An op-ed article by Chinese Ambassador Ma Jia that took up an entire page in the Global New Light of Myanmar earlier this week listed China’s comparatively generous humanitarian assistance to the victims of March 28 earthquake.
The objective seems to be to paint a positive picture of China as a kindhearted neighbor, ready to help in times of need, and thereby combat China’s negative reputation in Myanmar. But some parts of the letter are deeply troubling
China–origin of the Irrawaddy River?
“The mighty Irrawaddy River, born in the Chinese highland, journeys through Myanmar’s heartland, fostering a long-standing friendship and integration,” the envoy writes.
The Chinese highlands?
According to UNESCO, “Tributaries originating high in Myanmar’s northern mountains flow south before joining northeast of Myitkyina to form” the Irrawaddy. And the Environmental Literacy Council, a nonprofit organization focused on providing educational resources on environmental science and policy, states that the Mali Hka and the N’mai Hka, which together form the Irrawaddy River, originate in the glacier-covered regions of Myanmar’s far north, close to the border with Tibet.
Using Google Maps, we can trace the tributaries of the Mali Hka and N’mai Hka rivers and observe that they all originate within the boundaries of Myanmar’s Kachin State.
It is a well-known and widely accepted fact that the Irrawaddy is not an international river shared by multiple countries, but rather Myanmar’s national river, as it originates and flows entirely within the country’s borders.
Is Ma Jia slyly asserting that northern Kachin State, where these tributaries originate, belongs to China? To put it bluntly, is China planning to annex northern parts of the state, which is rich in minerals it covets, including rare earths and gold?
The junta, the parallel National Unity Government, and ethnic armed organizations ought surely to demand an immediate explanation from the ambassador. The question is too important to overlook as it touches on Myanmar’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
If the envoy cannot offer a credible explanation, the people of Myanmar have been put on notice that China may be preparing to act against their interests. If it was simply a mistake, the Global New Light of Myanmar can print a correction.
Charm offensive
Ma states that the earthquake “deeply moved the hearts” of the Chinese people, who “sincerely pray for the victims, offer condolences, and promise to contribute 1.1 billion yuan for emergency rescue, epidemic prevention and control, and recovery and reconstruction.”
She insists that China was “the first” to provide relief and humanitarian assistance and did “the most.” According to reports, India got there ahead of time, but it is true that China sent nearly 30 civilian rescue teams totaling over 600 people. These, she claims, rescued the “most” survivors.
The people of Myanmar are grateful to all countries including China that provided support, big or small, to the earthquake victims. But this support cannot outweigh China’s continued backing for the military regime that is killing them every day.
Promoting peace, the Chinese way
“China has actively assisted Myanmar in advancing the peace process in northern Myanmar based on the wishes and demands of relevant parties,” Ma writes.
It has certainly leaned heavily on some of the parties: coercing the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA) to relinquish Lashio to the junta; trying to force the Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA) to stop fighting and hand over territories it has gained; and pushing the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD) to take part in the junta’s sham elections. These all go against the wishes and demands of the relevant parties—except one, the junta.
‘Pauk-phaw’ relationship
Ma insists that China is a “friendly neighbor” with a “pauk-phaw” or sibling relationship. China and Myanmar have behind them a “shared struggle against colonialism and imperialism,” she claims, and recalls that Myanmar was the first country to recognize the People’s Republic of China—a watershed moment for China’s international relations.
The two countries, she goes on, are “geographically close, culturally linked, and share Buddhist ties.” China, for its part, stands for “equality, mutual benefit, and common development among countries big and small,” as well as “win-win cooperation.”
“The world is undergoing a once-in-a-century transformation,” she continues, “and Asia stands at a new starting point for revitalization, facing development opportunities and risks that are both unprecedented.” The ambassador clearly means to rally Asians behind China and against the U.S. trade war of President Donald Trump.
But the attempt is queasily reminiscent of Japanese propaganda strategy during WW II, when Japan portrayed itself as a “liberator” from the western colonial yoke and sought to build a “Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere” with fire and sword.
Should Myanmar be worried?
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine proves that smaller countries have plenty of reasons to be fearful of big ones, and that the annexation by brute force of parts of another sovereign nation is once again a real threat these days.
China’s insistence on a “blood connection” and its description of the relationship with Myanmar as deeply rooted in geography, culture, and shared Buddhist faith invites troubling questions. Can the day be far away when China seeks to exert even greater control over Myanmar than it does now?
The ambassador’s letter serves as a vital reminder for Myanmar to remain ever alert and strategically cautious in its interactions with its big neighbors, China included.
