UNIVERSITEIT UTRECHT
Britain’s Colonial Baggage
The Influence of the Colonial Past on Britain’s
Contemporary Stance Regarding Burma
Eva Spear
1/24/2013
Thesis for the MA programme ‘International Relations in Historical Perspective’ - Recent political
developments have led to increased international attention for Burma. This popularity surge was
used to the advantage of this study; as a popular topic in the press, the results of comparative
newspaper analysis were used to establish to what degree the colonial past and colonial discourse
influence Britain’s stance on its former colony Burma, which, forming the exception, was never part
of the Commonwealth.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 2
Historiographical context ................................................................................................. 3
Former British colony Burma and choice of research ..................................................... 5
Forms of colonialism ....................................................................................................... 7
Imperialism ...................................................................................................................... 8
Colonial independence ................................................................................................... 11
Legacy of the British empire: The Commonwealth ....................................................... 12
2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 14
Quantitative research ..................................................................................................... 14
Qualitative research and colonial discourse ................................................................... 17
3. ANGLO-BURMESE HISTORY ........................................................................................... 19
The colonial era.............................................................................................................. 19
Independence ................................................................................................................. 20
Post-independence ......................................................................................................... 23
4. DISCOURSE, AND COLONIAL DISCOURSE WITHIN BRITAIN ........................................... 24
Manifestations of colonial discourse in Britain ............................................................. 26
5. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH : BRITAIN ’S PRESENT STANCE WITH REGARD TO BURMA;
INFLUENCED BY THE COLONIAL PAST? .............................................................................. 30
2002 – May 6; Aung San Suu Kyi release from house arrest ........................................ 33
2003 – May 30; Aung San Suu Kyi house arrest renewed ............................................ 35
2009 – August 11; detention is extended by eighteen months....................................... 36
2010 - November 13; Aung San Suu Kyi released from house arrest ........................... 37
2012 - January 18; Aung San Suu Kyi registers for by elections .................................. 40
2012 - April 1; Suu Kyi wins seat in Parliament ........................................................... 43
Partial conclusion ........................................................................................................... 47
6. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 49
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 52
Page | 1
1
INTRODUCTION
‘Speaking of ‘colonial legacies’ entails in the first place acknowledging this shared history of colonial
relations, and suggests that they are still largely structuring; this does not mean however that such a legacy is
necessarily acknowledged, in both a legal and a cognitive sense, by the potential heirs.’
Benoit De L’Estoile, The Past as it Lives Now: An Anthropology of Colonial Legacies
In his essay on colonial legacies, Benoit De L’Estoile discusses the influence of the
colonial past on the present. Whereas there appears to be a tendency in France to refuse to
address the colonial past, England ‘explicitly aims at establishing a link between the empire
of yesterday and both Britain and the Commonwealth of today.’1 On the other hand, there
also exists the notion that also in Britain the imperial past would rather be forgotten. At least,
one of the reasons why the BBC launched the documentary series Empire, was with the
purpose to address this denial.2
Whether colonial history still plays a role in British perspectives on their former colonies
is the general question which led me to undertake the following study. The Commonwealth
being one of the obvious remnants of colonial legacy, the above question initially leads to
considering this particular institution. The answer appears to be pointing to the affirmative,
considering that Britain’s present stance towards Commonwealth members is probably rooted
in the original ideals of the Commonwealth. However, the British stance toward colonies
outside the Commonwealth is less explored, and doing so could lead to more insight into
British post-colonial relations.
The narrowing down of the subject resulted in choosing one particular former British
colony; Burma. In short, but further elaborated on below, this choice was motivated by
Burma’s recent political transition, and the fact that it is not a member of the Commonwealth.
Since Aung San Suu Kyi’s first efforts to confront Burma’s military regime, the country has
increasingly received international attention. Her dedication to improve the political situation
1 Benoit De L’Estoile, ‘The Past as it Lives Now: An Anthropology of Colonial Legacies’, Social Anthropology, vol. 16, no. 3 (2008) pp.
267-79, 274.
