The Challenge of Balancing Pragmatism and Idealism in the Karen Struggle for Political Autonomy

By Saw Greh Moo / Karen Times | July 16, 2016
The Karen resistance movement was founded based on four guiding principles laid out by Saw Ba Oo Gyi, the father of modern Karen revolution. The four principles are:

1. Surrender is out of the question
2. The recognition of the Karen State must be completed.
3. We shall retain our arms.
4. We shall decide our own political destiny.

For many Karen nationalists, no matter at what cost, these four principles are non-negotiable and cannot be compromised. Saw Ba Oo Gyi laid out these principles not long before he was ambushed and assassinated by the Burma Army in Toh Kaw Koe Village on his way to the Thai-Burma border. Saw Ba Oo Gyi did not have a chance to explain in clear terms what these four guiding principles really mean in the context of the Karen revolution.  Unfortunately, his untimely death left his followers and the Karen resistance movement to grapple with these four principles and their meaning ever since.

But Saw Ba Oo Gyi’s death did not mean these principles laid out for the Karen revolution died with him. They have been firmly adopted by and served as guiding principles for successive generation of Karen revolutionary leaders and freedom fighters in the struggle for Karen people’s autonomy. In many respects, these four principles serve as sacred political commandments for Karen people to honour, uphold, and promote them in the Karen community. Karen leaders who have violated any of these principles are instantly considered traitors who betray the Karen revolution.

Because of this fear of being seen as traitors and enemy collaborators, even leaders of the breakaway Karen armed groups such as the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army and the Karen Peace Council have disagreed with and rejected the accusation that they have betrayed Saw Ba Oo Gyi’s principles. They have all claimed and argued that they continue to uphold these principles by retaining their arms, not surrendering their troops, and continuing to fight for equal rights for Karen.

The KNU leadership and majority of the Karen people credit these four guiding principles as important ideology that safeguards the Karen resistance movement in its 67 years history. As a result, they believe that any political undertaking by the KNU has to be in line with these principles.  However, as geopolitical reality inside and outside of Burma has changed with the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, some in the KNU leadership have begun to advocate for different approach toward the government. As a result, two competing viewpoints have gradually emerged within the Karen resistance movement. On the one hand is a minority view and those who want to puruse flexible policy and accommodation with the government. On the other is a majority view and those who strongly believe in the principles of the Karen revolution laid out by Saw Ba Oo Gyi.

The emergence of these competing visions in the Karen resistance movement is a result of internal and external developments in the early 1990s. Internally, the KNU had seen its fortune worsen in the early 1990s as persistent military offensives by government forces led to the loss of many of its strongholds along the border. The loss of these strongholds had in return deprived the KNU of its incomes as unofficial trading gates under its control were lost. Meanwhile, solidarity and cooperation between the ethnic resistance movement under the leadership of the National Democratic Front has also begun to crumble.

In early 1994, the Kachin Independence Army, an important member of the NDF, made a separate peace deal with the government. A few years later, other groups such as the New Mon State Party and the Karenni National Progressive Party also followed suit. Consequently, the KNU was left alone to fend for itself against sustained government attacks for most of the 1990s. But the biggest blow to the Karen resistance movement was in December 1994 when the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army was founded and broke away from the KNU. The breakup had effectively reduced the Karen military strength almost by half and eventually resulted in the loss of the KNU’s long time headquarters, Manner Plaw.

Externally, the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s had great implication for armed ethnic minority groups in Burma, particularly the KNU. For decades, Thailand had used Karen rebels and the KNU as a buffer zone against Burma and communist separatists inside Thailand.  Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the KNU had enjoyed good relations with the Thai military and the two sides collaborated in many areas. Karen rebels supplied regional Thai military commands and intelligence community with important information on the Burma Army and Burmese intelligence operatives along the border.

Occasionally, at the request of Thai military and intelligence officers, Karen soldiers were sent to northeast Thailand to fight communist separatists along size Thai soldiers. Thailand reciprocated this good relation and support by granting KNU leaders and members some form of free movement inside its territories. And by using its network within the Thai military and Thai business community, the KNU was also able to purchase arms and ammunitions in the black market at lower prices.  In addition, Cold War superpower like the United States was also sympathetic to the KNU and the struggle of Burma’s ethnic minority groups.

However, after the end of the Cold War, Thailand began to see less need of the KNU and Karen rebels as a buffer zone. And as Karen rebels had lost more territories to the government forces and more Karen refugees began to pour into Thailand, the KNU has also lost its influence and favour with the Thai government. As a result, pressure began to mount on the KNU to pursue peace with the Burmese government.

Internal and external developments in the early 1990s have had a profound influence on the thinking of some in the KNU leadership. As more strategic territories were lost, alliance crumbled, internal unity broken up, and external support declined, some Karen leaders believed that they need to pursue flexible and pragmatic policy. This means that they have to enter into some form of negotiation and talks with the Burma’s military government to strike out a deal. In other words, they would have to abandon some of the Karen original demands, no matter how legitimate they may be. And if necessary, they might also need to abandon military alliance with other ethnic groups. As a result, some in the KNU began to advocate for new policy that prioritizes the interests of the Karen people.

Some of these leaders have complained that KNU has focused too much on the ethnic affairs and too little on looking after the interests of the Karen people. They argued that since other ethnic groups also pursued their own agendas with the government whenever it is convenient for them, the Karens should also do the same and think less about the needs of other groups. Indeed some of these arguments are legitimate and sensible. Throughout the 1990s, the Karens have borne the brunt of military assaults by the government forces while other ethnic groups enjoyed peace and economic benefits with the government. As a result, some in the KNU leadership and Karen community believe that it is time they start pursuing independent policy and, if necessary, reduce their demands.

Although some Karen leaders began to advocate for flexible and pragmatic policy, the majority of Karen people and the KNU leadership believe that it is important to maintain the organization’s longstanding policy and principles that have safeguarded the Karen resistance movement for more than half a century. This means that the KNU needs to stand firm and strong in the face of pressure, manipulation, and persistent attacks by the government forces.

They believe that the KNU needs to continue working with other ethnic armed groups and provide support and leadership as necessary. It should not give up on the demands of the Karen people and other ethnic minority groups. They believe that as long as the military government and the Burma Army continue to dominate Burma politics, it is meaningless to make peace with the government because any deals struck will only yield short-term benefits. For this reason, the KNU should not compromise its long-term goals with short-term benefits. It should stand firm and pursue a cautious policy with the government.

From a historical point of view, it is easy to understand why Karen people and many in the KNU leadership should be cautious and skeptical about any government overtures. Most of the promises made by the government to ethnic armed groups in the past were not honoured. Promises of political talks and more autonomy never materialized. Many now found themselves back in the battlefields fighting against the government forces. If history and past experience is any indication,  the Karen community and the KNU have every reason to be skeptical about the current peace process and promised of political talks. After all, the military is still very much in power and continues to dominate all important ministries in the government.

The current government might be democratic and sympathetic to the needs of the ethnic minority groups. But there are doubts that it will be able to bypass the military and honour any agreement made with the ethnic minority groups.  However, this does not mean that the Karen should not pursue peace with the government. It is important for the skeptics of the current peace process to understand that diplomatic and flexible approach is also needed to achieve the goals of the Karen revolution.

But most important of all is that while supporters of pragmatic and flexible policy give diplomacy and negotiation a chance to succeed, they should be mindful and not lose sight of the reality on the ground. They should not be too caught up in the moment of the peace process. They have to walk with their eyes open. While it is necessary to give up something in return for something, it is also important to understand that they cannot abandon their most important core values and objectives that they have been fighting for over half a century.