(24-29 December 2013)

An ethnic Chinese friend once told me: “You can’t douse a blaze that is near with water that is far.”

He was referring to China (blaze) and the West (water).

I agree with him. But I also believe that a blaze couldn’t be fought back with another blaze either. Which is just what some of our leaders are trying to do.

Until the 19th century, China was the only superpower that the Shans and Burmese had to concern themselves with. Most of their leaders, fortunately, were wise. They knew they could (and did) win battles, but a prolonged war could destroy their nations.

Even Surkhanfa (1311-1364), the Shan king whose power extended as far as Dali in the northeast, Luang Phrabang in the east, Lampang in the southeast, Assam in the northwest and most of today’s Burma, did not forget to dispatch his son as chief envoy conveying rich tributes to Beijing after defeating the Chinese forces led by the Mongol generals.

But today we have more superpowers (as well as mini-superpowers) to consider: India, Japan and the United States that is reportedly renewing a containment policy against the Zhong Guo (Central Country), as China calls itself. And Burma and its Shan State are inescapably caught in the middle.

In this situation, adopting an ill-advised policy will only lead to the country becoming a killing field once again. Burma simply cannot afford to take sides. The only path to its survival is by being a friend to all, and enemy to none.

It was therefore interesting to listen to whatsoever my cousins in China had to say about Burma during my brief stay:

The Burmese leaders cannot blame anyone except themselves for the mess they are in. The thinly disguised contempt with which they have treated the minorities have led to armed resistance by each and every major ethnic group.

By contrast, in China there are only a few minorities fighting against the government. Because the Han, despite being the majority race like the Burmese, treat them with respect and pay attention to their interests.

Nevertheless, we regard ourselves as a good neighbor. When Burmese friends tell us our engagements in Burma have benefited only the military, we revise our policies. We want the people of Burma to understand our desire to be friends with them. They can help us to improve our policies with regards to their country.

Business companies working in Burma are now being instructed to respect the country’s customs and traditions, to help conserve the environment and to help improve the people’s education, health and living standards. Only if there is peace and stability along our borders, we can do our businesses there.

Each country is different from others. So we accept that our ways will not be a perfect fit for Burma. The ways of the United States, likewise, may be good for it. But it doesn’t mean that it will work the same way for Burma. We therefore hope Burmese leaders do not become copycats of the US — or us.

I think that’s the gist of what I have heard. But since my cousins were not talking to me in any official capacity, I can’t very well say their words accurately reflect the official position, of course.

In the end, It’s up to the leaders to decide whether this piece of work is worth its salt. I do hope it is.