PC: Burma as Asian Congo

[Revolutionary Avocado]

I was wondering whether or not it is plausible that Burma, despite being screwed up (although improving) today, becomes substantially worse and by the modern day reaches the point of chaos, internal bloodshed and underdevelopment that characterizes the DRC? The factors that I think give it this possibility are substantial resource reserves, a fragile political system (at least until 1964), large and potentially predatory neighbours, and an ongoing Cold War where proxy wars, especially many-sided proxy wars, could get messy.

My idea for a POD is that Ne Win does not launch a coup d'etat in 1962 after slipping in the shower and breaking his neck. The Burmese army therefore holds off for another 4-5 years in launching a coup, by which time the political situation has deteriorated and the country is plagued by increasingly intense ethnic insurgencies. To make matters worse, the 1967 coup is only partially successful as the military splinters, and U Nu's government flees to zones under its control, backed by loyalist army units. This starts a multi-sided civil war, with various ethnic militias fighting each other and the two governments. To make matters worse, the USA and USSR each recognize different ruling regimes, while various ethnic groups are covertly supported by smaller players (Kachin and Shan groups by China, Karen groups by Thailand, the Rohingya by Pakistan, etc.). After roughly a decade, the American-backed government implodes, pushing the Americans towards support for various ethnic militias backed by their allies.

By the modern day, a central "transitional" government rules from Yangon and barely controls most majority Burman regions, while the rest of the country is a seething mess of ethnically motivated conflicts and "blood minerals", awash in a sea of old Soviet weapons. Is this plausible? Or too much of a nation-screw?

 

[Enigmajones]

Well in my timeline, Burma has a white minority government installed in the 30's, George Orwell being a large part of it, and they proceed to fight off the Shan rebels along with the various ethnicities. By the time the 90's roll around, the white government is toppled and Burma becomes a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

 

[Unconsensual]

It's possible but with the clout of the regional powers: China and India who can offer sanctuary as well as soldiers would probably outperform them.

The USSR would have it's European and African spheres of interest first, SE Asia was a secondary theater at best. Look at their half-heart support of Vietnam in OTL.

The USA would be hesitant at best, the culture was dominantly anti-war by the late 60's. Assuming it was seen as a part of the Vietnamese theater, it would be politically difficult to keep supporting them there into the 70's. No one would want another Vietnam (assuming Vietnam fails like OTL) and the army's prestige was at a all time low.

The best contenders would be China and India, both have a direct interest as their neighbour. China in addition has an ideological incentive (though it was fading by the 80s ). Neither the Chinese or Indians would want a American-backed nation as a neighbor and both would go to great length to deny the other control.

Chances are the only acceptable solution was either a local nationalists that wins or Burma is split into two nations allied with their respective Indian/Chinese backers. (so an acceptable buffer zone)

The point is, regime instability in the Cold war for this part of the world so close to regional powers would not be tolerated.

 

[Revolutionary Avocado]

It's possible but with the clout of the regional powers: China and India who can offer sanctuary as well as soldiers would probably outperform them.

The USSR would have it's European and African spheres of interest first, SE Asia was a secondary theater at best. Look at their half-heart support of Vietnam in OTL.

The USA would be hesitant at best, the culture was dominantly anti-war by the late 60's. Assuming it was seen as a part of the Vietnamese theater, it would be politically difficult to keep supporting them there into the 70's. No one would want another Vietnam (assuming Vietnam fails like OTL) and the army's prestige was at a all time low.

I agree with you here, and I think India (which would likely choose to side with the Soviet-backed government and would be its main supplier) and China (which might actually invade the interior to establish puppet regimes for resource extraction) would be the primary actors, along with an alliance of Western-aligned states like Indonesia, Thailand and Taiwan.

I think though that superpower interference (not intervention) would be a real thing. While the USSR would provide half-hearted support in the form of arms and covert technical advisors, likely so would the USA. It would be a more classical proxy war done through regional power allies and local proxies. The even lack of attention paid to the conflict there would extend its duration and it would likely end up being largely a forgotten issue without the deployment of American troops there. I also think the existence of ethnic separatism would be important. Even if a unified Burmese government can come into being, it would only control the Burman majority areas and would struggle to regain control over the ethnic interior.

The best contenders would be China and India, both have a direct interest as their neighbour. China in addition has an ideological incentive (though it was fading by the 80s ). Neither the Chinese or Indians would want a American-backed nation as a neighbour and both would go to great length to deny the other control.

Chances are the only acceptable solution was either a local nationalists that wins or Burma is split into two nations allied with their respective Indian/Chinese backers. (so an acceptable buffer zone)

The point is, regime instability in the Cold war for this part of the world so close to regional powers would not be tolerated.

