Environmental Security and Ethnic Conflict in Eastern Burma

Claire Balani

Austin College

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the MPSA Annual National Conference, Palmer House Hotel, Hilton, Chicago, IL, Apr 03, 2008

Abstract

Traditional approaches to environmental security present the environment as a backdrop to larger

issues such as interstate conflict over scarce resources or protection of the global commons.

However, these approaches ignore underlying causes of long-running world conflicts, especially

the conflict in Eastern Burma, where the military junta pursues programs of development at the

expense of ethnic minority groups. This paper examines an alternative human-centered approach

to environmental security that centers on the human and environmental rights of marginalized

populations. Drawing from human rights and environmental reports, as well as analytical sources

detailing the human rights and environment situation in Burma, this paper traces the loss of

villagers’ livelihoods in Eastern Burma through a process of resource exploitation, militarization,

and environmental degradation, resulting in repression and conflict propagation. While

traditional approaches focus solely on state-mediated strategies to end conflict, this paper

presents solutions for individuals, corporations and other international actors in protecting the

livelihoods of marginalized populations, preventing violent conflict, and furthering

environmental sustainability in developing countries.

1

Introduction

Analysts often ascribe the causes of long-running world conflict to political, social,

economic, and cultural factors. Conflicts approached solely through these lenses often result in

the viewing of an incomplete puzzle, with several integral pieces missing, which would have

added further complexity to the situation. This inability to develop different theories and motives

behind conflict complicates the very resolution of conflict, as solutions may not address the

conditions that have created the heart of the problem.

This is particularly true in Eastern Burma, the site of one of the longest-running conflicts

in the world. Solutions for the conflict have failed to arise since the first house arrest of pro-

democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi in 1989. There has been recent coverage of the sale of oil,

gas, and precious gems in keeping the regime afloat. Many argue that if the world ceases to

purchase Burma’s natural resources, regional actors will no longer bolster the regime, severely

weakening it. This analysis makes use of the traditional environmental security paradigm, which

places the potential for conflict over natural resources.

This essay argues that the traditional environmental security approach fails to adequately

explain the conflict in Eastern Burma in two ways: interstate conflict is unlikely to occur over

natural resources, and the continuation of the regime is not solely reliant on arms sales and other

revenue. Rather, a human-centered approach to environmental security reveals deeper motives to

the conflict by attributing programs of mining, dams, and logging in ethnic territories in Eastern

Burma to militarization and environmental degradation, resulting in environmental insecurity

through the loss of local villagers’ livelihoods. These acts of continuous repression allow for

conflict propagation by the Burmese army.

2

This essay begins with a brief overview of Burmese history. It then examines the

traditional environmental security approach and applies it to two conflict scenarios in Burma

before offering reasons why the traditional environmental security is inadequate for explaining

the underlying motives of the conflict. The paper then offers an alternative human-centered

approach to environmental security, providing a model of militarization, environmental

degradation, and environmental insecurity that applies to three specific cases of resource

extraction in Eastern Burma, resulting in the propagation of conflict between the Burmese army

and the ethnic forces. This essay concludes with possible solutions to the conflict based upon

securing human-centered environmental security for the local people.

History of Burma

The history of the Burmese empire involved traditional kingdoms and other local

townships that evolved among Burma’s many ethnic groups until Britain’s 19th century conquest

of Burma, where modern Burmese history begins.

The British ruled Burma as a colony, bringing about widespread administrative and social

modernization while still allowing limited local self-government. However, British rule

gradually engendered socialist disintegration and provoked a nationalist movement. Aung San, a

student leader who assembled a military force and nearly monopolized popular support, helped

gain the Union of Burma’s independence. Aung San managed to unite Burma’s many ethnic

groups into a fragile coalition until he was assassinated just a year before Burma’s independence

in 1948. This foreshadowed the struggles of the new democratic government, as ethnic

minorities demanded the right to autonomy and succession from the Burman ethnic majority.

The representative government survived until a military coup in 1962 (Lansner 2001).

3

Ne Win, the leader of the military coup, created a new totalitarian regime. Independent

political parties and media outlets were shut down. There were no free elections, and freedom of

expression and association were almost entirely denied. Torture, political imprisonment, and

other human rights abuses were common. Throughout this period, guerilla wars with ethnic

opposition groups within the country worsened (Lansner 2001). The military also took control of

the country’s economy. Under the “Burmese Way to Socialism,” Burma was plunged into an

isolationism that led its economy to the brink of disaster (Lansner 2001). Any business or

industry larger than a family-owned operation was taken over by the state. The government

halted imports of foreign goods, wearing down the state’s infrastructure. Ironically, at the time of

its independence, Burma was favored to surpass the other Southeast Asian states economically,

with its many natural resources, literate population, and successful agricultural infrastructure; it

was then the world’s leading exporter of rice (Lansner 2001). By mid-1988, however, rice

shortages created a near-famine in the country, and popular discontent with the regime reached

crisis proportions.

