General Information on the Union of Myanmar

3. Pre-Independence Era

During the colonial era, the British applied a “divide and rule” policy in Burma (now Myanmar), which laid the groundwork for fragility in national unity at the moment of independence. Prior to full self-rule, a variety of ideologies – nationalist, socialist, ethnic – had already begun to proliferate among those fighting colonial rule.

A pivotal moment occurred on July 19, 1947, when General Aung San and his cabinet ministers were assassinated, an act considered among the most detrimental in the country’s history. It left the country almost leaderless at the moment of independence (January 4, 1948).

Additionally, under British rule, opium-production was introduced forcibly into northern Myanmar states in the 19th century, as part of expansion of the opium trade with China — a legacy that continues to generate challenges for Myanmar to this day.

4. The Name Debate: “Myanmar” or “Burma”

The change of the country’s official English name from “Burma” to “Myanmar” (in 1989) remains a subject of emotional and political significance for many. While some politicians continue to use “Burma” for historic or political reasons, large segments of the population regard the use of “Myanmar” as a rightful restoration of the country’s authentic name.

It is important to note that “Myanmar” and its capital “Yangon” are not recent creations of the 1989 government: they are the original names used in the Burmese language, which the British colonial administration rendered as “Burma” and “Rangoon.”

The State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) formally reinstated the names with two main purposes: to release the country psychologically from its colonial past and to foster a sense of national unity under the banner of the “Union of Myanmar.”

In the absence of reinstatement by successive governments until then, the name-change remains a symbolic act of national identity. Since the United Nations recognises the country by “Myanmar”, it can be argued that international acceptance is now the de jure standard.

5. Post-Independence Insurgency and Internal Challenges

Following independence in 1948, the newly formed civilian government pursued a parliamentary democracy. However, internal party rivalries, neglect of ethnic minority concerns, and political manoeuvring for election support triggered rebellion among various ethnic groups.

A stark example: the then-Prime Minister proclaimed Buddhism as the state religion to secure votes from the Buddhist majority, at the same time overlooking the aspirations of ethnic minorities of other faiths. This exacerbated ethnic tensions and paved the way for armed insurgency. The military, whether by design or default, became involved in these conflicts. Some of those conflicts lasted for decades.

6. Foreign Policy of Myanmar

From its independence, Myanmar adopted an independent foreign policy, initially joining but later departing the British Commonwealth, and during the Cold War era, adopting a strongly non-aligned stance. The advantages of this approach included remaining outside many regional conflicts. The downside: Myanmar developed neither strong capitalist alliances nor deep ties with the communist bloc.

During its socialist era (1962–1988), Western countries regarded Myanmar as a de-facto communist state, while socialist states saw it as a pseudo-socialist country. While largely self-isolating, Myanmar avoided deep entanglements, choosing instead to define its path according to national interests.