The Struggle for Development in Southeast Asia: Burma, Cambodia, and East Timor

In the Aftermath of World War II, a great deal of time and energy was devoted to the reconstruction, and development of nations around the world. Unfortunately many countries have been unable to make the correct steps towards successful development.

Burma, Cambodia and East Timor presently remain the poorest countries in Southeastern Asia, as a result of their governments' actions. This paper will attempt to look at some common struggles these countries have endured and offer a possibility to the foundation of their issues. The vast complexity of the issues facing these countries overflows into many variable factors, one being the country's history. Due to the restrictions on this paper, I am forced to exclude many significant factors that have contributed to each country's present condition; for example, foreign influence, and harmful colonial legacies. In all three countries, ideas that opposed the government's were annihilated, and supreme power was reached by use of extreme force. To combat opposition, the governments turned to the use of their militaries with the excuse of 'national security.' These military regimes distilled fear in their people; and, exterminated any ideologies contrary to that of their own by extermination, dislocation of citizens, and human rights abuse. These destructive methods of ruling create a self-defeating cycle of civil cruelty and uprising against the government. This cyclic pattern retards the development of the countries due to the government's failure to achieve legitimacy and the respect of their peoples. The rulers have not realized that harmony between the government and people is the most important ingredient to development. Because of the lack of recognition on this matter, extremely severe developmental problems have resulted for each nation. This point may seem particularly coherent to those who believe the state's role in guiding a country, and its involvement in the economy are much more important with 'late comers'[1] to development. Different periods of time will be looked at for each country as to show their similar struggles. In Burma, Ne Win and the SLORC[2] will be the focus, in Cambodia, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and in East Timor, the years from 1975-1999.

After the unfortunate assassination of a potential great leader, Aung San[3], and the failure of U Nu to be a successive ruler, the Military took over in the early 1960's. The fate of contemporary Burma unfolded under the control of General Ne Win's military regime, from 1962 to 1987, and the SLORC, from 1988 onward.

Ne Win used extreme Marxist, and Buddhist ideas to form a plan, he called, 'The Burmese way to socialism.' During his 26-year rule, he cut off the country from international involvement and began all out offensives on the many minority insurgent groups that did not accept his policies. Demonstrators began protesting against his one-party rule and the failing economic plans he brought in. In response to the uprisings, Ne Win made a speech; and near the end, said, 'if these disturbances were made to challenge us, I have to declare that we will fight sword (in Burmese 'dah') with sword and spear (in Burmese 'hlan') with spear.'[4] Just prior to this speech in July 1962, at the University of Rangoon, his troops shot and killed 100 unarmed students and dynamited the Student Union building. Another famous demonstration was the 'Four Eights Uprising' on August 8, 1988[5]. Through the chaos, and with the help of Ne Win, the military junta came to power under the name of The SLORC. Their strategy of 'order restoration' was quite ironic as they killed an additional 3,000 people to the thousands already killed in the midst of the uprising. The main problem facing Burma is that of the differing ideologies between the ethno-nationalist Burmese junta and the pro-democratic groups and minorities:.

"The military junta only understands the language of 'national security,' whereas mainstream pro-democracy groups led by Aung San Suu Kyi, and the ethnic minority groups, who function completely separate from Aung San Suu Kyi, speak the language of 'political reforms, economic liberalization, and human rights."[6]

Ne Win, and the SLORC have carried out countless campaigns to relocate minorities and any others opposing their political policies. In order to escape the SLORC's violent process of 'order restoration' at the end of the 'Four Eights Uprising,' as many as 10,000 students fled into the hills and border areas in fear of execution. Another example of dislocation caused by years of fighting is in the Karen State, in 1992, where 12,000 villagers were relocated by the SLORC. Another 25,000 were relocated in 1995-6 and a further 20,000 Karenni fled to Thailand as refugees. These are just a few of the many relocations created by the government. There are approximately 100 different minority groups in Burma and only two instances of relocation, in one of these groups, have been mentioned above. By 2002, The SLORC also contributed to the displacement of as many as 300,000 villagers from their homes, many of which fled to Thailand and set up camps. It was very common, and still is in Burma, for the government to cut off basic supplies, such as food and drinking water, from people who resisted their policies. Furthermore, groups who defied the government were often forcibly relocated to confined villages. Cambodia and Burma have seen different events en route to their ruler's socialist goals, but the actions and consequences of their government's to reach these goals have been quite similar.