The police slaying of a student sparked demonstrations by university students that were

soon joined by people of all backgrounds in cities and towns all over Burma. On the eighth of

August—"8-8-88''—hundreds of thousands of people nationwide marched to demand the regime

be replaced by an elected civilian government. The government responded to the protesters with

brute force. Soldiers fired on crowds of unarmed protesters, killing thousands (Lansner 2001).

On September 18, 1988, the army finally responded to calls for democracy by

announcing a coup by the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) (renamed the State

Peace and Development Council, in 1997) (Lansner 2001). This move was effectively seen as a

mere change of name for the government; many of the same leaders remained in power. The

4

junta's next action was to open fire with machine guns on demonstrators in Rangoon and other

cities. The carnage was immense. Conservative estimates place the number of people killed at

10,000. Thousands more were arrested; many were tortured.7 Twelve years later, Amnesty

International reported that about 1,700 political prisoners still remained imprisoned under harsh

conditions, and that torture "has become an institution" in Burma (Lansner 2001).

The military junta pledged that elections would be held after "peace and tranquility" were

restored in Burma, but the run-up to the elections inspired little hope in the prospects for

democracy. Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the most popular opposition party, the National League

for Democracy (NLD), was placed under house arrest in July 1989. The SLORC jailed many

other NLD officials, and barred the NLD’s access to media and key resources. But to most

observers' surprise, a relatively free, fair election did take place in 1990. The NLD won over

80% of parliamentary seats. The military-front won only ten seats, a resounding rejection of

military rule that demonstrated not only the depth of the Burmese peoples' alienation from the

military regime, but also the failure of the generals to recognize their own unpopularity (Lansner

2001).

The junta's response to this overwhelming defeat was to change the rules, declaring the

election not for a parliament, but for some members of an elected assembly to consider a new

constitution. After voiding the election results, repression intensified, and many NLD elected

representatives were arrested; some have died in prison, while others have fled into exile. The

junta has since ruled by decree, continuing its history of authoritarian rule.

Current political conditions remain consistent with the government’s policy of

totalitarianism and brutality. The State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) continues its

repression of all rights and freedoms, especially those of Burma’s ethnic minorities. The junta

5

also continues its imprisonment and torture of political dissidents. Although political prisoners

have been released over the years, the iconic symbol of the democratic movement, Aung San

Suu Kyi, has been repeatedly placed under house arrest. Many senior NLD officials remain in

prison (Lansner 2001). In addition, the junta continues to fuel conflict between Burma’s many

ethnic minority groups. The military has burnt down more than 3000 villages in Eastern Burma,

forcing hundreds of thousands to flee to the borders or to live as internally displaced persons

deep within the jungle (Lansner 2001).

In September 2007, the pro-democracy movement appeared to have garnered enough

support among the masses, culminating into the largest anti-junta protests in Burma since 1988

(Associated Press 2007). However, the junta again responded to the protests with brute force,

from physical violence and gunfire directed at protesters, to mass arrests of opposition leaders,

Buddhist monks, and civilians (Amnesty International 2007).

The Traditional Approach to Environmental Security

As stated in the introduction, traditional environmental security offers explanations for

why the current regime in Burma is still in power, and what mechanisms enable it to remain in

power, in order to determine how to defuse security threats through environmental means. In this

case, the conflict centers on natural resources.

Clear definitions of environmental security are integral in applying the concept to world

conflicts. The traditional approach to environmental security focuses on “the prevention or

management of conflict over scare or degraded resources” (Brunnee 1997). It stems from an

expanded analysis of national security, integrating environmental threats in addition to military

threats (Brunnee 1997); more explicitly, it represents “the intersection of environmental and

national security considerations” (Allenby 2000). The growing concerns about environmental

6

degradation, resource scarcity, and violent conflict arose from the new understanding in the mid-

twentieth century that “borders can be breached and national sovereignty undermined by non-

military external threats” (Eddy 2004). Possible conflicts that nation-states saw as threats to

environmental security included conflict over access to raw materials, especially the conflict

over water in the Middle East, and mass migration away from environmentally degraded areas;

these examples of population growth and resource scarcity, developments have caused “full-

scale wars between nations” (Eddy 2004).

Environmental security in terms of national security adds another dimension in the

explaining high-conflict areas. Violence between ethnic groups, civil strife, and insurgency can

arise not only from political or economic issues, but also from environmental change and

degradation: “…as resources become scarce or degraded, competition increases and may cross a

critical threshold beyond which conflict is inevitable” (Tarhule 2002).

This essay’s analysis and application of environmental security, including both traditional

and alternative approaches, relies upon identifying these factors: environmental security for what

and for whom; the most probable sources of security threats in the area; the mechanisms most

likely to trigger conflict; and the ways through which the conflict may propagate (Tarhule 2002).

Applying the traditional environmental security approach to the situation of Burma

involves identifying the above factors in two particular strands of conflict: the possible scenario

of interstate conflict over Burma’s natural resources, and the occurring practice of funding the

regime through sales of natural resources.

