Natural resource exploitation has always played an important role in Myanmar’s many ethnic conflicts, where timber, minerals and ores have helped to finance long-running anti-government insurgencies.
But recent commentary drawing ‘blood teak’ or ‘blood jade’ parallels to the African warlords who fought for profit from ‘blood diamonds’ in places like Angola, Liberia and Sierra Leone mainly miss the mark in understanding the motivations behind Myanmar’s civil wars.
As Western governments have recently engaged in Myanmar’s peace process, two schools of thought have emerged among pundits and commentators regarding the role of natural resources in the long-running conflicts.
The first sees control and competition for natural resources as the main cause of armed ethnic conflict. The argument, similar to the role rapacious warlords have played in African conflicts, plays down the genuineness of ethnic struggles for autonomy, rights and self-determination.
Jay Benson, a research assistant at One Earth Future, a US-based think tank that promotes “peace through governance”, wrote that “valuable extractive resources provide incentives for the formation of non-state armed groups” and “extend the duration of existing conflicts by providing a relatively easy source of income.”
That view has also been promoted by those in Washington who favor more military-to-military engagement with Myanmar, mainly with an eye toward countering China’s influence, but also with a view that strategic collaboration and arms sales could be used against ethnic insurgent groups that are viewed more as peace spoilers than freedom fighters.
The Myanmar military’s alleged massive abuses now coming to light in the Rohingya refugee crisis in Rakhine state has more recently put the engagement lobby on a back foot. So, too, has Aung San Suu Kyi’s ineffective peace process and China’s rising role in peace negotiations between ethnic armed groups and the government and military.
The other school of thought, recently coined as “natural resource federalism”, views an equitable allocation of natural resources between the central government center and ethnic periphery as key to resolving conflicts through granting autonomy and self-determination to ethnic groups in the territories they control.
Suu Kyi’s peace process to date has required that ethnic armed groups must sign a national ceasefire agreement (NCA) before any political talks are held. Most ethnic armed groups view the government and military’s ceasefire as tantamount to surrender and aimed at undermining their negotiating power to achieve a federal union.
The stakes, of course, are high. Apart from deep stores of teak and timber, ethnic areas are also rich in jade, precious stones, gold, gas, oil and hydro-electric power potential – not to mention underground trades in illicit drugs and human trafficking.
Prolonged armed conflict, meanwhile, has stunted development across the entire country. Extractive activities are often hotly contested and subject to violent attacks.
In northern Kachin state, the military announced on January 28 its intention to clear out Kachin Independence Army (KIA) insurgent bases in areas rich in gold and amber to cut the insurgent group’s revenue stream. Both sides have said that the others’ extraction and taxation of the area’s resources are “illegal.”
Photo: AFP/Ye Aung Thu
In eastern Kayin state, the Karen National Union (KNU), one of the country’s oldest rebel organizations fighting for autonomy, issued a four-point statement on February 1 demanding negotiations with the Union government over plans to resume building a two-lane highway between the Thai border and the Dawei Special Economic Zone in Tanintharyi Region.
In its statement, the KNU said that the NCA it signed in October 2015 stipulated that the government “must negotiate” with signatories over the implementation of socio-economic development projects. Accordingly, the KNU said that if work resumed on the highway, it would cut through pristine forests and rural communities under its control in potential violation of the KNU’s own land and forestry policy.
The KNU also said negotiations with it and other stakeholders must be held in advance to ensure sustainable development for local communities and revenue-sharing between the Union and state or regional governments. Communities must have the right to participate in the negotiations, it said.
Both cases show that ethnic armed groups and the Union government are still poles apart on who should control resource management and exploitation. Most ethnic armies view themselves as the true representatives and owners of their respective homelands and states, with the obligation to exploit resources for the benefit of their people. They also view themselves as protectors against military occupation and abuse.
The Natural Resource Governance Institute, a think tank, proposed in a January 2018 paper a remedial way ahead that would give greater power to subnational institutions over resource management. In short, the report suggested a framework for which responsibilities should be allocated to subnational governments and which should be managed jointly in either a federal or unitary state.
Similarly, the Ethnic Nationalities Affairs Center, a local independent group in support of the government’s peace process, proposed in a September 2017 report measures on ownership, management and revenue-sharing that recommended giving 70% control to regions and 30% to the Union government. It also recommended safeguards to protect local people from extractive industries’ environmental impacts.