2 Peter Pomerantsev, ‘BBC Series Empire Confronts British with Colonial Past’ (version 12 March 2012)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/03/11/bbc-series-empire-confronts-british-with-colonial-past.html. (15 October 2012).
Page | 2
has reaped benefits over the past years and is shown by signs that Burma is indeed moving
towards becoming a democracy. As a non-Commonwealth member and a former British
colony, the question posed is, does the colonial past influence the British stance with regard
to Burma?
The structure of this dissertation begins with the introduction, which shortly covers the
research topics colonialism, imperialism and its different forms; their historiographical
contextualisation; and the idea of colonial legacy -events in the colonial past influencing and
characterising post-independence-bilateral relations. This is followed by an overview of
Burma’s recent political developments.
Chapter two further expands on the applied research methodology followed by a chapter
on the past shared by Burma and Britain which forms the background of this study, and
which is used to build upon the following chapter on colonial discourses within Britain.
Chapter five comprises empirical research in the form of comparative newspaper analysis,
and draws upon the previous two chapters in order to answer the question whether the
colonial past plays a role in contemporary British perception of Burma.
Historiographical context
The subject of this essay is, broadly stated, imperialism, and can in turn be divided up into
smaller segments. These are, for example, the effects of the era of imperialism on the present,
and more specifically, on present-day bilateral relations from Britain’s point of view; another
would be the presence of colonial discourse, and again, more specifically, present-day
colonial discourse in Britain.
The popularity of imperial history and colonial studies has experienced an upsurge over
the past decade.3 In effect, ‘writing about empires and colonialism is today more varied and
exciting than ever before’. Stephen Howe highlights the importance of ideas such as
‘American empire and a ‘“colonial present”’, but also ‘the persisting and mutating forms of
less formal influence both by the former colonial powers and by others; the ever-increasingly
important presence of people of non-European origin in the advanced industrial countries – of
migration, diasporisation, multi-ethnicity, cultural syncretism; the rise to global
3 Stephen Howe, ‘ Imperial and Colonial History’ (2008) http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/articles/imperial_post_colonial
_history.html. (15 October 2012) and Frederick Cooper, Colonialism in Question. Theory, Knowledge, History. (University of California:
2005), 3.
Page | 3
significance’4, that have contributed to this popularity. Connected to this is the increase in
attention for, and growth of the transitional justice field5. The effects of the colonial past in
this regard are increasingly being acknowledged, taking the form of, for instance, feelings of
guilt and indebtedness by former colonial occupiers for past wrongs and atrocities.
When it comes to imperial history’s place in society, the following can be said: Research
on the effects of empire in Britain has of yet not led to satisfying results, as, stated by Howe,
‘assessment of the historical place of empire in British life is still marked by stark polarity
between silent assumptions about its utter marginality and vociferous ones about its centrality
or ubiquity’6 It is with these thoughts in mind that this research aims to make a humble
contribution to further clarification regarding empire and its place in Britain.
Furthermore, the development of theories within the field of imperial history can be
called marginal. The main debates revolve(d) around Hobson, Robinson and Gallagher, and
later Edward Said.7 Different points of view as to imperial history’s lacking viability can be
considered: One of them is the often mentioned British pragmatic mentality in connection to
the end of empire, but which can also be linked to the academic field concerning the subject.
This British pragmatism caused Britain to smoothly move on from their imperial losses,
according to this theory’s proponents, looking forward instead of backward.8 Whether it is
indeed pragmatism or perhaps avoidance of a still sensitive subject9, it could be argued that
imperial history as a subject of study sparked little enthusiasm within a society driven by this
mentality. The lack of critical engagement and interaction between ‘political, economic and
strategic studies of global power on the one hand, and work by literary and cultural-studies
scholars interested in the cultures and discourses of imperialism, on the other’10, is named by
Howe and also by Frederick Cooper as hampering development of imperial history theories11.
