For a united nation, a name is not a problem

WHEN US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Myanmar last week, she wisely avoided facing a controversy. She rarely referred to the country by name – either its former name Burma, or the official title, Myanmar.

News agency AFP reported that Clinton’s aides acknowledged she faced an unhappy choice of either offending the government by using a name they reject or angering many US lawmakers and exile activists who consistently call the country Burma. Instead Mrs Clinton mostly referred to “this country” in public and when she met Myanmar’s leaders in Nay Pyi Taw.

This is not a new controversy. In 1989, the then-ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council changed the English-language name of not only the country but also many towns and places. Burma became Myanmar, Rangoon Yangon and so on. The changes were recognised by the United Nations and some countries but not the US and United Kingdom. The European Union has referred to the country as “Burma/Myanmar”, although in one recent document used “Myanmar (Burma)”.

We’re certainly not the only country to undergo a name change. Iran was formerly Persia, Cambodia Kampuchea and Thailand was Siam. China and India have changed the names of some of their cities. Peking is now Beijing and Calcutta was replaced by Kolkata. These new names or spellings are accepted by the international community and widely used.

But in the case of “this country”, using either name carries a strong political connotation. Whether one calls the country Myanmar or Burma is supposed to indicate their views on its political situation: those who call it Burma are supposed to sympathise with the opposition movement and those who use Myanmar have a softer tone towards the military regime.

Opposition groups insisted that accepting the name Myanmar would legitimise the SLORC (later State Peace and Development Council), which was not an elected government. They are not arguing over whether the usage should be changed but over whether the SLORC/SPDC had the right to do so.

The debate centres mostly on the usage of Myanmar/Burma. Calling it Myanmar is not actually new for us. This is how the country has always been referred to in the local language. It is ironic that even exile activists who continue to insist everyone call the country Burma still call her Myanmar when they are speaking in the Myanmar language.

Some linguists say that the name Bamar, which was corrupted by Westerners as Burma, has been the informal, colloquial term for the country, while Myanmar has been used for official, ceremonial and literary purposes. They argue that the Myanmar language is noticeably different in its written and spoken forms. Though historically they have been interchangeable terms, a differentiation of meaning has been instituted in the official Myanmar language since the early post-independence days, whereby “Myanmar” represents all ethnic groups living in the country, while “Bamar” is confined only to the majority Bamar.

There was a time when arguments arose as to which name was actually an umbrella term for all ethnic groups. During the colonial era, some left-wing independence activists preferred the name Bamar (Burma) for a future independent country. But when the country gained independence in 1948, its official name in the local language became the Union of Myanmar. “Burma” was chosen as the English usage and was used until they were made uniform in 1989.

Some people argue that both Burma and Myanmar refer only to the Bamar majority because historically most peoples in present-day Myanmar lived in separate kingdoms, city states and fiefdoms and that the current map of the country is the result of the British occupation. Some even propose finding a new name that encompasses all ethnic groups.

While all these arguments have some reasonable points, we should not forget the fact that referring to a country by two established names – let alone a new, as yet determined name – has already caused much confusion. 

The controversial Burma/Myanmar issue will need to be resolved one day. When that day comes, it will be imperative that the aspirations of all the ethnic minority groups are taken into account. The name of the country is as important to them as to the Bamar.

But what is more important now is resolving the decades-long ethnic conflicts and ensuring peace prevails throughout the country. Wiping out long-standing misunderstandings between the Bamar and other ethnic groups should be the priority. The promotion of human rights, democratic values and the rule of law in ethnic minority-dominated areas will be the best avenue to achieving this.

All citizens must unite so we can step out of the shadows of the past and move forward. When Myanmar regains the status it once enjoyed – with political and economic stability, respect for human rights, including ethnic rights, and the rule of law – high-profile visitors are unlikely to face, as Mrs Clinton did, an “unhappy choice” over what to call our country.