It’s unclear, of course, whether Suu Kyi’s government or the commercially minded autonomous military will ever agree to divulge so much control to peripheral regions.
But the notion that Myanmar’s civil wars are being fought solely for command control over natural resources misses the point of over 70 years of national and subnational conflict, which first erupted over philosophical and conceptual issues of self-determination, equality and democracy anchored in a federal union.
The ethnic Shan resistance, for instance, used to call opium the “necessary evil” of its long struggle for autonomy. The extraction of natural resources like jade, precious stones and other minerals by other ethnic armed groups is likewise used to survive as a distinct culture and people, and defend their ancestral homelands from what they view as military invaders.
Ethnic groups have also seen how the military and its associated business cronies seek to exploit peace for narrow self-enrichment, as witnessed in Kachin state during a ceasefire that lasted from 1994 to 2011. The state saw rapid deforestation over the period.
While so-called natural resource federalism could help to resolve the issue of equitable allocation and sustainable exploitation, the resolution of political grievances is still the key to long-term peace and prosperity in the country’s ethnic areas.
While some commentators may bid to simplistically portray ethnic conflicts as resource grabs by self-interested warlords, the analysis overlooks the structured demands for power-sharing and resource-sharing that have always been rooted in the core aspirations of all ethnic groups. Until those demands are met, Myanmar’s resource-fueled but not necessarily resource-driven wars will drag on.
On 14 February, the MPs of Amyotha Hluttaw debated the depleting environmental resources in Myanmar at the Amyotha Hluttaw, and urged the Union government to provide protection to the country’s natural resources.
Later, the union minister also called for cooperation from all sectors, including government, non-government organisations, region/state governments and local people, to ensure environmental conservation is a success, and urged the Hluttaw to put the motion on record. The motion was passed by 92 votes to 82, with four abstentions, according to Myanmar Digital News on 15 February.
According to this law, the debate of the natural resource federalism, which the ethnic nationalities and the ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) are keen to employ as their bargaining outgoing point is being nibbled in the buds. The NCA-based 21st Century Panglong Conference should be handling the natural resources-sharing and political power-sharing issues, but now the NLD government-military regime is playing unfairly by making use of the Parliament, where they have the majority and the ethnic political parties have almost no say with some few seats within the parliament, needless to say of the EAOs that don’t even recognized the 2008 military-drafted constitution.
Time to play fair on a level playing field, if the Bamar dominated-government and Tatmadaw want real reconciliation and conflict settlement.
I am not very happy to make the following comment. But I have to.
In the beginning of ethnic revolution since 1949, the ethnic arm revolutionary groups are genuinely staging for freedom from sovereignty of Bamar government.
After yeares of fighting with Bamar Tatmataw (Myanmar army) the arm revolution seems to be not successful. Finally sadly to say most of the ethnic arm revolutionary organizations turned to business oriented goal. Most of the resources in their area are exploited for the benefit. Many leaders became rich. But they still claimed as revolution for freedom.
When the new Myanmar government under the name of Democracy came to power, they started talking about peace, reconciliation and federal democrcy system. We have seen that the Myanmar government has put a lot of pressure and demand as precondition to talk for peace and federal system.
They demand for NCA signing. They keep on fighting Kachin and the Northern Alliance more fircely using helicopter gunship and jet fighters.
Some ethnic groups were corced to sign NCA. But they do not follow the agreement in NCA. They still keep fighting with RCSS/SSA, a signatory of NCA.
KNU expressed NCA is not tursthworthy. RCSS/SSA chief also said that Myanmar army did not follow NCA and Commander in Chief Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing himself orders for the attack on RCSS/SSA.
Nevertheless the 8 NCA signatories and newly added 2 groups are eagerly looking forward talking about peace and political dialogue in the future.
Meanwhile Myanmar army keep fighting KIA in the north especially in Tha Nai area where the precious Payin are produced.
Many ethnic arm groups are now shifting the interest and concern on ECONOMY more than POLITICAL.
Myanmar army are also fighting for business on economy more than political.
If the trend is going on economic interest, their will be no more chance for the freedom of ethnic people.
Ethnic people may need new revolution to fight for the freedom of their people from Myanmar dictators.