Also in this regard does this study seek to make a difference: The combination of
international relations from an historical perspective with ideas belonging to discourse
4 Ibidem.
5 Laurel E. Fletcher, Harvey M. Weinstein, Jamie Rowen ‘Context, Timing and the Dynamics of Transitional Justice: A Historical
Perspective’ in: Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 31, Number 1, February 2009, pp.
163-220, 167.
6 Stephen Howe, ‘ Imperial and Colonial History’ (2008)
http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/articles/imperial_post_colonial_history.html. (15 October 2012).
7 Ibidem.
8 Stuart Ward ed. (Manchester: 2001) British Culture and the End of Empire 3
9 Frederick Cooper, Colonialism in Question. Theory, Knowledge, History. (University of California: 2005), 7.
10 Stephen Howe, ‘ Imperial and Colonial History’ (2008)
http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/articles/imperial_post_colonial_history.html. (15 October 2012).
11 Frederick Cooper, Colonialism in Question. Theory, Knowledge, History. (University of California: 2005), 6.
Page | 4
studies; specifically colonial discourse, form the context in which imperial history and its
influence on the present is studied.
Former British colony Burma and choice of research
Key in British post-colonial relations was the British Commonwealth. The goal of this
organisation was the sustainment of Britain’s relationships between its former colonies, in
which the promotion of democracy and economic development played a main role. In the
past, Britain has indeed shown itself to feel responsible for promoting these ideals as it did,
for example, in former Rhodesia under Mugabe, now Zimbabwe12. But do the former colonial
ties (still) remain to play a role in British post-colonial relations? Britain is known to be a
society ‘in which historical thinking is particularly important and prominent’13. This
statement adds strength to the supposition that Britain’s imperial past still influences current
perspectives.
Burma is a former British colony and, forming the exception, chose not to be part of the
Commonwealth. Looking at Commonwealth members and Britain’s behaviour towards them
as founding member of this organisation, Britain has shown interest in the welfare of its
former colonies. Presumably, this interest is rooted in a shared colonial past. But does the
same apply to Britain’s former colonies outside the Commonwealth, meaning; is the
Commonwealth the main supporting link between the colonial past and Britain? The answer
to this question serves to clarify to what degree the colonial past still is an influence, and tests
the assumption that ‘modern British foreign policy cannot be explained without careful
attention to the ... impact of the past’14.
Now would be a good time to pose this question, as British former colony Burma, an
exclusive non-member of the Commonwealth, is in the middle of democratic transition which
could draw out a British reaction. But how to go about establishing whether or not colonial
history influences Britain’s stance towards Burma?
Newly independent states slipping into authoritarian regimes and dictatorships appeared to
be a common phenomenon. An often discussed topic, especially at the end of the Cold War—
12 David Sanders, Losing an Empire, Finding a Role. British Foreign Policy since 1945 (New York: 1989), 110/111.
13 Christopher Hill, ‘The Historical Background. Past and Present in British Foreign Policy’ in: Michael Smith, Steve Smith and Brian
White (eds), British Foreign Policy: Tradition, Change and Transformation (London: 1988), 24-25.
14 Hill, ‘The Historical Background’, 25.
Page | 5
after the ‘victory of liberalism’—is the development of these countries into stable democracies.
Indeed, many of these colonies have recently been labeled as legitimate democracies, during
what is termed ‘the third wave of democracy’.15 Examples include Indonesia, Taiwan, South
Korea, and Thailand. It may very well be that the next country which can be added to this list is
Burma. Since Aung San Suu Kyi’s political ascent, the eyes of the international community
have increasingly focused on this country, watching all political movement hinting at
democratisation. The importance of recent events in Burma connected to democratisation is
reflected by its popularity in the press. It is why so many people have heard of Aung San Suu
Kyi, and that she is a woman who has won the Nobel Peace Prize.