The affect of the American war on Vietnam drastically spilled over into Cambodia before Pol Pot came to power. The US, led by President Nixon, caused massive destabilization of the economic and political situation in the country. The carpet-bombing of Cambodia by the American B52's left the nation in shambles. Without this weakening of the Lon Nol government by the US, Pol Pot may have never managed to grasp hold of Cambodia[7]; but, unfortunately he rose to power in 1975. Cambodia suffered a similar situation to Burma, but instead of relocating villages, the Khmer Rouge emptied entire cities and sent everyone to the countryside to form a completely agrarian state.

With the help of his Khmer Rouge army, Pol Pot began the systematic evacuation of all cities in the country[8]. The evacuations began in Phnom Penh, where people were warned of possible American bombing raids. They were instructed to temporarily move to the countryside with the idea they would soon return home. Whoever tried to gather belongings before leaving was shot; and, people who didn't know where to go were also shot. Disabled people who could not walk were killed; while, people who did not want to leave had their homes bombarded by grenades, and then were killed. The Khmer Rouge sought out foreign intellectuals and exterminated them in order to eliminate foreign influences. They attempted to eliminate religious institutions, and abolished private property. The Khmer Rouge also forcibly depopulated entire cities, and communized peasants by sending everyone to work in the country where many had already fled due to the bombings. Large-scale cooperatives were set up so everyone could work the land and produce for the state. Pol Pot set unrealistic goals for the production of rice, which caused the majority of it to be sent to Phnom Penh, leaving little to none for the people. Hundreds of thousands of people were relocated from their homes to simply die of starvation or exhaustion; and, if you were a 'new person'[9] there was a good chance of being murdered. By the end of Pol Pot's rule in 1978, approximately 1.7 million of the countries five million people are estimated to have died either by mass execution, exhaustion due to forced labour, or starvation because of the radical actions of the Khmer Rouge. The political situation of East Timor is slightly different than that of Burma and Cambodia because it was not the East Timorese government fighting the people, but the Indonesian government in the fear of a communist uprising. Although the amount of deaths does not quite total that of the Khmer Rouge, the social dislocation of the East Timorese was relatively larger.

The circumstances in East Timor differed from that of Burma and Cambodia; because, of the fact it was a captive Indonesian province for its 24-year push to independence. For this reason, the Indonesian governments actions, led by Suharto and then Habibie in 1999, will be analyzed.

The Portuguese began to leave East Timor after the Second World War; and, the departing of the colonizing power stimulated growth of other political parties. The beginning of the end of peace between East Timor and Indonesia had begun. A social democratic party called the Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor, better known as Fretilin, declared independence on November 28, 1975. Suharto was not going to allow the possibility of a communist insurrection or political instability on his border. Therefore, in early December 1975 he launched a combined land, sea and air invasion on East Timor.

The invasion began on December 7, 1975, with 40,000 troops advancing on East Timor and paratroopers being dropped on the capital city of Dili. Within the first two months of the violent invasion it is estimated that 60,000 people were killed. In five years, by 1980, an estimated 200,000 of a pre-invasion population less than 700,000 had already died. The long war towards the independence vote of 1999 had begun. One event preceding the independence vote was the Santa Cruz massacre of November 12, 1991, where as many as 270 people were gunned down or beaten to death by Indonesian soldiers. Video of the massacre was broadcasted worldwide and helped to bring about awareness of the situation in East Timor. Slowly the situation improved and in May 1998, Suharto was forced to step down after more than 30 years in power. Habibie then stepped into power for the time being. During the 24 years from 1975-1999 women were regularly raped, opponents to Indonesian rule were murdered and people going missing became a regular occurrence. The Vote for Independence in 1999 was a landslide conclusion. 98.6 percent of registered voters turned out to the polls, despite the fear of a violent backlash, and 80 percent of the country voted for independence in the UN-supervised referendum on August 30, 1999. Once again a resulting wave of violence swept across East Timor to suppress the movement.