Excellent analysis Sai Wansai, but two deeper points also deserve mention. First, Burma – historically – is a fiction. The Shan States in particular were independent and the country only became unified through oppression, first by Burman kings and then the British. Real unification – by mutual consent – was achieved through the Panglong Agreement, but which – following Aung San’s assassination – was renounced by Burman dictator Ne Win when he seized power in 1962. No doubt all of the ethnic nationalities look back to the days when they were free and not subjected to Burman domination. Their revolutions, although degraded by time and also leader corruption, still strive for this end, as manifested through the calls for federalism and self-determination.
Even with the crimes against humanity to which they have been subjected, the ethnic nationalities are still willing to try to work with the Burmans. The current crop of Burman dictators, though – Min Aung Hlaing, Than Shwe (still behind the scenes), and Aung San Suu Kyi – refuse to work with them, much less accept their aspirations. This is because of the second factor – racism. This is the core of the issue. The Burman leaders are hard-core racists. They believe they are ethnically superior, no less that Hitler’s Aryans. They are obsessed with their inherent genetic “right” to rule, and will never, ever yield on this. So, full circle, at this point it is doubtful that Burma can be a country – it should return to the pre-imperial Burman days, and the reason for this is racism. The only future for the ethnic nationalities is through reinvigorated independence struggles, leading to a break-up as occurred with Yugoslavia. The idea that the Burmans will ever allow a peaceful coexistence at this point is a complete fantasy.
It is astonishing that Western diplomats and commentators miss – or ignore – this foundation. In exchange for business opportunities and geopolitical positioning they are happy to do deals with genocidal mass murderers.
I had an illiterate aunt who had two sons who were studying at the Rangoon university around in the mid 1960s when Gen. Ne Win’s dictatorship and the Burma Socialist Programme Party were ruling the land. Whenever her sons came back to our village during university holidays, she always said to them: "What for am I sending you to school and university? If I were well-educated like you, I’d write letters everyday to the British governments to come back and rescue us from the Burmans."
Self rule is always better than a foreign colonial power who is more interested in exploiting the nation resources.
Ethnic minorities always will exist within a country wherever you are within the realm of this world. How a minority group is treated is largely due to how enlighten or progresive that country´s government is.
Beto Perez "The Myanmar government is doing its best to accomodate every ethnic group´s claims" Wow. What universe do you live in? Time to study history. (The rest of it is just as bad.)
Do you even understand what happened in Yugoslavia? One genocidal dictatorship – Bosnia, you’ve heard of it, right? – was replaced by eight free and peaceful democratic countries. It worked just fine.
I don’t understand why every article on Atimes about Burma has so many pro-dictatorship trolls.
I fully agree with You Roland Watson , first of all that Sai Wansai’s article provides an excellent analysis and overview of a very complex and intractable case , let me just add here a bit of emphasis on a few points of importance >> BURMA of today is after all not a natural nation state , i e. it’s rather an unfortunate consequencce of British Colonial history , with one ethnic group , the Bamar , claiming a superior leadership role based on blatant racism , with it’s main aim to enrich the ruling Military class and justify their warfare against the various Etnic Groups and in the process rob their recources ! this has been the strategy of the Burmese Military specially since the beginning of the Ne Win dictatorship in 1962 and has not seen any change till today , with the NLD / ASSK regime being not much more than a fig leaf for the same cause . This is also deeply ingrained in the Burmese Education system , leaving a huge gap between the Bamar people’s knowlege and understanding of the reasons for the struggle of the Etnic People ..making any lasting Solution and Peace agreemet a very unlikely prospect . This being further complicated by the lack of understanding of the root causes of the conflict on the part of the " donor nations " involved in the so called " Peace Process " …the article should be mandatory reading for them !
Roland Watson , I don’t have enough knowledge of Burma’s inner workings, but please allow me a short comment about Yugoslavia. This literal "balkanization" of Yugoslavia was a US/NATO operation whose purpose was to take advantage of the USSR collapse. You take Bosnia as an example, but please let me take Kosovo as another example: Kosovo is now a huge US military base, plus the base of drugs, arms, and people’s organs smugglers. How many Kosovos would the US/NATO create in Burma ? The case of the Rohingyas is another product of the same democratic and humanitarian disasters of the Anglos, in this case being China their target. Having said that, those who suffer are the Burmese people as usual.
