Searching for inter-ethnic unity in Burma / Myanmar has been an un-reached destination for over half a century. Inter-ethnic unity had been broken as ever before in the last two years during and after Peace Process. The non-signatory and cease-fire groups have been divided in last year just before the general election held in November. A newly formed ethnic armed alliance led by Karen, Shan and Rakhine was formed early this year, but the exiting of the United Nationalities Federal Council, led by Kachin, Karenni, Mon and other smaller ethnic armed groups, seeks a new strategy for completing its unfinished Peace Process.
After reading the news and other reports in recent weeks on the issue of inter-ethnic unity, I recalled a piece I wrote in 2010. It states that, overall, the ‘politics’ play a ‘game’ in Burma. Unity is a sweet word but many of our ethnic leaders rarely practice it as they preach to their own people. I have been searching for an answer but it is nevertheless that the matter of unity will never be achieved unless the mentality of our political narrative evolves into a vision of sharing the pain and the gain within modern political movements.
The Case for Mon and Karen Unity
This is a new era in Burma. Ethnic unity is the key to the victory for Karen and Mon people who are the largest population in southern Burma. Karen and Mon people are close neighbours with traditional lifestyles in common. The Karen and Mon leaders built and maintained unity in purpose against the Burmese military for over sixty years. Unity between the Karen and Mon people will be key for the political and military campaigns against the military rules in Burma. In this long essay and perspective, I will explore the opportunity to rebuild unity among the Karen and Mon people and advocate for closer relations during these critical times.
The Karen people’s leading political organization, the Karen National Union, is respected for its military capacity as ally to the Mon and other ethnicities for over sixty years in the country. The leadership of the KNU and its longstanding political goals to form a true federal union of Burma is also widely praised among the Mon and Burma’s other ethnic political leaders. The Mon have a smaller population and capacity for armed resistance than the Karen. Mon leaders acknowledged the pioneering of the Karen leaders in the early 1940s prior to Burma’s independence and while building military might against the U Nu government in 1948. The following year, Mon leaders were assisted by Karen military leaders during the formation of the Mon Armed Force, and the two allied against Burma’s nationalist government after the Karen and Mon were denied guarantees under the new constitution for state sovereignty with legitimate executive powers. Some new generations are not fully informed about Karen and Mon unity in purpose over the last sixty years, but they are somewhat aware of current conflicts over the border demarcation or disputes about border trades for tax levies.
According to the official statement of the KNU’s headquarter; the Karen National Union is a democratic organisation, committed to human rights and democracy in Burma. We are working for a peaceful, stable, federal Burma. We stand ready to enter into genuine tripartite dialogue, as facilitated by the United Nations, at any time.
Seeking self-determination
Claims for self-determination under the new constitution of the Union of Burma in early 1950 were not commonly accepted or supported by the new Burmese nationalists including General Aung San and his colleagues from the Burma’s Independent Army. The Karen and Mon leaders were the largest BIA’s troops struggling against the British from 1920 until Burma gained independence. The Karen and Mon political leaders claimed that both ethnic people deserved equal rights for self-determination in their own federal state. Burma’s new constitution in both cases of 1947 and 1974 granted statehood to the Karen and the Mon, but executive powers rested solely in the hands of the central Burmese nationalist government in Rangoon. The Karen and Mon people are united on military and political fronts in order to fight for these equal rights under the new constitution, however, the Burmese nationalist government accused them of being ‘insurgent groups’ and in some press referred to them as ‘rebel group’ to fuel propaganda.
Mon leaders have agreed to resolve political problems with the ruling Burmese military for over 15 years, but the KNU’s leader could not reach such a ceasefire agreement. Regardless of the size of the troop, the Karen leaders should build trust between the Mon and Karen for further dialogue. According to top leaders of the New Mon State Party, the KNU secretly met with the then Burmese ruling military, SPDC, in 1993 for ceasefire without formal informing or consultation with the top Central Committee of the Mon’s party. The Mon leaders lost trust in its ally in early 1993, but remain with other ally until reaching a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ ceasefire in 1995.
