Over a period when the global trend has been toward a reduction of manpower in armed forces, the so-called “Government of Myanmar” [1] has been marching in the opposite direction. Its military expansion since 1988 has been massive. This was made possible by its increased purchasing power, derived from opening Burma's natural resources to exploitation by foreign companies, and by massive injections of military equipment including heavy weaponry from the so-called People's Republic of China.
Why have Burma's rulers chosen this path ?
Does their different thinking prefigure something different ? — perhaps some latent danger that the world as a whole has not yet grasped or does not wish to grasp ?
Here are some possible explanations of the rationale behind this military build-up:
This was the case during the 1990s and possibly beyond, when their limited understanding of international affairs caused them to fear armed United States intervention in support of democratic governance and US interests. It is almost certainly not the case any longer. They now periodically resuscitate this bogey-man in order to exhort the country to close ranks and confront the purported foreign enemy.
The public reason for the expansion of the armed forces, from independence in 1948 and after the 1962 coup by General Ne Win, has always been that it is to maintain—by force—the unity of the country, which is effectively composed of an amalgam of nations. But an occult reason, which only became slowly apparent to many Burmans, was that military expansion, and encroachment into every corner of Burmese life, served the personal ambitions of some military men, and of one man in particular.
In addition to fighting a communist insurrection—a familiar situation in South-East Asia during the early post-World-War decades—the democratically elected but unrepresentative Government of Burma [2] progressively brought about, through heavy-handedness, the armed rebellion of one ethnic people after another. [3] The Government, under U Nu, while perhaps reflecting the narrowly ethnocentric views which many Burmans held at that time, abandoned the conciliatory course that the pre-independence leader Aung San seemed to be charting at the time of his assassination. [4] This played into the hands of the ambitious General Ne Win, effective commander of the armed forces [5] and Minister of Defence.
By exacerbating inter-ethnic mistrust, [6] Ne Win was able to take over the running of the country without encountering significant resistance. [7] During the years ahead, however, people in the more developed areas of the heartland of Burma would feel increasingly the heavy hand of military domination that had already been felt by some non-Burmans. [8]
Many of the ethnic armies that for a time held Burma Army at bay have, since Ne Win stepped aside in 1988, been coaxed and coerced into uneasy ceasefire agreements with the military regime by pressure from China or Thailand and by the greatly increased firepower of the enemy, for which China has been chiefly responsible. A very few resistance forces, greatly weakened, are now fighting skilful guerrilla campaigns of necessarily very limited extent, in remote mountainous terrain. Their continued existence is a thorn in the regime's side. They provide such degree of protection as is possible to the very large numbers of villagers driven into the jungle by the regime's scorched-earth and shoot-on-sight policies in areas it declares to be free-fire zones [9] ; they are a serious hindrance to the regime's propaganda machine ; and they are a source of intelligence. If conditions were right the resistance movements still in the fight could become a springboard to further developments. However, as things stand, lack of resources prevent them from posing a serious military threat to the regime. That they have been able to survive at all and to continue to strike back against such overwhelming odds, is testimony to their dedication and abilities.
The armed resistance movements and the possibility of a civilian uprising in the urban centres—which would inevitably be largely unarmed even if the citizens were to abandon non-violence—cannot explain the large-scale acquisition of sophisticated weaponry and heavy armaments for which the regime has been bleeding the country white. [10]
There remains another possibility :Many will reject this suggestion as being far-fetched.
But is it ?
It is necessary to examine the mind-set of Burma's rulers.
The Burmese dictator, Than Shwe, has offered the world no notion of his long term intentions along the lines of Hitler's Mein Kampf. And the regime's public statements seek to mislead rather than to inform. They are dedicated to secrecy and obfuscation, which suggests there is much to hide.
While little has come to public attention of the regime's intimate vision for Burma's future, there is evidence that the rulers seek to emulate the reign of long-dead Burman kings who by military conquest strengthened their kingdom and enriched themselves, while subjugating and devastating their unfortunate neighbours.
Occasional leaks can be revealing. For example, the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, Vice-Senior General Maung Aye, addressed a select group of graduate-officers in the following terms [11] :
“We shall be able to seize Bangkok in not more than 10 days.
But we cannot do it yet because we are still inferior in all respects.
We need to possess nuclear weapons or to have conventional military
superiority over neighbouring countries.”
The next person to speak at this gathering was the Minister for Science & Technology, retired Colonel Maung Thaung, who uttered these words:
“We are building the 4th Burmese Empire.
After we occupy Thailand we shall not slap the Thais with our hands,
we shall kick them with our feet.” [12]
The mention of nuclear weapons as an alternative to superiority in conventional forces should set the alarm bells ringing. Their acquisition is that much easier for a totalitarian regime which is able to divert capital and manpower resources to whatever project they see fit, without regard to the effect this has on the living standards of the population at large.
The regime has latterly been developing increasingly close ties with North Korea, which is known to be supplying it with military hardware and training. Pakistani nuclear weapons scientists are said to have been hired. Over a period of several years, more than 5,000 military officers plus a few civilians are being sent to Russia for training in nuclear science, rocket technology, and tunnelling. All of this at huge cost—and for peaceful purposes of course. And Russia is supplying the regime with a small nuclear reactor for research.
