« | Home | »

After the Election


The election in Burma largely conformed to predictions. Condemned by outsiders, it was to some extent ignored by many in the country: turnout was reportedly low. The US, Britain, Australia and other industrialised democracies decried the junta’s apparent vote-rigging, slanted electoral rules and refusal to let the opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi out of house arrest before the polls. There are suggestions in Burma now that she will be released within weeks, though the terms of that release remain unclear. Most major human rights organisations have also focused on the unfairness of the election and the impact of the rigged vote on Burmese politics.

Meanwhile, in northeast and eastern Burma, a potential catastrophe is unfolding. For several months, the junta has been warning ethnic minority armies that it will attack them if they do not lay down their arms and join a junta-dominated border guard force. (A ceasefire has been in force for more than a decade.) Earlier this year, several of the ethnic groups agreed to fight the junta together. Burmese analysts say the insurgents have been buying up small arms and heavy weaponry, recruiting fighters from the surrounding civilian populations, and selling large quantities of drugs to pay for their guns.

The day after the election, the junta launched a campaign against ethnic Karen insurgents, sending tens of thousands of refugees across the border into Thailand. At least thirty people, both civilians and soldiers, were killed yesterday, and many more are likely to die in the coming week. One of the insurgent groups seized the town of Myawaddy on the Thai border, burning down government offices.

Emboldened by its rigged election results, the junta is likely to widen its battle against ethnic armies to many other parts of the country. Facing this threat, other insurgent armies have promised to come to the aid of the Karen group. The insurgents have stepped up their plans to reinforce the towns they hold throughout the north and east, which means a Burmese military attack on these fortified garrisons could be especially bloody. The fighting could also spill over the borders of Thailand and China.

The refugees who make it to Thailand suffer malicious treatment at the hands of Thai security forces, and Thailand’s foreign minister recently warned that the country may start repatriating Burmese refugees. Many other civilians will not make it to the border. Instead they will have to hide out in the jungle, in fear of being caught by insurgents or the military, which is known for subjecting captives to forced labour and gang rape. Too bad, then, that the world pays virtually no attention to them.

Comments on “After the Election”

  1. Geoff Roberts says:

    Your post is a very welcome sign that there are people who are concerned about events in Burma, even if the number of readers will not reach mass-media levels. In a different context, Tariq Ali has drawn attention to the coming disaster in Pakistan, also largely unregarded by the giants of the world’s media. In the case of Burma, news focusses on the existence of the military junta which behaves, strangely enough, just like any other junta, but as Burma is not exporting valuable metals and has no part of the world oil market, interest is cursory at best. Many thanks for the information.

  2. Geoff Roberts says:

    I suppose we can’t all be concerned about the world’s trouble spots, so I’m not surprised at the lack of response to your post.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement