PANA Institute for Leadership Development

Joseph Cheah, OSM, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies and Theology at Saint Joseph College in West Hartford, CT.

When American media reported that thousands of saffron-robed Burmese monks, “nuns,” and civilians protested in the cities of Yangon and Mandalay against the dramatic increases in fuel prices, many Americans had no idea where these cities were located, let alone whether the country was called Burma or Myanmar. It doesn’t help when the media offers little or no explanation of the names they have decided to use. Part of the confusion, to a large degree, came from the failure of American media to contextualize what they were reporting. When the media, for example, reported that the Burmese protests were due to a steep hike in fuel prices, one should not be surprised if many Americans, especially Californians, assumed that it had something in part to do with the discontent of the Burmese not being able to drive their cars and SUVs to work and other places. A little contextualization will reveal that at least ninety percent of Burmese neither have a car nor do they realistically expect to own one in the future. Indeed, many Burmese in rural areas dream about owning a bicycle the way our high school students dream about owning a car.

This lack of contextualization is most vivid when it comes to the name of the country. The New York Times and many other Western media have decided for the American public that the land of the pagodas should now be called “Myanmar,” a name favored by the current Burmese military regime. It is ironic that when the pro-democratic movements within and without the country, NGOs, and even the U.S. government have refused to acquiesce to the name change by the military junta, the New York Times and other American media, in reporting the protests of monks, nuns, and lay people for greater freedom in their country, have decided for the American readership that this country should now be referred to as Myanmar. Is not the task of the media to report in such a way that the American public can make an informed and intelligible decision for themselves? After all, both names, Burma and Myanmar, are recognized on the international level. Is it too much to ask a prestigious newspaper, like the New York Times, to do the very minimal – putting Burma under parenthesis, as in “Myanmar (Burma)”?

Some have argued that it doesn’t matter what we call the country. Even Mark Farmener of Burma Campaign UK was quoted as saying, “Who cares what people call the country? It’s the human rights abuses that matter.” This would be true if Aung San Suu Kyi and the National Democratic League had made the name change. After all, Myanmar was a pre-colonial name of the country and it is the formal name by which the Burmese themselves call their country today. In written Burmese, the country is referred to as Myanmar. Burma, on the other hand, comes from a Burmese word “Bamah” in reference to the largest ethnic group in the country. “Bamah Pyi” is an informal way by which Burmese refer to their country. Literally, it means “the country of Bamah.” It makes no reference to nearly 100 indigenous minorities who reside in the country. It is not as inclusive of a word as Myanmar. It seems that Myanmar is a better name for the country.

Myanmar, however, is a short form for “Pyi Daung Zu Myanmah Ning Giong Daw.” Literally, it means the “Union (of all the states) of Myanmar. It is the union of all the ethnic states, especially those where the indigenous minorities reside. Just prior to the independence of Burma from the British in 1948, General Aung San, the father of Aung San Suu Kyi, had developed the concept of federal union, whereupon the head of each ethnic states would automatically be a member of the union government’s cabinet. Furthermore, at the time of Burma’s independence from the British, the Karenni and Shan, two of the larger indigenous minorities of Burma, were given the right to secede, ten years after the formation of their states, should they find their status in the union unsatisfactory. The possibility of this becoming a reality was in jeopardy when the military took over the country in 1962 and was permanently dashed when the country’s name was changed to Myanmar in 1989. When the military regime changed the country’s name from Burma to Myanmar, it was making a political statement that the union of all the states of Myanmar belongs to them and that they will back it up with military force. The thousands of indigenous minorities, who are now refugees in neighboring Thailand, is the proof of their threat made real. Most likely, the regime would have carried out this ethnic cleaning program even if it did not change the name of the country. But the name change declared, in a most public way, that the regime would not tolerate any talk of secession or dissent from the indigenous minorities. The boundary is clear: It is Pyi Daung Zu Myanmah Ning Giong Daw or the Union of Burma. To maintain this boundary, the military regime has pillaged hundreds of villages, murdered thousands of people, and left many more thousands homeless. If this is not human rights abuses, I don’t know what is. The media should at least give an equal time to “the lady” (Aung San Suu Kyi) when she asked the international community to continue to call her country Burma until it has achieved full democracy.