More trouble in Burma on the horizon…

The potential for conflict in Burma/Myanmar is looking to rise again. With this year’s election looming, attention has focused on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her party the NLD. Ethnic conflict, ever present in Myanmar, looks to start again over between the Tatmadaw (the Burmese military) and armed ethnic forces, particularly the United Wa State Army (USWA). The Burmese military junta desires the inclusion of the Wa army into its structure by becoming part of Myanmar’s Border Guard Force (BGF) which would mean Burmese military officers are placed in the lower end of the Wa army’s command structure. With the deadline to the agreement passing this week, the justification for an attack on the Wa may gain favor with the junta. The uneasy peace between the two groups has been mutually profitable with the Wa pursuing the drug trade, and the Burmese army able to focus on less pliant groups. Last year’s Kokang incident saw refugees stream across the border to China as the Burmese military attacked a small ethnic army. With a reported 20,000 troops, the Wa are not likely to go as quickly or quietly, especially with linkages to other armed ethnic groups in the area such as the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO).

An overriding goal of the Burmese military since the country’s inception is national unity within its borders. The army has shown no hesitation to attack those deemed enemies. Although the Kokang incident made international headlines, almost daily violence is chronicled by organizations such as the Karen Human Rights Group. If the Wa decide to thumb their nose at the junta, violence looks likely. China remains the unknown, with close links the Wa they may act as a deterrent, but with the junta’s disdain of foreign influence, they may assert their forces regardless of what China may say.

An article in the Irrawaddy caught my eye today. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher is appealing for moderate members of the military to join with the people and ethnic groups to dispose of the current regime. While appealing to moderate members is a workable policy, trying to cement unity in Burma by calling for it externally is fruitless. Although I’m glad to see Burma still on the U.S. agenda, saying we stand by the people provides little succor, while using words like patriotism shows little understanding of the divides and nuances that exist in Burma. It remains to be seen whether the various armed ethnic groups can or want to come together or that a Burmese state would exist outside of the army forcing it together. If Congressman Rohrabacher is serious about the issues in Burma, he should look to the concrete steps he can take to support its many people living in refugee camps across Thailand and Bangladesh. What remains to be seen is whether the congressman’s statement heralds the ending to the U.S. policy of engagement.