Tensions emerging amidst Burma's fragile reforms

This week, the cover of Time (in Asia) features one of the most prominent Buddhist monks in Burma, U Wirathu, with the headline “The Face of Buddhist Terror”. Wirathu has called on Buddhists to unite against the Muslim “threat,” accusing them of breading too fast and controlling the business community. He is also the infamous spiritual leader of the 969 movement, a movement that promotes the display of the Buddhist “969” symbol to indicate that a shop is owned by Buddhists and that Muslims are not welcome. The cover is incredibly controversial here, with many Buddhists who otherwise oppose Wirathu standing behind him in support of what they see as a foreign attack on their religion.

Anti-Muslim sentiment in Myanmar dates back many years, although the situation became the most violent in June 2012 when clashes broke out between Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims, who are not recognized as citizens of Myanmar. In March 2013, rioters in Rakhine state initiated a three-day rampage, burning down Muslim homes, businesses, and mosques. Many Muslims now live in fenced off internally displaced persons (IDP) camps, while others have fled to Bangladesh, Thailand, and Malaysia. Since March, local authorities have imposed a two-child limit applying only to Muslim Rohingyas and there are reports that the government releases and resettles Buddhist criminals into Muslim communities to “dilute” their influence in the country.     

This sectarian violence poses a threat to Myanmar’s internationally-celebrated democratic transition. Many in fact suggest that the anti-Muslim campaign has covert government and military backing from groups opposed to the reforms. Some argue that the 969 movement is too widespread and well-organized to be a grassroots movement, while the more widely-stated belief amongst many locals is that the military permits the violence in order to illuminate the negative consequences of weakened authoritarian rule in Burma.  

 

Unfortunately, violence between Buddhists and Muslims is not the sole example of sectarian tensions in this rapidly reforming and multicultural South East Asian country. Although ceasefires have been signed with ethnic communities along Burma’s border, in a context of rapid large-scale development and continued military presence, tensions remain between Burmese military, business, and political elites and Burma’s war-torn, rural ethnic borderland communities.

Myanmar has been touted as Asia’s “final frontier” with a wealth of natural resources now open to exploitation by both domestic and international businesses. In a bid to attract foreign investment, the country emphasizes its advances in “rule of law” and legislative reform focusing on investment and property law. However, these reforms have proved particularly controversial amongst ethnic communities as they prioritize elite corporate interests over the needs and interests of the minority communities. For example, recently passed land laws ignore customary land titles, therefore stripping local farmers of their land ownership unless they can pay for a land certificate, which the government still has the power to revoke. In addition, large-scale infrastructure development and natural resource extraction has resulted in widespread land-grabbing and environmental destruction, with few benefits for the local (largely ethnic minority) communities. Unless economic grievances and land security concerns of minority communities are addressed, tensions which consumed the country in civil conflict for 60 years may reignite.

Important reforms are underway in Burma. However, in a country only recently emerging from authoritarian rule, the new government must be mindful of tensions developing between Burma’s majority Buddhist and Bamar population and its ethnic and religious minorities. Foreign governments and businesses can also play a role, pressuring the government against discriminatory laws and promoting sustainable development that respects local farmers’ rights over their lands and brings benefits to the entire population.