Printable Version

civil war: powerless to prevent it

Eric Bruce Johnston

I have in the past quoted Aung San in the Burma newsgroups as evidence that: _

(1) he was well disposed towards the non-Burman peoples (probably his marriage to a Karen girl considerably mellowed his attitudes), and

(2) shortly before his death he was speaking of their right to autonomy if they desired it.

His opinions on the latter MAY have been one of the motivating factors leading to his assassination. If so, he would be a martyr for the rights of the ethnic peoples.

The fact that senior officials in the Foreign Office believed that "Aung San will deal with the Karen using Japanese methods" is no proof that it was so. Senior officials in the Foreign Office can be badly mistaken.

Regarding the Foreign Office's remark, I am quite surprised. If the mentioning of the remark was true, then the Foreign Office already predicted that there will be a big civil war, even before the independence. Was the whole thing intentional? It is hardly likely they intended a civil war, although anyone with a modicum of perspicacity, Burmese in particular, should have seen it coming. Maybe they did see it coming, but were powerless to prevent it. Feelings were too strong, too polarised.

The Atlee government and its representatives did everything that could reasonably have been expected -- and indeed a great deal more -- to ensure a strong centralized state, inevitably dominated by Burmans. Surely, it is this supposedly "strong", centralised state that is the cause of the people's misery? Precisely because it is NOT a strong state. Everything that is present in a strong state -- notably the rule of law -- is lacking. It is just a space on the map dominated by strongmen, or in other words, thugs.

Let's look at some circumstantial evidence for the absence of evil intent on the part of the British government towards the Burmese state: _

1. There was the secret Mountbatten-Aung San agreement, (of which the details may perhaps by now be available for public inspection?) Whatever may have been in this agreement, Mountbatten did what he could to foster Aung San as future leader of the country. Despite what many would like to believe today, Aung San did not have the unswerving support of his own Burman people. It would seem that his pressures for a hasty independence may have had quite a lot to do with not being outflanked by the extremists within the AFPFL, not to mention the two communist parties which enjoyed considerable popular support. The British authorities also blocked the murder charge brought against Aung San by the widow of the deceased, the headman of Thebyugone village in Thaton District; although they were likely as much concerned to prevent further civil unrest as to preserve Aung San in his function of the person with whom they chiefly negotiated.

2. The British government refused to meet the Karen delegation that went to London to petition for Karen independence. They met only the Burman delegation and signed with them the Aung San-Attlee Agreement on 27th January 1947. Under this agreement, Burma would receive its independence "as soon as possible". There would be a general election in April to establish a constituent assembly to settle the future constitution. Meanwhile, the executive council would act as the interim government of Burma, and the British military would continue its involvement with the Burma Army -- that is to say the British would assist the AFPFL in putting down the communists. The British government accepted that the "objective of both His Majesty's Government and the Burmese Delegates was to achieve the early unification of the Frontier Areas and Ministerial Burma... with the free consent of the inhabitants of those areas." A week later, the Karen formed the KNU, and its first resolution was to reaffirm their aspiration for a separate state.

 3. The Commission of Enquiry, FACE, set up by the British to investigate the desires of the hill peoples seems to have been more designed to enable the British to save face -- to wash their hands of Burma with pretence of dignity. "It is clear that it was not intended that the minorities should be consulted on the question that was really exercising them ... What the minorities agreed to was COOPERATION, and cooperation, not with independent Burma, but with the interim Burmese government, which still had a British governor, and under which they had been guaranteed that there would be no diminution in the independence they had hitherto enjoyed from control by the government set up under the constitution of 1937."

4. The British government informed of what was afoot by MI5, foiled "the arms plot", a scheme involving former Force 136 officers, the Friends of the Burma Hill People, to provide assistance to the Karen in their Revolution. One of them was arrested in Calcutta and deported, while another, arrested in Rangoon, was sentenced to death. (At the request of the British government he was instead deported).

5. To bolster U Nu's government when it was facing military disaster, the Atlee government shipped it large quantities of arms and ammunition: 20,000 rifles, 500 Bren light machine-guns, 300 2-inch mortars, 4 million rounds of .303" ammunition. Churchill protested, reminding parliament of the Karens' loyalty to Britain, but he was ignored.

Eric Bruce Johnston

......................................................

Comments

David said _

Dear Eric,
In your article, it appears that there were 2 main players in Burma and Britain, the Burma independence proponents and the Karen independence proponents.  In each country, it was the Burma proponents who won out and Karen proponents who lost, and hence the beginnings of the Karen Revolution.
In retrospect, if the Liberal govt. had paid heed to the Conservatives and negotiated with each other; likewise, if Aung San had not been killed and was  able to  negotiate an amiable solution with the Karen -- then, Civil War might have been prevented.
Of course, I have not yet mentioned the role of the extremists who killed Aung San....they and their evil spawn -- if I had to name specifics, the then Col. Ne Win and his cronies, and other extremists  -- they should be credited as the ones who provoked and prolonged the Civil War.

Your Comments here_

Please click on Google ads below and have a look around; your clicks will help make Google contribute towards BURMA DIGEST website maintenance.