So here's the low-down on the name issue. The name was changed from Burma to Myanmar after the military junta passed the 'Adaptation of Expressions Law,' which is just one example of an extensive process of top-down political and cultural reform to which the country's citizens have been subjected. This might all seem cut-and-dry, but the issue goes a little deeper when you consider that a number of Western governments (the United States included, believe it or not) refuse to recognize the military regime ironically known as the State Peace and Development Council. Currently lead by Senior General Than Shwe, the SPDC holds its national power through pure force, has been accused of human rights abuses by a number of countries and organizations, and has driven its people into ever deeper poverty via gross economic mismanagement. It makes sense that we would not recognize a government of this nature, yes? And until now, the U.S., among many others, has stubbornly refused to use the name Myanmar, continuing instead to call it Burma.
Until NOW.
It's been six days since Cyclone Nargis hit, but the military government is still preventing large-scale foreign relief efforts. Aid drops from the air, typically one of the most effective means of distribution, would require permission from the Myanmar military junta. So although plane-loads of relief supplies have been offered from governments around the world, they continue to sit in airports, unused, while Burmese officials remain reluctant to cooperate with the outside world. Most people are without shelter. There is no power, and in most areas, no clean drinking water and no food. Outbreaks of diarrhea and malaria are now being reported in many areas, as can only be expected in circumstances involving large amounts of stagnant water and a lack of drinking water. And naturally, as is being reported by Richard Bridle, a Deputy Regional Director of UNICEF, young children are going to bear the brunt of these disease outbreaks, meaning the death toll can be expected to continue climbing steadily. There is no way of predicting when the SPDC will allow substantial foreign aid, or how many people will die before they do.
So I ask you: does this seem like an appropriate time for every media outlet from the New York Times to the PBS News Hour With Jim Lehr to start wussing out and calling it Myanmar? Because in my mind, this seems like a pretty good time to insist on calling it Burma.
But I guess that's just me.
5 comments:
"technically" both myanmar and burma have been the official names of the land for centuries. The decision to rename the country Myanmar was based on a reaction against the British Empire which "officially" named the area burma and incorporated the state into the English Raj subcontinent. Both Myanmar and Burma are used colloquially within the state, and each has some standing within the broader cultural setting as the official name of the country. The irony is that in many of the dialects, the pronunciation of Myanmar and Burma are almost indistinguishable. The media is right to call the country Myanmar, just as it was right to call the USSR Russia, or the Soviet Union. Diplomacy is a subtle game and any attempt to deny the significance of proper nouns is dangerous. I do agree that something must be done, but I think the signifier is less important than the referent in this case, which in both 'myanmar' and 'burma' is the same country.
Actually, to call the USSR "Russia" is the exact opposite. Because it was Russia first. Just like Burma was Burma before it was Myanmar. But if anyone is going to dwell on colonialism, it would be you, right? Lol, I'm kidding.
Julia bitching about the name is irrelevant. from personal conversations from folks in "yangoon", their countries name is low on their actual problems and now compounded with hundreds of thousands of their friends and loved ones killed any sort of attention that they receive from the international community is more important than to quibble about their name (my father for one had no clue what Myanmar was) now is not the time to stand on principal while people are dying.
I would agree that arguing about the name is irrelevant when people are dying IF it weren't for the fact that, A) the countries who don't support the government (and the US is at the top of the list here) have nonetheless provided an enormous outpouring of humanitarian aid, and B) that aid is being turned down for no sensible reason by a government parading under the banner of "Myanmar." At this point, I think it draws international attention to the failings of said government, and does not cause any more deaths than the military junta already has. If anything, it could only compound the international pressure on the government to accept foreign aid, which could only be a good thing. This to me is not a matter of semiotics, it's a matter of making a political statement that would actually save lives in the long run, and would cost no lives in the present.
I totally agree... Important stuff. Not semantics, but ethics. It is too bad that politics get in the way. The US could always just undermine the sovereignty the state and air-drop aid in... but the US isnt going to undermine a sovereign state for a humanitarian need, only an economic need. sad.
Post a Comment