromise over the past two decades is the KIO (Kachin Independence Organization), that has experienced regular internal turmoil over its leadership’s policies resulting in its 17-year-long ceasefire broke down in 2011. The main culprit is the mega-development projects that contributed the cause of the breakdown. A closer look at these realities shows that when discussing Burma as last frontier economy, more attention needs to be paid to its actual frontiers. The deep-rooted political grievances in these borderlands cannot simply be overridden by economic development will not work.

The other aspect is that theTatmadaw is also taking advantage of ceasefires to increase its military presence in ethnic states, rather than withdrawing from conflict zones. This is causing considerable concern among ethnic populations, and is also preventing refugees and internally displaced people from returning to their homes once ceasefires have been signed. Withdrawal from ethnic states where the Tatmadaw has been committing human rights abuses and sending it back to barracks would be a sign that the Tatmadaw is genuine about peace. There appears to be two main motivations in the decision to break the ceasefire. First is to try to use violent armed force to pressure the Kachin Independence Organisation to capitulate to the government’s political demands. Second is to secure control over areas relating to natural resources. What is clear from both of these motivations is that the Tatmadaw and Burmese government are not acting in good faith and showing a genuine commitment to changing the way in which they operate. Given the scale of the human rights abuses they have committed, it also demonstrates a lack of any genuine commitment to improving human rights.

Another major hurdle is the 2008 Nargis Constitution written by the former military regime and passed by a sham referendum will have to be re written. U Win Tin, a veteran journalist and co-founder of the NLD, said “I was not surprised that they did not amend any of the points we wanted to amend. I anticipated this already, and that’s why I was against my party’s stance to amend the Constitution, I was the only person who was against amendments because I knew they would only amend unimportant points” he said. He had called instead to scrap the charter and complete rewrite it. It is also unacceptable for our ethnic armies to have to stay under the marauding Tatmadaw.

While the face of Reform may appear confident, there are troubled fault lines to be discerned just below the surface, provided the international community would but pause to honestly explore them. The admission that “Yes, there are difficult ethnic tensions to be overcome and we are working on them” has become the dismissive standard one-liner thrown out whenever one tries to have a serious discussion in full detail about ethnic nationalities who have confounded Myanmar generals in the field for decades, are anything but “minor”. Aside from their demographic dominance of half of Burma’s landmass, most of its borders and international trade routes, as well as most of its natural resource and hydro power wealth, there are other more compelling sources of ethnic power in adversity to be considered. Malcom Gladwell, in his most recent book “David and Goliath”, reminds us of the dangerous, if not decisive advantage of “men who have nothing to lose”. The bright Burma of internationals’ hopes and dreams is ominously on the cusp of not heeding this very danger. There is ample evidence around the world today of angry men with no hope to give one pause. Assuming that ethnics “are to be reckoned with”, it is then prudent to fully and fairly consider the complex jeopardy that may well push them to the point of final desperation. First, ethnic leaders are forced to negotiate with Burma’s President, who has no real power. This is according to regional experts’ estimations that Thein Sein remains accountable only to military masters and their business cronies “pulling the strings”. This essentially means that agreements reached with ethnics will not be enforceable. Ethnics know this interface with Thein Sein and his delegates is a farce, but the international community believes in it. Ethnics thus fall prey to Myanmar negotiators’ stalling tactics.

Flickering Light

After meeting President Thein Sein for the first time in August 2011, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi publicly vouched for him as “sincere” and set about advocating for the lifting of Western sanctions advancing the goal legitimacy of the regime. But an honest politician cannot survive in a dirty game played by deceitful military interests and crony capitalists in Burma? It is only now that she belatedly saw the deception and manipulation when she is asking government leaders to amend the Constitution and has sought a dialogue involving the military, Parliament, the executive branch and the opposition NLD. The government has rejected that proposal.

Sorrowfully she has neglected the activist network that has been built up over the last few decades to promote human rights and democracy in Burma a major source of support for her and the opposition movement. Failing to speak out against human rights abuses and conflict in ethnic regions, she has lost considerable support among Burma’s ethnic nationalities. This silence, coupled with her skirting the issue of violence targeting Muslims by the country’s majority Buddhists, has seen “The Lady’s” moral standing erode considerably since she took her seat in Parliament. Now the country has realized that by hook or by crook, the military and its crony associates will cling to that power for as long as they can. The flickering hope is that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi can maintain popular support despite the setbacks. The Lady and her party have work to do in winning back many disgruntled and disillusioned dissidents and ethnic groups. And as important as rebuilding the old network, a new generation of leaders must be groomed for a day when she is no more. She still remains an inspiring figure and a dominant player in Burmese politics, but now in her late 60s, time is running out.

Daw Suu is the only person that understands a revolution, any revolution, which aims merely at changing official policies and institutions with a view to an improvement in material conditions has little chance of genuine success. There must be a "revolution of the spirit," of the forces which produced the iniquities of the old order that allows it to continue to operate, posing as a constant and viable threat to the true processes of democratic reform and regeneration.

No doubt the United States and other Western nations have rapidly eased economic and political sanctions against the nation as its government has initiated reforms after five decades of military rule. But the people of Burma instill some hope because the US is not considering resumption of arms sales. “I would characterize engagement with the Burmese military as crucial to the overall success of the ongoing reform movement in Burma,” said Shear, the new US Defense Officials for Asia, adding that the Pentagon should move ahead with “calibrated and conditional engagement.” Congressional opposition to expansion of even nonlethal cooperation because of allegations of continuing human rights abuses by Burmese forces remains a constraint on what the Obama administration can do.

America, more than any nation by its historic affirmation of self-evident truths, is the late comer on this scene with a vital role to play. The quality of its “daily commitment” can prove decisive in Burma. This must be inspired, as “Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude.” Thomas Jefferson. In this regard, Burma’s strategic significance must be approached from the sure footing of moral high ground. America, which has yet to fully take a clear stand in Burma, faces the very issues and ideals that gave rise to America itself. Burma with all its promise, needs honest brokerage guided by sacred honor to fully and fairly inspire the notion and its achievement “that all men are created equal.” Without such a champion to this just cause, these imperishable words will perish. “America” is not a place. It is an ideal. Without standing for this ideal, we are then without true purpose. More than anything, strategic posturing in Burma is predicated on moral footing. In this regard, Burma is more about Americans in terms of how we demonstrate to the world what we truly stand for in this century. Burma is now center stage for American performance. War or its avoidance hangs in the balance.

“True peace is not a lovely “façade” which conceals conflicts and divisions. Peace calls for daily commitment“, is a clear calling to conscience. For Burma, it is a warning for the prospect of an ultimate war. This assertion is a reflection of the 21st Century Realpolitik of downtrodden masses with spiritual roots reaching back to 1776. Today they will have their voice heard and heeded across countless frontlines of oppression around the world. Soon the people of Burma both the pro-democracy movements and the ethnic nationalities will have to face the ultimate battle and like Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi of Libya or Viktor Yanukovich Ukraine not to mention the ongoing struggle against the Shintawatra dynasty in Thailand, the people’s power will overcome it.

End Notes

The Japanese Resistance by the Myanmar started only on 27th March, which is now recognized as an Army Day previously Resistances Day. The twist of authentic Burmese History.
Zarni;Dr Maung Dark Economies fuel Burma’s Perpetual War DVB 16-11-2011
Tim Heinemann, “White Paper” War’s Ine A Piece of History
vitability in Burma

A few days ago the Tatmadaw launched a major military operation against the Tang
Training War Criminals? – British Training of the Burmese Army 14 Jan 2014

Burma Briefing No. 29 Updated 20 February 2014 20.
in- census/10103-myanmar-calls-on-stake-holders-to-cooperate-in-census

ICG Report Myanmar Conflict Alert: A Risky Census12-2-2014

Brenner; David, The Pitfalls of Economic Counterinsurgency Strategies in Burma 11-2-2014
Brenner; David, Burma (Myanmar): Exploring the frontiers of Southeast Asia’s last frontier economy 24-2-2014
Burma Briefing No. 29 Updated 20 February 2014
Brenner; David, Burma : Exploring the frontiers of Southeast Asia’s last frontier economy 24-2-2014

Burma Briefing No. 29 Updated 20 February 2014

Weng;Lawi, Burma; Parliament Committee: Keep Main Points of Constitution.The Irrawaddy 31-1-2014

Zaw;Aung Waiting for Our ‘Mandela Moment’7-12-2013

Darling; Dallas Will Aung San Suu Kyi ever be President of Burma? World 9-12-2013

Pennington; Matthew. US Says Military Engagement Key for Burma Reform AP News 26-2-2014

Tim Heinemann, “White Paper” War’s Inevitability in Burma

- Asian Tribune -

diconary view
Share this