Again, I agree with your arguments in some ways, but I think the outcome would be somewhat different. I think that the Indo-Soviet supported regime would end up winning the civil war, but would end up with a poisoned chalice of broken populations and infrastructure and a need to reconquer the interior of the country. You could end up with a Burman-majority coastal state, with the interior regions being de-facto annexed to China, while remaining technically under Maoist "independent peoples' governments". This could set China up for issues of internal stability (would be harder to hold down then Tibet) and foreign isolation. Pakistan could also be an issue, I might try to back anti-Indian Burman forces, support the ethnic militias in the interior by way of China, support Rohingya Islamist rebels, or all three at once.

Finally, I think that it is quite likely that an area of instability could be tolerated by the superpowers in Burma, as long as it was a neutral area of instability. I think if Burma was chaotic enough for regional powers to avoid actually deploying troops to the region, it might be tolerated as an area of substantial bloodshed and intrigue, as long as it remained unoccupied by Indian or Chinese or American troops. China and India are unlikely to come to direct blows over Burma, so I don't see why it wouldn't be tolerated for Burma to be a pit of unrelenting violence that no one wants to touch with a ten-foot pole, but is perfectly happy dumping arms into.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Well in my timeline, Burma has a white minority government installed in the 30's, George Orwell being a large part of it, and they proceed to fight off the Shan rebels along with the various ethnicities. By the time the 90's roll around, the white government is toppled and Burma becomes a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

Orwell? The anti-stalinian guy? the guy who criticised both the far left AND the colonialism and all? ASB. He'd fight ALONG REBELS.

 

[Æsir]

How many whites were even in Burma to create a Rhodesia-esque regime?

 

[The Ubbergeek]

How many whites were even in Burma to create a Rhodesia-esque regime?

Now, a darker even twist maybe - use indians instead.

 

[Revolutionary Avocado]

Now, a darker even twist maybe - use indians instead.

Interesting idea. Maybe the British keep the region as part of the Raj?

 

[Enigmajones]

Orwell? The anti-stalinian guy? the guy who criticised both the far left AND the colonialism and all? ASB. He'd fight ALONG REBELS.

George Orwell was not always George Orwell. Having Eric Blair return home, meet and marry his long time friend, Jacintha Buddicom, return to Burma and become a lifelong member of the police, would certainly change his perspective. Men are not made, they are formed. All I did, what everyone here does, was mold the clay a little differently.

 

[Enigmajones]

How many whites were even in Burma to create a Rhodesia-esque regime?

There is additional migration of Anglo-Indians to Burma in the late 30's and 40's, as India becomes more and more hostile towards the Raj government. When the Indian War happens, Burma, along with Ceylon and Pakistan, remain the easiest points of control for the Commonwealth, against the, largely, communist Republic of India. A second wave of colonization occurs after Australian, Malaysian and Canadian forces, who were often stationed in Burma, settled in the country, after either marrying the local white population, or marrying into the much larger Eurasian community, who formed the second class in the caste system of Burma.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Well in my timeline, Burma has a white minority government installed in the 30's, George Orwell being a large part of it, and they proceed to fight off the Shan rebels along with the various ethnicities. By the time the 90's roll around, the white government is toppled and Burma becomes a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

A white colonial state in Asia? That's an interesting concept. Did the British Raj have a white minority government?

 

[Mr.J]

A white colonial state in Asia? That's an interesting concept. Did the British Raj have a white minority government?

For all intents and purposes, yes? The Raj was run at high level by whites, and run almost entirely for the interests of whites. They used some local talent, sure, but it wasn't exactly Home Rule.

 

[Enigmajones]

A white colonial state in Asia? That's an interesting concept. Did the British Raj have a white minority government?

In my timeline it happens as a result of delayed decolonization. Ceylon, Burma and Indonesia come to mind. Although Indonesia is more Eurasian then actual white.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Interesting idea. Maybe the British keep the region as part of the Raj?

I wonder if by example a vague 'pan Indianism (well, pan Indian subcontinent') can rise and take helm, if the POD is pushed farther.,...

With an aim a bit like Han nationalism, who claim ALL that the Qing held, even if they where Manchus... Excuse for local indians to take power as Britishes leave... or are forced out...

 

[Kishan]

A white dominated minority regime similar to Rhodesia or South Africa was quite unlikely in Burma as there were not many white people in Burma.If Burma was not seperated from India administratively years before independence, it might have remained a part of India at the time of independence.Then the formation of a free Burma would have been based on the choice of the Burmese people.Burma has more cultural and ethnic differences with India than Nepal, SriLanka or Bangladesh.Hence Burma might have preferred a seperate identity if the people were given a choice.