Interstate conflict over Burma’s natural resources is a likely environmental security

threat. Many countries, especially regional actors such as China, India, Thailand, and Singapore,

are capitalizing upon deals with the Burmese military government in order to obtain cheap and

7

abundant natural resources from the oil and gas, mining, and logging industries (EarthRights

International, “Burma’s Resource Curse” 2007). Transnational oil and gas corporations are

especially prominent in financing the regime, as Burma represents “highly profitable new

investment and development opportunities” in the form of “future natural gas markets in

Southeast Asia and, most importantly, China” (Dale 2002).

The most important player in securing Burma’s natural resources is China, the growing

world regional power. Its involvement is significant; more than 26 Chinese multinational

corporations have been involved in more than 62 projects in Burma over the past decade

(EarthRights International, “China in Burma” 2007).

In its involvement with Burma, China stresses the development of its southwestern

provinces, building a transportation route through Burma to the Andaman Sea. This raises

concerns in India, which is considered a growing rival to China’s power in Southeast Asia. Some

analysts argue that India abandoned its pro-democracy stance in order to reap business deals with

the Burmese regime (McGivering 2006). If China does create trade links from Yunnan Province

to the Andaman Sea, India is “concerned about the probability of regular Chinese presence on

the coast” (Talbott 1998). Singapore also voiced concern about the elevated level of influence

China has in Burma (Talbott 1998).

The end result could escalate into regional conflict on both diplomatic and military levels.

The largest propensity for conflict is between China and India; if China does maintain a regular

presence in South Asia, then India may feel compelled to initiate military action in the name of

national security. The main instigator of this potential conflict is the continued moves by

regional actors for natural resources, creating competition and territorial conflict.

8

The second conflict examined is real and occurring: the junta’s sale of natural resources

in order to provide hard currency to fund its military government (Smith 2007). Sales of natural

gas, in particular, “accounted for half of Burma’s exports and represents its single largest source

of foreign exchange” (Human Rights Watch, “Foreign Oil and Gas” 2007). Human rights groups

argue that the sale of oil, gas, gems, and other natural resources directly fund the military without

benefiting the local people (Human Rights Watch, “Foreign Investment” 2007).

This situation serves two purposes: to bolster potential environmental security threats and

to trigger existing national security threats abroad. Foreign investment through the sale of natural

resources propagates the regime, creating a cycle in which regional powers continue to clash

over who claims what resource, while the regime remains in power. The ultimate result is

regional instability.

The sale of natural resources also threatens national security interests elsewhere,

especially in Western countries such as the United States. The U.S. claims in its national security

agenda that oppressive regimes such as Burma are threats that the government can no longer

ignore (White House 2006). The U.S. is also concerned about the prolific heroin trade, as Burma

produces 50 percent of the world’s heroin (Talbott 1988). Besides direct foreign investment, no

other substantive revenue exists; this is due to the lack of direct foreign aid attributed to

sanctions and objections to the junta’s human rights practices (Smith 2007). The sale of natural

resources by the Burmese military creates security threats for other countries in its function of

funding the regime.

Both scenarios include identifiable factors of environmental security. In both cases, the

primary actors are nation-states. This is necessitated in the national security approach that the

nation-state is “absolute” (Allenby 2000). The nation-states involved seek security from regional

9

instability, tyranny abroad and drug trade as the result of natural resource exploitation. The

mechanisms which drive conflict include regional rivalries between powers, democratic

opposition to the regime, and efforts to cease the heroin trade. The pathways for conflict take

place outside of Burma, whether in Southeast Asia or the Western world.

Refuting Traditional Environmental Security

While traditional environmental security adds crucial elements in explanations of

conflicts, there still remain several objections to its logic. In the case of interstate conflict, the

global trend has been that interstate wars have decreased, while domestic wars have increased

(Tarhule 2002). Burma itself has not engaged in any interstate wars for decades, while internal

civil wars with ethnic groups rage on (Granse 2005). Threats to environmental security often do

not override “international respect for the territorial integrity of nations” (Tarhule 2002).

The second scenario emphasizes a crucial source for the military’s revenue, but it does

not fully explain why the regime is still in power. It concludes that conflict persists because the

army has the funds to buy weapons and engage in violence. But in order to find solutions to the

conflict in Burma, it is necessary to determine why the regime engages in violence to begin with.

(Refer to the “Interstate Conflict” and “Foreign Revenue” models at the end of this paper.)

There are also general objections to traditional environmental security as a theory. The

very logic of national security is inapplicable, as “military threats are patently different from

environmental threats, particularly in that military threats are deliberately imposed” (Barnett 44).

The regional scramble for resources in Burma is not, at its core, militaristic on the part of the

buyers; Thailand is not seeking to militarily occupy Burma through natural gas sales.