The regime is still far from its rumoured goal, the possession of a plutonium bomb. They are thought to be aiming to have this by the year 2020, together with the necessary delivery capability to hit the targets they have in mind.
The greatest hope for ordinary Burmese and for their neighbours must lie in the revolt of at least a significant portion of the Burmese armed forces. This may not happen any time soon. But it can and must be encouraged, no matter how long it takes, no matter what the cost.
The widespread belief—encouraged by the regime—that it can be induced to reform, leads up a blind alley.
In striking at the Buddhist clergy, the regime has undermined its own ill-gotten status and kicked away an institution it exploited as a propaganda prop.
Discontent within the lower ranks of the armed forces, deriving from several causes, could, if given focus, quickly find outward expression. Before there can be any expectation they will make a move, the rank-and-file must receive moral exhortation, practical guidance, and incentives.
Once a serious revolt gets under way, it is possible that some disillusioned people in relatively senior positions may jump on the bandwaggon. So much the better.
When the time comes, speed will be of the essence. Revolt must take the form of a bush-fire that spreads uncontrollably. There can be no dithering.
Military units faithful to the regime can be expected to put up a fight. The battle for the liberation of Burma that will ensue must be seen as a policing action to free the public of paranoiacs and psychopaths whose scorched-earth policy in the free-fire zones is thought to have been killing, year in year out, as many as ten thousand people annually, many of them children—through starvation, disease and violence.
International humanitarian assistance holds in check starvation in the more developed heartland, but is forbidden in regions of greatest need, those where the military regime is intent upon destroying the means of subsistence.
Burma, devastated by its despotic rulers, has become a beggar country whose impoverished inhabitants, seeking the means to survive, flee their homeland in millions.
Sixty years ago, despite its war-ravaged economy, this was the wealthiest country in South-East Asia.[13]
Burma has the potential to become so once more, when the ordinary people cease to be little better than slaves and when they are in control of their country's destiny.
1. The name applied to the Union of Burma by the country's self-appointed military rulers, and employed by those who follow their lead.
2. Dominated by Burmans in a country where about one person in three is of other indigenous races.
3. Expressed in over-simplified terms, some non-Burman peoples had, in the main, never wished to be part of the Union of Burma but were forced into it by the departing colonial power which was anxious to rid itself of an intractable situation as quickly as possible, while trying to safeguard its economic interests in Burma Proper (as the more developed central plains were then known). Other ethnic peoples—or nations as they sometimes prefer to be called—had entered the Union more or less willingly, but subsequently broke into armed revolt when things did not work out as they had hoped : their natural resources were being exploited for the benefit of the more developed Burman-dominated heartland, they were treated as subject peoples by Burma Army detachments, and their cultural identity was under threat.
4. “Our attitude is that we do not want to impose any settlement upon the peoples of the Frontier Areas. We offer them the option of joining us with a great deal of autonomy. That is the policy of the Government. The AFPFL is even prepared to go further. If these people in the Frontier Areas would like to exercise full right of self-determination they can do so.”
—Aung San, 5th January 1947, speaking on All-India Radio ; source: The Burma Review, 13th January 1947, quoted in Aung San and The Struggle for Burmese Independence by Angelene Naw, p.187
5. His title was Chief of Staff ; the titular Commander-in-Chief under the 1947 Constitution was Sao Shwe Thaike, the President of the Union of Burma.
6. See article by the late Dr Vum Son : The Ne Win Doctrine.
7. Although several months after he seized power Rangoon University students demonstrated and were massacred.
8. “We have all suffered the same horror from the Burmese Army, since 1942. And before, in the time of slavery. We were their slaves and we will never be their slaves again...My home village is Padu Plaw, Pagau Division, Burma. I saw so many, many things. I saw young girls raped right in the dirt in the village. I saw buffalo shot in their knees and thrown down our village wells. What I remember most is a Burmese soldier pouring boiling water down the throat of a woman. They'd blindfolded her. How she screamed. She bled to death, internally. The scalding water burned out her tongue and much of her inner throat. It was 1960 in the hot season. I was 11 years old. It was then, I knew for sure, I must kill the Burmese soldiers. I must kill all Burmese soldiers. I knew it then as I still know it. All their hatred of the Karen comes from us being a free people, no longer being slaves.”
—a KNLA officer speaking to Mike Tucker in The Long Patrol.
9. “Black Areas”
10. E.g. the regime has purchased hundreds of Type-85, Type-80, Type-69 and Type-59 main battle tanks and also about 105 Type-63 light amphibious tanks from China, and more than 50 T-72S main battle tanks from the Ukraine ; and, with the help of North Korean technicians, they have launched two-stage rockets by combining their 122 and 240 mm missiles
11. Quoted by C. Snodgrass in The Burma Digest, 25th Feb 2007
12. 1st Burmese Empire founded by Anawrahta in the 11th Century A.D. ; 2nd Burmese Empire founded by Bayinnaung in the 16th Century ; 3rd Burmese Empire by Alaungpaya in the 18th Century
13. Burma was the rice-bowl of the region. See, for example, an article in Dawn