Global Security – Internal Conflict Paper

Author

Institution

Internal conflict is a major problem in different countries or regions. Internal conflicts can be contributed by different factors, which include religion, culture, political environment or even economic issues. Most countries have experienced internal conflicts as a result of the above causes or other contributions. However, the United Nations has a role to play in uniting individuals in a given area as a result of its peacekeeping mission and responsibility of keeping other nations secure. In this assignment, internal conflict in Burma will be discussed and the role of the United Nations in the peacekeeping mission.

The internal conflict in Burma is one of the longest global running civil, which began after the nation attained its independence in 1948. Successive governments of Burma have fought a myriad of political and ethnic rebellions. Therefore, the causes of the internal conflict in Burma have not been converging, but divergent.

One of the causes of the internal conflicts in Burma is religion. Religion has played a key role in initiating conflicts in Burma; the situation in Burma degenerated after the instatement of Buddhism as the nation’s official religion. The conflict emerged as a result of not addressing the rights of Christians and other religions (Bercovitch & DeRouen, 2011). All individuals have the right to follow their beliefs and no one should stop them from practicing their faith. However, the situation was different in Burma since people could not feel free in following their faith. This did not go well with them, and as a result, there was a rebellion. Under federalism, certain groups had superior powers than others as enshrined in the nation’s constitution. This made different groups to oppose the move as they demanded their rights. This could not be addressed in a positive move as conflict was involved as people tried to seek their rights. Hence, the right to religion contributed to the internal conflict in Burma. The nation tried to seek unity by uniting all citizens through one religion; however, this was exceedingly difficult since different people of the nation professed different religions. It is remarkably cumbersome to unite people through one religion given the difference in human nature to seek varied faith (Bercovitch & DeRouen, 2011). Although successive governments tried to establish one religion as the dominant religion, in the nation, it was difficult for people to follow one religion, which resulted in religious conflict. The consideration of Buddhism as the dominant religion, while other religions still existed was a chief contributor to conflict. Hence, the right to religion contributed to the internal conflict in Burma.

Another root cause of the conflict in Burma was ethnic differences. The nation constituted of three primary ethnic nationalities namely; Karen, the Arakan and Mon people. These were regarded as the Burma proper. These ethnic groups were not invited officially to the Panglong conference. In fact, they were represented by General Aung San as Burma proper people. The future of the dominant ethnic groups, especially the Karen who had demanded a separate state, was not properly addressed at the Panglong conference. This instigated the first shot of ethnic conflict, which was as a result of a difference in state formation. It is always regarded as vital to consider all the ethnic makeup of a country in planning for a country’s future development. When an ethnic group is left out in the national planning, there is always a reaction from the group as it seeks its right of inclusion. This was not different in Burma as different ethnic groups became involved in ethnic conflicts as they sought the right of inclusion in the nation’s future planning. Conflicts based on the ethnic involvement in the nation’s development is still an issue up to date since different ethnic groups feel that they are not involved as part of the nation. The internal conflict resulted because the nation wanted to assume one ethnicity, which was not feasible due to the different ethnic groups that existed in the nation.

Apart from religious and ethnic differences, political development is also another root cause of internal conflict in Burma. There is a conflict between the ethnic nationalities and the government. After independence, there was a misconception between nation building and state building. Different ethnic groups considered the formation of states after the gaining of independence; however, the political ground did not support the formation of states, but the development of the nation as one (Bercovitch & DeRouen, 2011). This did not go well will the political environment of the time as people sought the creation of states, which the government did not implement. The government implemented nation building process due to forced assimilation by the successive governments. The successive governments did not follow the will of the people since there was the notion of creating one nation having one religion, one ethnicity and one language. This was contrary to the will of the people since they wanted an all inclusive government, which constituted all the ethnic groups; they felt that the government had political interest in one group and did not consider their needs of creating states, where different ethnic groups could have their states (In Raghavan et al, 2011). Besides, the constitutional powers were such that they discriminated against certain minority groups while considering the rights of the dominant groups. This was a political problem because the arms of the government were involved in the making of different policies followed by the nation. In addition, the constitutional rights were different for different groups in the nation as a result of political dominance.

In addition, cultural difference contributed to the internal conflict in Burma. Because of the different ethnic groups that the nation has, there was difference in culture, which was also contributed by the differences amid the ethnic groups. As different groups claimed to be dominant in a certain culture that could be recognized in the entire nation, there emerged a conflict since no group wanted its culture to lie behind of others (Smith et al, 2007). Hence, as different groups wanted to have their culture recognized, they engaged other dominant groups in conflict.

As part of its peacekeeping mission, the United Nations had a role to play in the internal conflict of Burma. One of the roles that the United Nations played was providing amicable solutions to the ethnic groups in the nation. Since the UN wanted to contain the situation in the country, it used its arms to curb the ethnic differences; however, this did not work. Another role that the UN was involved in was providing the citizens with food and shelter as a way of ending the clashes. In addition, the UN lifted sanctions to the country as a way of ending the internal conflict.

References

Bercovitch, J., & DeRouen, K. R. (2011). Unraveling internal conflicts in East Asia and the Pacific: Incidence, consequences, and resolutions. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Smith, M., Institute of Southeast Asian Studies., & East-West Center Washington. (2007). State of strife: The dynamics of ethnic conflict in Burma. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

In Raghavan, V. R., Centre for Security Analysis (Chennai, India), & Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. (2011). Internal conflicts in Myanmar: Transnational consequences. New Delhi: Vij Books India Pvt Ltd.