The primary objection is that it wrongly focuses on who is threatened. The chance of

interstate war is unlikely. While resource exploitation encourages tyranny and the heroin trade in

10

Burma, it is not the main cause of security threats to nation-states. The main cause is the

environmental degradation that results from resource extraction. The local people of Burma are

facing environmental degradation and threats to their livelihood, as opposed to the distant

security threats for nation-state actors.

Human-Centered Environmental Security

This alternative approach is seen as human-centered environmental security, which

“places the welfare of the people first and prioritizes the welfare of the most disadvantaged

above all else… as opposed to the hypothetical threats of the nation-states” (Barnett 2001). In

this manner, environmental security focuses on human security rather than national security.

Examples of fulfilling human security include “nutritious food, clean air and water, and

shelter” (Barnett 125). However, human security also involves the very social interactions on

which humans thrive upon, including an “emotional support network,” “strong family ties,” and

“opportunities for extended community interaction” (Barnett 2001).

In its quest for natural resources to provide to foreign countries, Burma causes both

environmental degradation and human insecurity. The army moves into areas largely inhabited

by ethnic minorities, such as Karen State. They force the villagers to relocate in order to allow

companies to extract resources, resulting in militarization and a host of human rights abuses. The

companies’ methods of resource extraction cause environmental degradation, which further

threatens the livelihoods of the local villagers. This process is the application of environmental

insecurity in Burma through “the impoverishment of people and the degradation of nature largely

through political-economic processes” (Barnett 2001).

An explanation of the ethnic minority groups in Burma is necessary. The estimated

population of Burma is 47 million. There are more than 100 different ethnic groups, including

11

Karen, Karenni, Mon, Shan, Chin, Wa, Arakan, Rohingya, Kachin, and Burman. (Burma Issues,

“Ethnic Groups” 2004) Two-thirds of the population is Burman, with Karens and Shans being

the next largest ethnic groups with 10 percent each of the population (Wee 2006). The state of

ethnic group relations in Burma has been factitious, with “several of the larger ethnic groups... at

war with the military regime for decades” (Talbott 1998).

The Karen, in particular, have been fighting the longest-running struggle for

independence in the world (Sites 2006). The Karen began fighting for self-determination soon

after the independence of Burma from the British in 1947 (Burma Issues, “Karen” 2004).

Fighting continues in Karen State in Eastern Burma between the SPDC and the Karen National

Union (KNU). However, much of the violence by the Burmese army is directed at the Karen

villagers, which make up most of the population in Karen State (Burma Issues, “Karen” 2004).

The conflict in Eastern Burma can be explained through human-centered environmental

security through an ongoing cycle of militarization, environmental degradation, and

environmental insecurity. The cause of this cycle is resource extraction through mining, logging,

and dams. The result is conflict propagation between the Burmese army and the Karen. This

paper will examine the important connection of militarization and the environment before

examining three case studies in Karen State with respect to the states of the cycle described

above. (Refer to the “Human-Centered Environmental Security” model at the end of this paper.)

Militarization

Militarization is the single biggest environmental security risk to human beings; the

effects of militarization “come not merely from warfare, but also from the preparation for

warfare and the opportunities foreclosed by military expenditure” (Barnett 2001). The military

negatively affects environmental security in three ways.

12

First, social disruption occurs when military bases are by local communities (Barnett

2001). In the case of Karen State, many village tracts are controlled by the SPDC. The army thus

has a policy of complete control over all ethnic territories. In Dooplaya District of southern

Karen state, the army seeks to control these villages through forced relocation of villages to

villages close to army bases, travel restrictions, and mandatory identification cards, among other

devices. The army also dictates to villagers what they must grow on their land; they justify this

by arguing that the land was the state’s property to begin with (Karen Human Rights Group,

“Systems of Repression” 2006) This is a sharp contrast to life in Karen villages before 1997,

when villagers maintained relative autonomy over their own lives (Karen Human Rights Group,

“Systems of Repression” 2006). Many instances of militarization in villages can be found in

Karen State, as described in the next section, as well as in the other ethnic states.

Second, environmental degradation occurs through militarization, though “not caused by

weapons specifically aimed at environmental destruction” (Environmental Literacy Council

2007). An example is the use of landmines. Landmines are used by the SPDC as well as rebel

army groups. In particular, the SPDC has forced civilians to act as minesweepers in order to clear

landmines in the jungle (Human Rights Watch, “Landmines Kill” 2006). Landmines have harsh

environmental effects long after the conflict has ended, including “soil degradation,

deforestation, pollution of water resources with heavy metals and possibly altering entire

species’ populations by degrading habitats and altering food chains” (Landmine Monitor 2000).

Finally, militarization causes the displacement of social welfare expenditure to military

funding. Myanmar spends $1.9 billion on its military, the fifth largest military expenditure in the

world; this facilitates the creation of Southeast Asia’s largest standing army during peacetime

(Barnett 2001). Myanmar spent 222% on its army, equivalent to health and education

13

expenditure (Barnett 2001). Other government programs are affected as well. Non-military

branches of the government, such as the Forestry Department, receive little funding to pursue

essential environmental conservation programs (Rabinowitz 2001).

