Why Burma Should Remain the Country’s Name
Burma’s electoral commission told opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi to stop calling the country Burma and instead to call it Myanmar, its official name. In a statement published in The New Light of Myanmar, the electoral commission chided Aung San Suu Kyi stating, “As it is prescribed in the constitution that ‘the state shall be known as The Republic of the Union of Myanmar’, no one has the right the call the country Burma.” Aung San Suu Kyi is in her right, and should continue to do so, to express what has been worldwide condemnation of Burma’s military regime.
Disagreement on how to call the country follows Aung San Suu Kyi high-profile trip to Europe, where she continuously called the country Burma. Observers believe that authorities are trying to assert themselves after Aung San Suu Kyi, who leads the National League for Democracy (NLD) party, was widely praised during her trip.
While the electoral commission informed the NLD “to address the name of the state as prescribed in the constitution…and respect the constitution,” Nyan Win, NLD spokesman responded by stating that calling the country Burma “does not amount to disrespecting the constitution.”
There is a long history behind this disagreement. In 1989, the then ruling military junta decreed that the country should change its name from the “Union of Burma” to the “Union of Myanmar.” The move, apparently, was intended to appease minority non-Burman ethnic groups. Later the name was modified to the “Republic of the Union of Myanmar”. However, those opposing the military, including Aung San Suu Kyi, ignored the modification and continued to call the country Burma, to the evident irritation of the military.
Anthropologist Gustaaf Houtman, an expert on Burma’s politics, wrote, “There is a formal term which is Myanmar and the informal, everyday term which is Burma. Myanmar is the literary form, which is ceremonial and official and reeks of government.” Local opposition groups prefer to use the ‘old’ colloquial name, at least until Burma has a legitimate government.
Undaunted by her country’s government criticism, Aung San Suu Kyi has continued using the name Burma during her visit to Britain and Norway. Several Western countries, including Britain and the United States, continue to call the country Burma in unofficial statements of support for the democracy movement in the country.
Some people, such as Derek Tonkin, Britain’s former ambassador to Thailand and chairman of the Network Myanmar group, suggest that both Britain and the US should now call the country Myanmar, to acknowledge the country’s progress to democracy.
However, as the daughter of Aung San, considered the father of modern-day Burma and a tireless fighter for democracy and human rights in her country, nobody has greater moral authority than Aung San Suu Kyi to call the country by its former name.
There is a strong emotional and moral connotation in the name Burma. It should continue to be called that way until effective democracy returns to the country and a national referendum is conducted on how to call it. If this enrages the military, it will still be a small price to pay for the brutality that for decades they have unleashed on the country.
Dr. Cesar Chelala is a winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments (5)
The idea of having a national referendum among Myanmar's 60 million multi-ethnic population, the overwhelming majority of whom speak no English at all, about what their country should be called in a language which they do not speak does not seem to me to be realistic, or even very sensible.
The present position is that the country is seated in the United Nations as "Myanmar". The credentials of the national delegation from "Myanmar" have never been challenged. The name "Myanmar" is accordingly used by all 193 members of the United Nations on all formal occasions. It is the name used in treaties, for diplomatic communications, in UN Resolutions (Security Council, General Assembly, Human Rights Council), by Heads of State when providing Letters of Credence (e.g. for the new US Ambassador Derek Mitchell) and on countless other occasions when diplomatic protocol and international practice require use of the country name. When the US and the UK introduced into the UN Security Council in January 2007 a draft Resolution on the country, it was entitled "The Situation in Myanmar". It had to be so entitled, otherwise it would not have been accepted. Indeed, it might be argued that in international law "Myanmar" is the only acceptable name for the country.
Obliged by diplomatic protocol to use the name "Myanmar" on every formal occasion, the US and the UK are however perfectly entitled to call the country by any other name in an informal or domestic context. To do so though is seen by many countries in the region as boorish, offensive and neo-colonialist. That is why several countries of the EU, like Germany, Italy and Belgium, only ever use "Myanmar" and why the Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr announced a change to Myanmar prior to his recent visit. The number of countries using "Burma" even only informally, now no more than a handful, is dwindling all the time and is unlikely to survive at all into 2013. That is why the US, UK, France and Canada are quite likely to move to "Myanmar" soon, and it will be, as you say, in recognition of the changes which are taking place. But that was not why we called our association Network Myanmar when it was set up in 2007.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi no doubt carries a passport stamped "Republic of the Union of Myanmar" and describing her as a "Myanmar" citizen. But if she wants to use "Burma" when she speaks English, and "Myanma" when she speaks Burmese, then that's fine by me. In the same way, she doesn't tell others what they ought to call her country in English, but she did tell me once that "Myanmar", a dissyllabic word, is not easy to pronounce in English, and I do indeed agree with her. I would like it to be "Burma" again one day soon, but the rule of law, to which Daw Suu attaches importance, diplomatic protocol and international practice should not in the meantime be ignored.
Posted by Derek Tonkin | July 2, 2012 2:22 PM
Well responded Mr Tonkin. If I could just add that on my visits to Myanmar it seems to me that the bulk of the 60m people are struggling on the poverty line but I am sure, as a distraction, they would be really keen on a referendum on the name of their country that is used in a foreign language. I certainly don’t support the military but really a referendum is just so Westernly cute.
