As I was reading the news pouring out of Burma this morning, a BBC article caught my eye… should we be referring to Burma or Myanmar when we speak of the loud calls for democratic reform coming out of the protests in Southeast Asia? While Myanmar is the country’s official name, says the BBC, Burma is its traditional name and that used by the democratic opposition and other states (like the United States and the UK) that do not support the incumbent military regime. While both names are accepted internationally, a speaker’s choice of Burma or Myanmar can sometimes indicate a political position.
This got me thinking. Here at CIPE, we try to be very careful with words – even seemingly small subtleties of meaning can imply hugely different things. Oversight and overlook can make for an amusing sentence when they are interchanged, but more seriously, while collaborate and cooperate have very similar meanings, in some areas of the world collaborate has a fascist connotation. Crucially, CIPE communicates that it seeks democratic and economic development. Since the two are so intimately connected in practice (CIPE’s mission is to strengthen democracy THROUGH private enterprise and market-oriented reform), it would almost be misleading to talk about “economic reform” alone.
In diplomacy and the practice of international relations, just one word can be the difference between a successful peace agreement and failed negotiations. While a leader may not wish to appear rude or hostile, a nuance in tone can have disastrous consequences. Likewise, even small efforts at politeness and coexistence can go a long way.
While what really matters in Burma, rightly noted by human rights groups, is not if the international community ultimately decides on Burma or Myanmar, but rather the success of current calls for reform and the end of human rights abuses. Still, it’s worth a second thought… what are we really trying to say?
Published Date: September 28, 2007