Militarization is a reality in the ethnic minority territories of Burma, especially in Karen

State. Both the SPDC and the KNU continue to fight for territory. Since the fall of the Karen

capital, Manerplaw, in 1997, the Burmese army has been rapidly gaining larger swaths of

territory, while the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) has been forced to retreat into the

mountains and wage sporadic guerilla warfare (Karen Human Rights Group, “Background on

Burma”). The SPDC’s treatment of their acquired territories involves the progressive

regimentation of civilian life and pervasive militarization in villages (Karen Human Rights

Group, “Systems of Repression” 2006). In the cases of resource extraction in Karen State

described in the next section, the Burmese army facilitates the exploitation of natural resources

by allowing it to occur: namely, forcing villagers to relocate so that companies can extract

resources.

Thus, militarization leads directly to environmental insecurity. Villagers are unable to

resist the military due to mass displacement, fear and violence. Facing no resistance, the SPDC

continues to overtake Karen lands for resource extraction.

Three Cases of Resource Extraction in Shwegyin Township

This section examines three specific practices of resource exploitation: mining, logging,

and dams. These three methods are compounded by militarization, leading to environmental

degradation and increased environmental insecurity. These case studies occur in Shwegyin

township in Nyaunglebin District, western Karen State (EarthRights International, “Treasure”

2007). Although it covers a small area, a safe assumption can be made that much of the same

14

practices happen wherever active ethnic resistance occurs (EarthRights International, “Treasure”

2007). General information about resource extraction in Burma is difficult to obtain due to

government secrecy, corruption, and the risk of sending documenters to conflict areas.

Militarization occurs in many areas which the SPDC occupies. Shwegyin township has

been another victim of the “central component of the Burmese Army’s strategy”: the forced

relocation of villagers to villages near army bases (EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007).

Often, soldiers would loot their houses after the villagers relocated and then destroy them

afterward. Relocated villagers could not work the land around their new villagers, as it was

already owned. They faced travel restrictions, making it difficult for villagers to return to their

fields and to earn a living through farming. They also encountered exorbitant taxes and fees, as

well as forced labor to repair army camps and roads (EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007)

The first case study of resource extraction is gold mining among the Shwegyin River.

Militarization allows for mining companies to inhabit prime land at the expense of the

villagers. Land confiscation is facilitated by the military after companies survey the land and

offer to buy it at a price below market value. The military steps in to ultimately persuade the

villager to sell (EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007).

Small scale mining by mining companies makes up the majority of mining operations.

These include small scale mines involving mechanized equipment Small scale mining by mining

companies makes up the majority of mining operations. Mining companies have made use of

hydraulic machines to extract gold. They pump water through hoses at a very high pressure using

diesel engines. The water is aimed at the banks of rivers and streams to dislodge the soil and

rock. The sediment then goes into a sluice, which are lined with liquid mercury and captures gold

particles in the sediment through amalgamation. The remaining sediment, after the gold and

15

mercury have been separated, is washed away downstream. This practice is “highly destructive

to the immediate natural environment and to the ecosystems downstream; it has been banned in

many countries” (EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007).

Many other environmentally destructive factors directly affect the rivers in the area. The

extreme use of water has depleted some water sources and permanently altered others. There is

an increase in soil erosion and sediment levels; some river beds have collapsed due to the

removal of soil and silt from the riverbanks (EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007). In

addition, diesel fuel from the mining equipment contaminates the river water that is used to

irrigate the villagers’ rice fields and plantations; many farmers have reported that their fruit trees

have died, and are unwilling to use water from the rivers (EarthRights International, “Treasure”

2007).

The pollution of rivers and streams by mercury has adversely affected the natural

environment, and also poses serious human health risks. Long-term exposure to mercury “can

lead to kidney failure and even death (EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007).

Unfortunately, many villagers rarely realize the seriousness of the health risks associated with

mercury (EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007).

Social disruption occurs when the mining companies destroy the land they occupy as well

as the neighboring land; this had “created inter-community conflict and has made cooperation

between villagers within the community very difficult” (EarthRights International, “Treasure”

2007).

Environmental insecurity thus occurs through militarization and environmental

degradation. Villagers are forced to relocate away from their fields, making it difficult for them

to earn a living and feed their families. Environmental degradation from mining has resulted in

16

the loss of water sources, the poisoning of irrigation water for crops, severe health risk by

mercury poisoning, and conflict between villagers. These factors all affect human security and

people’s livelihoods; people are unable to feed themselves, obtain water, or live peacefully with

their neighbors.

The second case study of resource extraction involves logging. Logging is a very

lucrative business, with teak logs selling for 20,000 Kyat per ton (EarthRights International,

“Treasure” 2007). However, most of the commercially valuable trees in the township have been

cut. The amount of deforestation in Nyaunglebin District totals to 265,758 acres since 2003

(EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007).