"Within hours of the end of voting on August 30, pro-Indonesian militia groups and members of the Indonesian armed forces began a rampage of violence so sustained and so ugly that it surprised even seasoned observers who had predicted a backlash."[10]

Along with the relentless violence in East Timor came huge dislocation of citizens from their homes. By the middle of September 1999, 70 percent of the all the buildings in the territory had been burned and destroyed and 400,000 people, over half the population, were forced to flea their homes to Indonesian West Timor. The supporters of independence were raped, beaten, and others killed. More than 1000 people were killed during this horrific period. Even the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET), that had promised to stay in the country, regardless of the vote's outcome, was forced to flea. Large-scale bombing raids of the countryside, conducted by Indonesian forces, also added to the chaos. People thought to support the resistance were resettled in camps in Indonesia, similar to the hamlets strategy the US forces used in Vietnam. The bombing and relocation of the population resulted in wide spread disease and famine. The social dislocation of East Timor, on a per capita basis, exceeded even the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

The governments of Burma, Cambodia, and East Timor, although striving for different goals, ultimately caused the same harm to their people and development of their nations. In Burma it was Ne Win's 'Burmese Way to Socialism; in Cambodia, ' Pol Pot's vision of a completely agrarian state, and in East Timor, the Indonesian governments pro-autonomy policy. To reach each of these goals, the respective governments used radical military force to subdue their people. This exclusive use of military power is an illegitimate way to govern; and, it creates a self-defeating cycle of destruction. The violent suppression of citizens, by these authoritative governments, causes people to lose faith and trust, and gain disrespect for their government. When a ruling regime fails to unite their people and acquire legitimacy, developmental deadlock and drastic consequences result.

After World War II, it became clear that Burma, Cambodia, and East Timor have all endured similar struggles. In Burma, demonstrations have been violently put to rest, and relocations of entire ethnic minority communities have taken place countless times. In addition, thousands of political prisoners have been detained under the junta and they have also taken steps, by means of constitutional principles, to ensure the military's future of power in Burma.

In Cambodia, Pol Pot's completely agrarian state destroyed millions of lives. The harsh work environments people were forced into could not sustain the adequate needs of survival. Alongside these hardships, the 'new people' were readily expendable, and resistance was obliterated.

In East Timor, the push for independence was brutally held back by Indonesia's army. Constant invasions and massacres swamped East Timor for the 24-year independence war. Thousands were killed, over half the population was relocated, and human rights were abolished.

The developmental deadlock of these countries will not be lifted until their governments realize there must be unity within their borders. The destruction caused by these drastic methods of governance has left these countries in ruins. Without consideration of the peoples' wants and needs, the government will not receive the people's support and the governing policies will be self-defeating. The rulers of these countries must realize that harmony between the government and people is more important than their individual agendas. Only once this idea is understood, may the government's goals be successfully reached, and the future of these countries be brighter. The effects of past government actions have left Burma, Cambodia, and East Timor as the poorest and most underdeveloped nations in Southeastern Asia. 'The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.'[11]

[1] "Late comers" refers to the idea of a country developing later than others. Some theorists believe that the later a country develops, the more important the role of the state is in guiding the country towards development.

[2]The State Law and Order Restoration Council, the ruling junta after 1988, changed its name to the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) in 1997, but did not change its policy of autocratic control and repression of the opposition.

[3] Aung San is the father of nationalism in Burma who negotiated independence from Britain. Unfortunately, for the future of Burma, he was assassinated just as he became prime minister. His democratic legacy now lives within his daughter Aung San Su Kyi who continues to fight for a better, democratic Burma.

[4] "Ne Win," Wikipedia, 2002, Wikimedia, November 1, 2005,

[5]Massive uprisings began in the summer of 1988 against Ne Win's one-party rule and gave the people a taste of democracy. The Burma Socialist Program Party was forcibly dismantled and three presidents were ousted in two months. An estimated 3,000-10,000 people were killed.

[6] Free Burma Coalition, Burma's Conflict in a Nutshell: Burma/Myanmar Backgrounder,

[7]Ben Kiernan, The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975, 1979 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996) 16

[8] Due to communication breakdown between Pol Pot and his forces many border cities were either not evacuated or only partially emptied, but there were still many major cities completely evacuated with millions bound for the countryside.

[9]"New people" were people who moved from the cities and were thought to be expendable by the regime. "Base people" were those who already lived in the countryside and worked the land. The Base people were favoured.

[10] Geoffrey Robinson, The New Killing Fields: Massacre and the Politics of Intervention, ed. Nicolaus Mills, Kira Brunner (New York: Basic Books) 159

[11] Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (New York: International Publishers, 1963) 15