It is said that there exists an interactive relationship between the press on the one hand,
and the opinion of the public and political elite on the other. The press thus reflects part of a
country’s character. Every country has its own national discourse(s) which frames the
particular way of documenting about certain events in the world.16 Additionally, Burma is a
popular topic in the press. These two points taken together made newspaper research a logical
choice to establish Britain’s stance. But perhaps even more popular, and more widely known,
is Aung San Suu Kyi. There are plenty of reasons explaining her fame. She is a Nobel peace
prize winner, has lead a nonviolent and persistent battle in the name of human rights and
democracy; she is a woman in the male-dominated world of international politics. Without a
doubt, Aung San Suu Kyi’s popularity has reached international proportions, regardless of
whether countries are tied in some way or other to Burma, or not.
Britain and Burma share a common history, but is this reflected in the press? Are there
references to the colonial past, and if yes, more so than in other countries’ newspapers? What
is the nature of these references? These are questions that arose whilst trying to establish the
answer to the main research question. To discover whether and to what extent Britain’s
stance towards Burma is influenced by the colonial past, an analysis of British news coverage
was made by comparing it to coverage of a foreign newspaper.
Aung San Suu Kyi was chosen as the keyword used to look up articles. As was
previously stated, she is internationally known for her achievements as a person, not always
in connection to Burma or the Burmese past, although for the outside world, Burma often
15 Peter J. Schraeder (ed), Exporting Democracy: Rhetoric vs Reality (Boulder: 2002), 2.
16 John E,. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers. An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis (London: 2007), 21.
Page | 6
enough equals Aung San Suu Kyi.17 Whilst measuring the extent of the influence of colonial
history on British perspectives, choosing a subject which could be separated from Burmese
colonial history--but offers the possibility that it could be linked to it as well--was felt to
contribute to the quality of the research. The amount of times the link between the two was
made, was taken to be an indication of the level of interest in the colonial past, and as
effecting the present. Furthermore, since Aung San Suu Kyi’s political ascent, highlighted
events in her life involve and represent highlighted and important events in Burma. The
relevance of the set amount of newspaper articles is therefore guaranteed by using her name
as the keyword.
The newspaper articles selected for comparison, cover six events which took place within
a time frame of ten years, from May 2002, to May 2012. These dates were decided upon after
considering a certain set of various events in Burma leading up to Aung San Suu Kyi’s final
release and political victory. The six events make up the testing points within the ten-year
time span.
The objective of this study is to find out if the British press reflects a sense of a shared
past between Burma and Britain. This was done by checking whether there is a difference
between what British, and foreign newspapers have said about Burma’s democratic transition
led by Aung San Suu Kyi, and if this difference can be explained by Britain and Burma’s
shared colonial history. Additionally, it was attempted to characterise how British
newspapers report on Burma.
Forms of colonialism
The British empire was unique in the way that no other European colonial force came
anywhere near its colonial achievements; none of them peopled the world to such a(n)
(lasting) extent, or surpassed the territorial expanse of the British empire. Furthermore, a
commonly held view is that the British unintentionally conquered half of the world: it just
happened. This cannot be said about the other colonial powers who actively sought expansion
driven by economic, ideological, demographical or political goals.18 These are examples of
what typifies British colonial history from that of other countries.
17 Elske Schouten, ‘Birma is veel meer dan de gevangen oppositieleider; Ligging maakt Birma belangrijk voor China en India’, NRC
Handelsblad, 13 November 2010.
18 Hendrik Lodewijk Wesseling, Europa’s Koloniale Eeuw: De Koloniale Rijken in de Negentiende Eeuw, 1815-1919 (Amsterdam: 2003)
367.
Page | 7
‘Colonial policy tends to follow, even if at a distance, domestic policy’19. Thus, each
European power’s colonialism, and later imperialism, had its own characteristics explained
by factors such as domestic policy. The same applies to the process of colonial independence;
each colonial occupier reacted differently to the release of its colonies.
Colonial history can be seen as constituting different episodes depending on the point of
view/interpretation of the historic observer. From a Eurocentric point of view, colonialism
began in the fifteenth century with Columbus’ discovery of America. The colonial character
markedly changed at the end of the nineteenth century, and came to be known as the period
of imperialism. The Age of Imperialism lasted from 1870 to 191420 and differed from
colonialism in the sense that the colonial powers actively started ruling over non-European
populations. This was justified by the civilising mission; also known as the white man’s
burden.