Because of the vast deforestation, no logging operations are in effect. However, the

militarization of Shwegyin township has caused the SPDC to conquer more territories held by

the KNU in order to cut down trees. The army also has seized land from villagers; entire

plantations have been destroyed with no compensation to the villagers (EarthRights

International, “Treasure” 2007).

Environmental affects are adverse; at times, “loggers clear cut entire areas to access only

a few commercially valuable trees” (EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007). Deforestation

has resulted in the increased possibility of “landslides, local climate change, and the loss of

seasonal streams, which have disappeared due to the loss of groundcover” (EarthRights

International, “Treasure” 2007).

Environmental insecurity results from entire plantations being seized, leaving the

villagers with no other source of income. Environmental degradation from deforestation has

caused increased risks for environmental disaster, harming villagers’ ability to survive. In

addition, villagers are no longer able to hunt and forage for herbs and vegetables, taking away

17

another source of food and income from villagers’ livelihoods (EarthRights International,

“Treasure” 2007).

The final case of resource extraction involves the Kyauk Naga Dam. The dam began

construction in 2001 near Shwegyin town. Construction is expected to be complete by 2008

(EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007). Its purpose is for irrigation as well as an electricity

supply to the main power grid. Many are concerned that the dam will supply very little electricity

to the actual residents of Shwegyin township. This has proven the case in many other of Burma’s

hydroelectric dams; they provide electricity for urban areas and for export, but not for the

physical location of the dam (EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007).

Militarization once again occurs through land confiscation. The army seized the people’s

plantations, destroying about 1000 acres of plantations with no compensation to the villagers

(EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007). Forced relocation has caused villagers to live in the

town against their wishes; many have had a difficult time adjusting. For example, farmers are

forced to work in the minds just to secure income (EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007).

The environmental effects are significant. Once the dam is completed, many village sites

will be submerged, and about 150-200 plantations along the banks of the river will be destroyed

(EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007). This will leave villagers without a source of

income.

The dam also negatively affects the rivers in the area. Dams restrict the amount of

sediment that is washed downstream, resulting in the erosion of the downstream riverbed, which

threatens the groundwater table. This ultimately threatens vegetation in the area and local wells

(EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007). In addition, once the dam is completed, villagers

will be less able to use the Shwegyin River as a source of fish to supplement their diets. The dam

18

physically blocks many fish from migrating upstream (EarthRights International, “Treasure”

2007).

Finally, changes in water flows adversely affect the floodplain. Annual floods deposit

nutrients in the floodplain but dams block this process, reducing the productivity of the soil

there. The result is “a change in the river and floodplain ecosystems” (EarthRights International,

“Treasure” 2007).

Environmental insecurity is compounded by the continued use of forced relocation and

property seizure and destruction. Environmental degradation results in the loss of livelihoods for

those whose villages and plantations will be flooded, in addition to the fishermen of the

Shwegyin river, as well as the farmers who cannot grow crops as well due to less soil

productivity.

The increased environmental security in all three of these cases results in conflict

propagation. This is because the SPDC has targeted the most valuable possession of any Karen:

their land (EarthRights International, “Treasure” 2007). The land holds an obvious economic

significance in securing their income through agriculture, but the land also has cultural

connotations as well. One Karen farmer has expressed sorrow that the next generation will not be

able to say where their parents lived, as the land they once had has been destroyed (EarthRights

International, “Treasure” 2007).

The SPDC has waged war with the Karens’ environment. The army forces the villagers

off of their land, seizes their land for resource extraction, and allows companies to destroy their

land for economic profit. Because the peoples’ livelihoods are tied to the land, they are unable to

resist; they remain forcibly relocated near army bases and are delegated to jobs closely

monitored by the military, such as mining. The cycle of militarization, environmental

19

degradation, and environmental security results in fear, oppression, and loss of livelihood by the

villagers, which is the ultimate cause of conflict propagation.

Human-Centered Environmental Security and Its Solutions

Human-centered environmental security also contains four core identifiers. Human-

centered environmental security maintains standards of human security and environmental

sustainability for the world’s marginalized populations. The security threat derives from the

Burmese military’s militarization of the area and facilitation of natural resource extraction. The

mechanisms which are likely to result in conflict are the forced relocation of villagers and the

environmental degradation of their land. The method that propagates conflict is the oppression of

the local villagers, resulting in little resistance for the army in conquering other areas controlled

by the KNU.

Environmental security’s main goals, when applied to a particular situation, are to explain

the motives behind the situation as well as offer solutions to end the conflict. Unlike traditional

environmental security, solutions do not have to be propounded by nation-states. In the case of

Eastern Burma, the power of nation-states is limited. A large part of ending the conflict is the

responsibility of the Burmese government, and “in the absence of significant political and

institutional reforms in Burma, an end to the problems… is unlikely” (EarthRights International,

“Treasure” 2007). If nation-states have been unable to negotiate with the regime in terms of

ceasing human rights abuses, it is unlikely that they will influence the regime on environmental

policies as well.