Mr. Beto Perez, you seem to be living in Peru. I wonder if you have ever been to Burma and if you have any knowledge at all about the real situation in it. If you don’t, I’d like to share with you a 3-part debate conducted by four prominent people under the moderation of the Norway-based DVB (Democratic Voice of Burma). The title of the debate was: Have the indigenous non-Bamar peoples enjoyed full rights? The result of the opinion poll at the end is a very strong indicator: 82% of those who watched the debate live said the peoples in question haven’t enjoyed full rights and 18% said yes. So, I hope you get a rough picture now. The debate was unfortunately done in Burmese. Hopefully, you could get the most important points translated by someone.
PART A
PART B
PART C
Roland Watson
That is my point whether it was the English or whoever else.made what the country is, it is irrevlevant, now. The fact is Myanmar is a sovereign and independent. country.
Whether you are American or whatever Western perrson you are- how dare you come and try to dictate how a country should be run- How come we don´t hear you to talk about the ethnic groups in USA and how are humilliated and killed by the police on increasing numbers. How come you don´t spend your time wriiting about Israel and its aparthied with the Palestinians, and the list goes on. You may be a writer paid by one of those big Western donors becuase some of your corporations are salivating about Myanmar{s natural resources. Stop lying to the world. You and many western people under the veiled of human rights issue try to bring your hidden agenda of racism and explotation.
Roger Cheng I’m not paid by anyone. I’ve been a Burma pro-democracy activist for over 23 years, many spent at the Thai border and in Burma. A number of my friends have been killed. I think I have a responsibility to speak for them. (See Dictator Watch.) I do write about the U.S. I detest U.S. policy, and many conditions inside the country, as much as you. Didn’t you read the last sentence of my initial comment? I am a progressive. I am against police violence – we called them pigs when I was young. I’ve been to Palestine. I think Israel should be forced to give the Palestinians their land back. The U.S. should end all military aid to Israel. I hate major corporations more than anything. Again, didn’t you read the last sentence. In any case, none of that is the point. This is an article about Burma, not the U.S. or Israel/Palestine. When a commentator responds – "Why don’t you talk about …" you know their arguments are weak. They are changing the subject. In addition, sovereignty, a world based on inviolable nation/states – is a bullshit social architecture. Nations exist to compete, not cooporate, and sovereignty is used as a shield for any and all internal atrocities. The invention of the nation/state (in Europe in the Middle Ages) was in many ways the worst event in human history, even more than the Chinese creation of gunpowder.
And, I’m not dictating anything. I, mirroring many ethnic nationalities, are simply observing that after centuries of trying to coexist with the Burmans, it simply doesn’t work. Maybe it is time to go their separate ways. That’s hardly dictating.
I have 5000 FB friends, and at least 70% are from Burma. I have met hundreds of people from the country, and have dozens of personal friends. They like my comments and analysis. I was even asked to comment on this article. Too bad you don’t like – or misunderstand – what I have to say. You should take more time to think about it, not immediately react in anger. Your analysis will be better.
Luca Taramelli Kosovo was tough, I’m not saying it wasn’t. But they just celebrated 10 years of independence from Serbia. If it comes to it, breaking up Burma will be difficult, too, although moreso in some places than others. Still, I believe peace does await on the other side.
PS., I don’t understand your comment about the Rohingya at all. Are you saying the West is to blame for their genocide by the Burmans? How?
http://www.eurasiareview.com/19022018-kosovo-celebrates-a-decade-of-sovereignty/
Sai Wan Sai has hit the nail on the head when he pointed out “the structured demands for power-sharing and resource-sharing that have always been rooted in the core aspirations of all ethnic groups” as opposed to the portrayal of the country’s seven decades-long civil war by some analysts as simply a “resource grabs by self-interested warlords.”
The “core aspirations” of the ethnic groups he mentioned were enshrined in Panglong as liberty, equality, autonomy, self-determination, protection of minority rights, democracy, financial autonomy, federalism, and the sovereign power vested in the people, etc.
With a vision for a long lasting, peaceful and prosperous Union to emerge in this part of the world, these principles were laid down as the foundation stones by General Aung San and other ethnic leaders when they signed the Panglong Agreement in 1947, a year prior to Independence.
Little did they realize at the time of the signing of the historic treaty on 12 February 1947 that five months later on the fateful day of the 19th of July General Aung San would be assassinated. Sadly, as a result, untold human miseries follow for the last seventy long years and continue to rage without any hope for a brighter future for the country as a whole!