Imperialism
A new phase in the colonial period had started by the end of the nineteenth century,
known as the age of modern imperialism. The British economist J.A. Hobson provided the
word with its current meaning; ‘the recent expansion ( ‘annexed or otherwise asserted
political sway over vast portions of Africa and Asia [...]’) of Great Britain and the chief
continental Powers’21. Although imperialism was a European phenomenon, each European
country had its own form of imperialism, distinguishable by its own characteristics as are
described below.
Wesseling concludes that French imperialism was not so much rooted in economic
considerations but first and foremost in political ones. France felt the need to regain its
former might and glory, and retake its leading role on the world stage.
Additionally, there was a humanitarian motive. According to the French, it was the duty
of the superior races to help civilise the inferior ones. The colonial ideology never gained
immense support and popularity in France. Most French were happy and content in France,
and on top of that, the French empire was not very profitable.22
19 Furnivall, Colonial Policy and Practice, 7.
20 John B. Judis, ‘History Lesson’ New Republic vol. 228, no. 22 (2003).
21 Wesseling, Europa’s Koloniale Eeuw, 180-181.
22 Ibidem.
Page | 8
The German colonial empire lasted no more than thirty years and was of little importance
with regard to its economic benefits. Bismarck played a leading role in the undertaking of
colonial activities. Different interpretations exist as to what motivated Bismarck in his drive
for expansionism; ranging from economic, to strategic and nationalist motives. With
Bismarck’s departure from the leading political stage, German colonialism attained a
somewhat whimsical character. It was influenced by different leading figures, all of whom
had very differing ideas and goals, with annexations here and there. Although active on
different continents, German imperialism never achieved the might of that of the French,
British, or Dutch.23
Belgian imperialism was instigated by King Leopold the Second, who was inspired by the
(economic) success of the Dutch in the Dutch-Indies. Although the Belgian gouvernment was
not at all interested in attaining colonial possessions, Leopold went ahead and annexed a
large swathe of African land which would be known as the Belgian Congo. Leopold’s
motives were purely economic, and the profits were used to beautify his home country.24
Although the Netherlands was only a minor player in the European political theatre and as
such could not claim to be imperialist, it assumed a big role in colonial politics, Asia in
particular. Dutch colonialism was in that regard unique.
The Dutch tactic did not change extensively during the imperialist period: The Dutch
focus remained on their own possessions instead of looking to add new colonies. For the
Dutch it was a matter of deepening Dutch authority within their territories instead of aspiring
to spread Dutch influence across the world. Additionally, Wesseling states that Dutch
colonialism shared quite some similarities to that of the British. Both were “sated” powers;
boasting successful colonial achievements, in effect provoking feelings of rivalry and envy
from the “have-nots” such as Germany and Japan amongst others.25 Wesseling is not the only
one to be noticing resemblances; Schaper’s impression of Dutch imperialism is that of
‘reluctant imperialism’, a kind which is often used to describe that of the British; one which
is undertaken with a certain hesitation.26
The height of British imperialism was in the years between 1880 and 1914. Over time
different views have developed on why Britain felt forced to exert political sway over its
colonies, resulting in imperialism. Instead of the economic explanation there is the widely
23 Ibidem.
24 Ibidem, 194.
25 Ibidem, 199.
26 B. Schaper, ‘Nieuwe opvattingen over het moderne imperialisme’ BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review, vol. 86, no.1 (1971) pp. 420, 8.
Page | 9
held view of pragmatic “reluctant” British imperialism27, explained by defensive and
strategic motives. Power struggles in Europe had started posing a threat to Britain’s former
unassailable, superior position: The French wish for expansion in Africa; Russian
imperialism in Asia. Certainly starting off with a strategic character, British imperialism was
soon to be driven by different motives as colonial ideologies started developing in England as
also in the rest of Europe.