Human-centered environmental security places much responsibility for conflict

transformation on the part of private actors. In the case of Burma, the actors that have the most

20

potential to ending the conflict are multinational corporations (MNCs) and individuals

themselves.

Since the September 2007 pro-democracy protests in Burma, human rights groups have

called for MNCs to either withdraw from Burma or use their influence in order to help stop

human rights abuses (EarthRights International, “ERI Calls On” 2007). MNCs are able to cease

their support the military regime through the sales of natural resources by adopting Corporate

Social Responsibility (CSR) as company policy. CSR “commits the company to the pursuit of a

‘triple bottom line’: financial, social, and environmental” (Zarsky 2002). Companies must

evaluate the social and environmental impacts of their financial decisions. Shareholders and

stakeholders, including local communities affected by the company’s operations, all work to

raise ethnical standards for the company (Zarsky 2002). Companies can adopt CSR in order to

justify the withdrawal of foreign investment in Burma.

The most important actor for conflict transformation is the individual. Although the

individual is limited in what she can do in the face of the military junta, transnational advocacy

methods have enabled individuals to raise awareness of and influence government policy on the

situation in Burma. The power of the individual lies in the “the recognition that politics much

more than what occurs among and between political parties and legislative bodies” (Barnett

2001). Individuals can engage in community organizing through the Internet, volunteer their time

and resources to community organizations on the borders of Burma that assist with refugees and

conduct fact-finding missions, and lobby governments to enact sanctions and other policies

targeting the military regime.

The power of individuals has been the driving force of the transnational Burmese

democracy movement. Despite the continued existence of the military regime despite the

21

democracy movement, individuals have enabled more information about what the Burmese

people are facing than what is possible without individual involvement. They obtain information

through fact-finding missions, often led by human rights groups such as EarthRights

International or Karen Human Rights Group. Thus, individuals acting in the name of human-

centered environmental security operate in the name of further understanding the conflict, in

hopes of one day transforming the conflict into peace and environmental sustainability.

Conclusion

The idea of the nation-state as the primary receiver of security fuels geopolitical

strategies of analyzing conflicts that are inadequate in fully explaining the situation. The risks to

the nation-state and resulting violent conflict are often hypothetical and unlikely to occur without

diplomatic intervention. This resulting one-sided analysis of conflicts ignores the cultural

realities of particular situations. Environmental security, especially in the case of Eastern Burma,

must focus on securing environmental sustainability and human dignity to the local villagers who

are directly affected by the military regime’s extraction of natural resources. The program of

militarization, environmental degradation, and environmental insecurity allow conflict to

continue in Eastern Burma. By targeting the villagers’ land, the SPDC has effectively destroyed

any resistance to their conquest of territory for the furthered exploitation of natural resources.

While the conflict itself has little chance of resolving itself without the direct intervention and

reform of the Burmese government, corporations and individuals can play key roles in

understanding the conflict and preventing the conflict from escalating. Individuals, in particular,

can support fact-finding human rights organizations such as EarthRights International and Karen

Human Rights Group; these organizations, among with many others, raise awareness of the

22

experiences of local villagers in hopes that their situation may one day prove essential in

solutions for environmental security.

23

“Interstate Conflict” Model

Resource Extraction

Competition between regional actors for resources; security risks over territorial presence

Interstate conflict

Resource Extraction

Increased Funds for Military

Internal Conflict Propagation

24

“Foreign Revenue” Model

“Human-Centered Environmental Security” Model

Resource Extraction

Militarization and control

Environmental insecurity; the military’s involvement has led to relocation and forced involvement in the degradation and loss of

their own land

Internal Conflict Propagation; conflict continues because villagers unwilling to fight, military continues to take control

25

Works Cited

Allenby, Braden R. “Environmental Security: Concept and Implementation.” International Political Science Review 21.1 (2000): 5-21.

Amnesty International. “Myanmar: Briefing Paper: No Return to ‘Normal.’” 9 November 2007. Amnesty International. 15 November 2007 <http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA160372007>.

Associated Press. “Protest in Burma is Largest Since ’88.” Washington Post 24 September 2007. November 15 2007 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092301284.html>.

Barnett, Jon. The Meaning of Environmental Security: Ecological Politics and Policy in the New Security Era. London: Zed Books, 2001.

Brunnee, Jutta and Stephen J. Toope. “Environmental Security and Freshwater Resources: Ecosystem Regime Building.” The American Journal of International Law 91.1 (1997): 26-59.

Burma Issues. “Burma Issues-Ethnic Groups.” 2004. Burma Issues. 18 November 2007 < http://www.burmaissues.org/En/ethnicgroups1.html>.

Burma Issues. “Burma Issues-Karen.” 2004. Burma Issues. 20 November 2007 <http://www.burmaissues.org/En/karen.html>.

