Rev. Danny Fisher

There’e a great catch today at the Tricycle Editors’ Blog: an opinion piece by Mark Aspillera at the Spartan Daily about whether to call the country “Burma” or “Myanmar.”

The military junta that took control of the country in 1962 changed its English name from Burma to Myanmar in 1989. The change was part of an effort to phase out the English spellings of native words used during the time of British colonial rule.

The name change was made without the approval of any legislative body and is not universally recognized.

The United Nations uses the name Myanmar, while the United States and United Kingdom use “Burma.”

In the media, the discrepancies are even more pronounced.

The Associated Press, whose style guide the Spartan Daily follows, and the New York Times refer to the country as Myanmar. In contrast, the BBC, Reuters and The Guardian, a British newspaper, use Burma in all references.

[...]

Does using Burma mean a news service disregards the relevance of the United Nations? That they condone years of British colonialism?

Likewise, does reference to Myanmar show apathy towards the plight of a country oppressed by its own military? Does saying Myanmar imply a willingness to give legitimacy to a junta that overthrew a democratic republic?

Readers may have noticed that I favor Myanmar (in deference to the United Nations). I admit, though, that this is certainly an unsatisfying moniker. Ultimately, I’m with Aspillera on where the true source of the country’s name lies:

The only real source is the country’s people themselves, and as of right now, they’re not exactly in a position to speak.

In other Burma/Myanmar news, Charles London has an excellent piece at The Nation in which he suggests how the Sangha and dissidents within the Burmese military might work together for democracy:

Burma is a devoutly Buddhist country, and the sangha is the most respected sector of society. The abuse the monks are suffering is deeply offensive to many members of the Burmese public. In early October, Ye Min Tun, a Burmese diplomat with ten years’ experience, resigned from the embassy in London. “I have never seen such a scenario in the whole of my life. The government is arresting and beating the peaceful Buddhist monks,” he told the BBC. His resignation presents another possibility for the future of Burma.

If the Burmese army is a microcosm of Burmese society, as the US Army is a microcosm of American society, insurrection within the army might not be an impossibility. It will take great courage for members of the military to stand up to the regime, as Ye Min Tun did, but for every indignity suffered by a monk there is certainly anguish in the heart of some soldiers.

The hope for Burma, then, is much like the hope for any society in turmoil: not external sanctions and policy statements but the will, courage and good faith of individuals who refuse to watch idly as their fellow men are wronged. The Burmese army is estimated at around 500,000 soldiers. There are about 500,000 monks in Burma. They are the two most powerful sectors of Burmese society. Set against each other, they reap the destruction and bloodshed we are witnessing. Together they could topple the junta, something sanctions, diplomatic overtures, democracy activists and political opposition leaders have been unable to do for the past forty years. It all begins with an upturned beggar’s bowl and a soldier acting on faith rather than following orders.