Emerging new political narrative
Burma is emerging into a new political context post-1988, the year after the mass uprising led by students from Rangoon universities and young monks in Rangoon. As Burma is moving toward political progressivity in this new election, the case of the Karen and Mon could not be ignored for the sake of general public in those areas. However, a new political wisdom will be sought from both sides to confront the issues. The new central issue is whether the Karen and Mon remain allies or rivals in the common border area. This is a blunt question that each Karen and Mon individual the leader alike has to find the answer. Rightly or wrongly, the Karen and Mon leaders get close sometimes but far in critical times, operating as allies or coming close to armed conflict with each other over the last twenty years.
Historically, Mon and Karen leaders were united December 20, 1926, in Kappali village, Hlaing Bwe Township. According to Nai (Mr) Tun Thein, Chairman of the Mon National Democratic Front’s book published in Burmese Mon leaders were invited to attend a conference between Karen leaders and General Aung San with the invitation of Bishop West. Nai Ba Lwin (aks) Nai Shwe Kyin, Nai Shwe Chang, and Nai Mon Sein Tun represented the Mon political organizations. The Mon leaders also participated at the KCO (Karen Central Organisation) held in February 1947 in Rangoon for further cooperation and unifying the struggle for self-determination. The Karen leader, Saw Ba Oo valued the unity of the Mon and Karen people. He again invited the Mon leaders, Nai Hla Maung, Nai Ba Lwin and Mi Hongsa to the Moulmein Karen Congress head in 1947. The Mon and Karen ally has been in united front both in military and political fronts in earlier 1947. The Mon youth are trained to form a military unity for the Mon people in late 1947.
The Mon youth armed wing attacked local police station near Moulmein city with the back – up technical support of the Karen armed wing in 20 July 1948. The Karen ethnicity dominated Unit No (5), Military Police officials are informed prior to the attack and the military police agreed to turn a blind eye to the attack in order to avoid conflict between two, alliances. Finally, with the success of occupation of local police stations and arms from the government police personals, the Mon youth formed “Mon National Defence Organization soon after the victory. These are the strong evidence that the past Mon and Karen leaders have been working in close spirit to claim self-determination under a common goal. It is not wise for new generation of the Mon and Karen on these historical accounts. We are well guided by the past great leaders for our next battles. Unity is the victory for us.
The old mentality
Under the 1974, Burma’s socialist party’s constitution amended by the military led government granted the Mon State, but allocated over forty-two Mon large villages under the boundary of Karen State without public debate and constitutional rights. These Mon villages are under strict control of the Karen leaders, especially from the military faction who imposed big levies on land, farms and local trades to supply annual funding for the Karen National Union. Mon leaders requested that the Karen leaders for good relations among them and toward the villagers, a common sense does not prevail. Consequently, a young Mon military leaders positioned theirs contact with local Mon community leaders in late 1980 and controlled back some of these villages. The Karen and Mon leaders are tricked by the new constitution to break up as allies then become rivals as expected by the General Ne Win, as the head of the Burmese army and the government. The relations between the Karen and the Mon have never been in good relation since this battle. The Karen leader did not wait for too long to resent to its ally in 1988 for border dispute in Three Pagoda Pass, the key route for illegal trade in southern Burma. The 17 days of heavy fighting between the KNLA (Karen National Liberation Army) and the MNLA (Mon National Liberation Army) was the largest intra-ethnic conflict in modern politics in Burma. It is now time for both sides to reflect from the past wound to the future common purpose.
The leadership and alliance
According to Nai Shwe Kyin (Aka) Nai Ba Lwin’s official statement in December 1951, the Mons and Karens lives in peace in Hamsavati for many centuries. The Karens too likes the Burmese obtained their alphabets from the Mons and such Karens writings are still in use in some of Karen areas. It is clear that it is not possible to leave the Karens out when considering the Mon problems, nor is it wise to take up the Karen problem and overlook the Mons. The government has so far found a solution to the Karen problem, but has not even given out any hint on the Mon questions. Nai Shwe Kyin (aka) Nai Ba Lwin released a statement in Rangoon with equal concerns to the plight of Karen and Mon people to granting a self-autonomy by the newly formed Burmese parliamentary government.
The Executive Council of Mon People’s Front, the leading political organization of the Mon people released a statement on 27th March 1953 in order to urge the government for creating of the Mon State under the new federal constitution. The statement says that the supreme council will support and collaborate with all indigenous races, like, Arakanese, Karens, Kachins, Pa-os, Shans, Kayahs and Chin in their struggle for the right of self-determination inclusive of the rights of secession, until peace to the satisfaction of all is attained. Under parliamentary democracy, the Mon leaders seek greater constitutional rights than waging civil war on the newly elected government of Burma. The majority of Mon leaders acknowledge the role of Burmese leaders and politicians who led and paved the headway to gain independence from the British together with ethnic people.
The Mon and Karen ethnicities live in cross-territory in lower Burma and share similar custom but different religious beliefs. However, the ultimate goal of the Karen and Mon leaders is the same: Both claim for self-autonomy from the central Burmese government. According to the joint statement of the executive council of Mon and Karen on 6th July, 1953:
1.We respect and recognize the individual rights of self-determination.
2.Each of our peoples have our respective governments co-operating on an equal footings.
3.The relationship of our respective governments is sincere and wholesome and that despite Thakin Nu’s (Burma’s Prime Minister) attempts to drive a wedge between our two peoples, we are more than ever united, fighting shoulder to shoulder.
4.We are in unity, determined not to lose sight of the common goal until its final achievement.
This joint statement, followed by the guidance of prominent Karen leader, the late Chairman of Saw Ba U Kyi, calls upon all Mons and Karens to fearlessly and unswervingly give their full support to the work outlined by the leaders.
On 14 March 2010, a press release from the Karen leader supported the UN Rapporteur on Burma and called for war crimes to be charged against the ruling military junta. According to the statement, the Karen National Union (KNU) warmly welcomed and earnestly supported the recommendation of Tomás Ojea Quintana, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in Burma, for establishing a Commission of Inquiry into war crimes and crimes against humanity by the Burmese SPDC military government.
Radical hope
The Burmese nationalist government never hesitates to oppress the Karen and Mon for its own agenda. The Karen Buddhist community and Christian counterparts are divided among members of KNU. Consequently, the Buddhist Karen split from the headquarters in late 2000. In the case of the Mon, due to personal conflict in the central committee of the New Mon State Party, but claimed unfair treatment from the top leaders, some junior’s military split from the head quarter without achieving political purpose. According to David Taw, Head of Foreign Affairs of the KNU, the KNU’s current stance in favor of agreeing to a ceasefire and engaging the SPDC in talks is the product of a long process of internal debate and political maneuvering on the costs and benefits of such a strategy. However, the Karen leaders could not ignore the role of the Mon leaders and capacity in searching for peace and solving conflict in the shared territory of southern Burma.
Playing with nationalism is not safe in modern politics unless the public backs the call. New Karen and Mon generations are strongly encouraged to read the history of their ethnic groups because the youth will play key roles in the future of Burma’s democratic transition and only the real history reveals common ground between the two.
The Karen and Mon ethnicities could not maintain identity and culture unless the role of civil society is strong and participation of each individual in national issues engages the wider community. Karen leaders have been focusing on waging large-scale war against the Burmese troops while the Mon leaders maintain political ground in the heartland. Mon leaders contested in the 1990 general election with public support while a few Karen leaders received popular support in 1990. Mon and Karen communities at home and abroad are sincerely encouraging unity between their leaders.
The newly elected civilian government will reach out to address ethnic people’s desired outcomes in health, education, local government, social and cultural rights, but also to restore unity within a context of diversity and with equal political participation at the national level. The peace process is about making political transition possible with the efforts of the entire nation’s people. Leaders have to lead, but it is the people’s desire for common ground and unity that goes beyond inter-ethnic communities to encircle the country.
End Note: Re-written from the first article released in 2010.