Dale, John G. “Transnational Legal Conflict Between Peasants and Corporations in Burma: Human Rights and Discursive Ambivalence under the US Alien Tort Claims Act.” The Practice of Human Rights: Tracking Law Between the Global and the Local. Eds. Gooddale Mark and Sally Eagle Merry. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 385-319.

EarthRights International. “Burma’s Resource Curse.” 2 August 2007. EarthRights International. 13 November 2007 <http://www.earthrights.org/burmafeature/burmas_resource_curse.html>.

EarthRights International. “China in Burma: The increasing investment of Chinese multinational corporations in Burma’s hydropower, oil &gas, and mining sectors.” September 2007. EarthRights International. 13 November 2007 <http://www.earthrights.org/files/Reports/BACKGROUNDER%20China%20in%20Burma.pdf>.

EarthRights International. “ERI Calls on Oil and Gas Industry to Help Stop Violence in Burma.” 15 November 2007. EarthRights International. 19 November 2007 <http://www.earthrights.org/burmafeature/eri_calls_on_oil_and_gas_industry_to_help_stop_violence_in_burma.html>.

26

EarthRights International. Turning Treasure into Tears: Mining, Dams, and Deforestation in Shwegyin Township, Pegu Division, Burma. January 2007. EarthRights International. 11 November 2007 < http://www.earthrights.org/files/Burma%20Project/report-_turning_treasure_into_tears.pdf>.

Eddy, Elizabeth. “Environmental Security: Securing What For Whom?” Social Alternatives 23.4 (2004): 23-28.

Environmental Literacy Council. “Environmental Impacts” 13 July 2007. 16 November 2007 <http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/588.html>.

Ganse, Alexander. “WHKMLA: List of Wars in Burma.” 12 January 2005. 18 November 2007 <http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/seasia/milxburma.html>.

Human Rights Watch. “Burma: Foreign Investment Finances Regime.” 2 October 2007. Human Rights Watch. 15 November 2007 <http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/10/01/burma16995.htm>.

Human Rights Watch. “Burma: Foreign Oil and Gas Investors Shore Up Junta.” 19 November 2007. Human Rights Watch. 19 November 2007 <http://hrw.org/campaigns/burma/drilling/>.

Human Rights Watch. “Burma: Landmines Kill, Maim, and Starve Civilians.” 20 December 2006. Human Rights Watch. 15 November 2007 <http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/12/20/burma14904.htm>.

Karen Human Rights Group. “Background on Burma.” Karen Human Rights Group. 17 November 2007 <http://www.khrg.org/background_on_burma.html>.

Karen Human Rights Group. Setting up the Systems of Repression: The Progressive Regimentation of Civilian Life in Dooplaya District. 7 September 2006. Karen Human Rights Group. 16 November 2007 <http://www.khrg.org/khrg2006/khrg0604.pdf>.

Landmine Monitor. “Environmental Aspects of the International Crisis of Antipersonnel Landmines and the Implementation of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty”. August 2000. 15 November 2007 <http://www.icbl.org/lm/2000/appendices/environment.html>.

Lansner, Thomas R. “Brief History of Burma.” Backpacking Burma. 15 November 2007 <http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/burma/history.html>.

McGivering, Jill. “India signs Burma gas agreement.” BBC News 9 March 2006. 19 November 2007 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4791078.stm>.

Rabinowitz, Alan. Beyond the Last Village: A Journey of Discovery in Asia’s Forbidden Wilderness. Washington DC: Island Press, 2001.

27

Sites, Kevin. “The Longest War.” 28 June 2006. Yahoo! News. 19 November 2007 <http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs6770>.

Smith, Matthew. “Focus/Burma: The Hunt for Energy At Any Cost.” Bangkok Post 15 November 2007. 20 November 2007 <http://www.bangkokpost.com/151107_News/15Nov2007_news24.php>.

Talbott, Kirk and Melissa Brown. “Forest Plunder in Southeast Asia: An Environmental Security Nexus in Burma and Cambodia.” Environmental Change and Security Project Report 4 (1998): 53-60.

Tarhule, Aondover A. “Environment and Conflict in West Africa.” Environmental Security and Global Stability: Problems & Responses. Ed. Max G. Manwaring. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2002. 51-83.

Wee, Vivienne and Graeme Lang. “Ethnic Violence and the Loss of State Legitimacy: Burma and Indonesia in a Context of Post-Colonial Developmentalism.” Perspectives on Contemporary Ethnic Conflict: Primal Violence or the Politics of Conviction? Ed. Santosh C. Saha. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006. 50-75.

White House. “Champion Aspirations of Human Dignity.” The National Security Strategy. March 2006. 13 November 2007 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionII.html>.

Zarsky, Lyuba. “Global Reach: Human Rights and Environment in the Framework of Corporate Accountability.” Human Rights and the Environment: Conflicts and Norms in a Globalizing World. Ed. Lyuba Zarsky. London: Earthscan Publications, 2002. 31-54.

28