In this Foreign Policy article, the author criticizes an article published by BCC which discussed the promise for the future of Burma. A little bit of background: up until 2011, Burma was economically isolated by the international community, as the United States and EU had placed sanctions on the country due to its rule by an oppressive military junta accused of gross human rights abuses.
The BBC article claimed that the country's citizens were doing relatively well since the lifting of international sanctions, the opening up of the economy, and other democratic and economic reforms. The BBC article described the lives of what the author considered were four individuals leading "normal" lives: a foreign-educated owner of a restaurant empire; a banker who became incredibly wealthy during the military regime; an internet entrepreneur who dropped out of university in Singapore to return home and become rich; and an astrologer who makes more in one day than the average person in Burma makes all year (about $1,000).
Foreign Policy points out that these individuals are not the bottom of the pile, average Burmese, but rather those who have benefited most from the military regime and the end of sanctions. Their success is based mostly on their wealth and the elite contacts they have. In reality, the average Burmese is scavenging the river for scraps or selling bird feed in the streets. Gaining access to the privileges that the four individuals have acquired, like an education abroad, requires massive amounts of resources, material and social, that elude most citizens.
Citizens of Burma recognize the tensions between the wealthy and the excluded, as many of them recognize they live under a "crony economy." Applied to tycoons who benefit from their relationships with the generals, who still hold a significant amount of power within the government, crony is also used to define anyone who does not care for the people's benefit. Some foreign analysts believe that cronies are essential for the country's development. However, others believe that despite the transformations within the state, only the elite will continue to profit.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/22/theres-more-to-burmas-success-stories-than-meets-the-eye/?utm_content=bufferc7e48&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
2 comments:
I've always found Burma to be incredibly interesting. Even though the country is "open," I feel like there still isn't a lot of information out there about it. And this article gave an interesting perspective on its economic situation.
I don't agree cronies are essential for the country's development. If anything, it puts a greater wedge between citizens, which might lead to civil unrest down the road. Those people that were considered to be "normal" Burmese citizens didn't sound normal to me--they sounded like extremely privileged individuals. Burma will be an interesting country to watch in the next few years, both socially and economically.
I agree with Emily, Burma has always been a topic of interest in many of my economy classes as well as some of my French classes - especially since the lifting of the sanctions by the US and the EU. In my opinion, the BBC article framed their story extremely well, focusing on those who have benefited from the military regime rather than the "common" citizen.
It may only be 4 years since the Burmese economy has been considered "open", but I feel that only those with relationships with state officials will continue to thrive and the average citizen will continue to grow more and more poor. When looking at it from the outside, it is a perfect example of "the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer" metaphor.
All in all, the statement there is "promise for the future of Burma" is extremely misleading in my eyes. Burma may be a topic of interest in future foreign policy discussions for the United States, but it is wrong if we think that Burma is thriving in an ethical way. In the end, I feel that the military regime still dictates policy and always will.
Post a Comment