Dr Chelala enjoy you day - dine well in your centrally heated office and home and rest assured most people in MYANMAR are thinking of what to call their country as the monsoons pound the county and they struggle to stay dry, have sufficient clean drinking water and food for their families.
Posted by Unial | July 3, 2012 5:15 AM
With all due respect I have for him, I have to disagree with Mr. Cesar Chelala. I do not believe that having a Ph.D degree (in what?) give Mr. Chelala an authoritative or absolute right to recommend or dictate that "Burma" is the appropriate and correct name for the country. He is neither an expert nor an authority on the history, civilization and culture of my native country. It is very inappropriate for him to be meddling or poking his nose into this matter which is the internal issue to be resolved by the people of the country. He sounds very condescending and is betraying his bias towards the people in an Asian (non-Causasian)country by his comments.
I very much respect,admire and honor Dr. Aung San Suu Kyi and her father, General Aung San(Independence Hero)for their outstanding contributions to my native country. My late father had worked closely with and for General Aung San. However,she should'nt persist on calling the country "Burma" which is the name imposed upon the people by the British after they invaded and conquered the country in the 19th century, A.D. A majority of the people in the country are patriotic and feel that the name "Burma" reeks of ugly Anglo Colonialism. Dr. Aung San Suu Kyi was educated at Oxford U (B.A.) and U. of London(Ph.D.)was married to Dr. Michael Aris, a British Academic at Oxford and her 2 sons have British Citizenships. Therefore,in spite of the outstanding things she has done and continuing to do so, it is inevitable that she will be Anglophile and a biased like the U.S. (another Anglophile) and other European Governments who are nostalgiac about the good old days when they lord over my native and other Asian countries like China, India et.al and many African and South American countries bullied and bossed over by Spain ((remember the Conquistadors!). I am really sorry, but you really do not have any credible or defensible bases for your offending comments.
I agree partially but not totally agree with Mr. David Tonkin who appear to have the appropriate and outstanding credentials and expertise concerning my Native country other S.E. Asian countries such as Thailand.
For the people in my native country who love their beautiful and ancient culture and language, the name "Burma" sounds too harsh and uncouth. They would prefer the more melodeous name "Myanmar" which is much more gentle, soft and poetic for the native people like I.
Actually, I recommend that the goverment in my native country should proactively,rename the country as "Myan Mar Pyay" meaning the country of Myanmar. It should call its people "Myan Mar" out of respect for the sensitive feelings of the ethnic minorities and not "Bamar" which they will feel as politically offensive. This should take care of the concerns of Dr. Aung San Suu Kyi and Mr. Tonkin that the "name 'Myanmar" is a dissyllabic word,which is not easy to pronounce in English,". For that matter,and anyways Americans (Goverment officials and the News Media)do not seem to want to make the effort to pronounce foreign names and are sloppy and notorious for misspronouncing and butchering foreign names. Perhaps, it seems to reflect a snobbish and condescending attitude towards foreign and especially, the so called third world and "poor" countries.
The new and proposed name for the people "Myanmar" would also put an end to the confusion caused by a few foreign countries who are now taking their own liberties to call the people "Myanmarese" which is not authorized nor approved by neither the government nor the people of my native country.
These comments are not meant to be personal.If the reader(s) feel that they are I cannot help it. I am putting out all my thoughts openly and truthfully on the table and would consider any feedback you may have(as long as they are not personal and abusive or offensive).
Sincerely,
Tin
Tin Mo,Ph.D (Nuclear Chemist)
U.S. Citizen
Retired Nuclear Scientist for the U.S. Government
Posted by tintmo | July 3, 2012 11:50 AM
A delightful contribution by Tin Mo. Let us not forget however that Daw Suu's father, General Aung San, chose "Do Bama Asia Yon" ("Our Burma Association") in Burmese to promote their nationalist cause and that the Japanese-sponsored State set up in 1943 was also called "Ba-ma" in Burmese. In Aung San's case, it was reportedly because "Myan-ma" was thought to reflect only the limits of the ancient Myanmar Kingdom and "Ba-ma" was (surprisingly!) held to be more comprehensive and to include all the peoples of the country.
It is important to remember that what we are discussing is the translation into English of the country's name, for use especially in a diplomatic and international context. An anomaly is the recent designation of the Ivory Coast as "Côte d'Ivoire" under which name they are seated in the UN.
Posted by Derek Tonkin | July 5, 2012 2:50 AM
While I have had serious disagreements with Mr. Chelala, and I don't know how right he is in this case (because I know too little about the country in question), it is amusing to me to see some of his opponents, while referring to him in the most offensive street language I have ever read, state they would consider any feedback "as long as they are not personal and abusive or offensive".
I also think that it is very sad if the junta "ruling" and terrorizing the country in question has applied successfully the ancient colonialist rule "Divide and conquer", appeasing minorities with the name "Myanmar". To those who wonder what's wrong with this, I would suggest to rename all countries named after their major ethnic group, such as Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, the Czech Republic, my Bulgaria etc., in order to appease sensitive minorities and nurture in them hatred towards the majority group, implying that this hatred is justified.
Posted by Maya M | July 15, 2012 11:33 PM