Chamberlain, Kipling, and Rhodes belonged to some of the important proponents of the
developing colonial ideology in Britain. This ideology promoted British expansionism, the
quality of the British race. Chamberlain believed that in the future Russia and the United
States would become forces to be reckoned with, and in order to keep up with them Britain
should be keeping a firm hold on its imperial acquisitions. Chamberlain’s motives for
imperialism were as such primarily economic, with the emphasis on development,
exploitation and investment.28
The British Empire was the biggest of all, and at its height encompassed around a quarter
of the globe and world population. As stated by Wesseling, what made the British Empire
stand out, was the very slow process of imperial expansion and the fact that it covered a range
of demographic and economic; as well as political and cultural elements.29
Britain would come to occupy an enormous territory in Asia, known as British India. This
part of the empire comprised present-day India, Malaysia and Burma. India, which would
become the crown jewel of the British Empire, had already been under British rule at the time
of the French Revolution. During the nineteenth century Singapore and Malaysia were added,
and ultimately Burma.
The slow process of Burmese incorporation within the empire started off with the first
British Burmese War, in 1824. The war erupted after conflicts between Britain and Burma
about the Burmese-Bengal border. In 1826 the war was ended by the signing of the Yandaboo
Treaty. The treaty dictated the payment of war reparations by the Burmese, in the form of
handing over tracts of Burmese lands to the British. They were also compelled to accept the
presence of a British Resident in the Burmese capital. The ending of the war did not mark the
beginning of a peaceful episode. Anglo-Burmese relations were marked by conflicts all the
way up to the eruption of a second war in 1852. This war would also last two years, and lead
27 Richard E. Vale, ‘What Impact did Decolonization have on Britain’ (version: 22 May 2012) http://www.e-ir.info/2012/05/22/whatimpact-did-decolonisation-have-on-britain/ (5 October 2012), 1.
28 Wesseling, Europa’s Koloniale Eeuw, 183.
29 Ibidem, 182.
Page | 10
to the annexing of more Burmese lands by the British. All of Burma would eventually be
occupied by the end of a third British-Burmese war in 1886. It would take five more years
before Britain managed to establish their official rule in the country, after which it became a
province of the British raj.30
The official end of colonial occupation coincided with the end of World War II. It could
be argued that another episode with regard to colonialism started after colonial independence:
Post-colonial relations between the former colonial powers and their ex-colonies; bilateral
relations influenced by a shared colonial past. What characterised for example DutchIndonesian relations was, amongst other things, Dutch feelings of guilt with regard to human
rights violations committed during the colonial era, towards the indigenous Indonesian
population.31 There are other factors that explain the character of specific bilateral relations;
for example, the presence of former colonial occupiers could be felt more strongly, for a
longer period of time in one country than another: The French presence in Algeria was
markedly stronger for a longer period of time than the German presence in Namibia.
Colonial independence
At the end of World War II, not only Britain, but all other colonial occupiers were obliged
to give up their overseas possessions. Colonies received their own entitlement to
independence, a universal right fervently supported by the new super power, the United
States. The European countries were in no position to disagree after the shattering effects of
the War, and were forced to consent and go along with these new developments. Each
European country reacted differently to the impending independence of their former colonies.
The Dutch departure from their former colonies for example was not as smooth as that of
the British, but also not as problematic as that of the French.32 Especially for the former
occupiers as opposed to their former colonies, independence did not mean the end of the
matter. The Dutch expected Dutch-Indonesian cooperation at the very least, according to
Drooglever.33 Further on, Drooglever mentions that this very thought still affects Dutch
30 Ibidem, 298.
31 Gillian Sharpe ‘As Indonesia Celebrates 50 Years of Freedom, Its Former Colonial Master Confronts Its Past.’ Christian Science Monitor
vol. 87, no. 184 (1995), 8.
32 William David MacIntyre, British Decolonization, 1946-1997: When, Why and How did the British Empire Fall? (Basingstoke: 1998),
131.
33 Drooglever, ‘Dekolonisatie in twintig delen’, pp. 464-472.
Page | 11
perspectives on Indonesia,34 supporting the idea that processes rooted in the colonial past still
play a role in contemporary relations.
Britain knew that colonialism would eventually lead to independence. This was the lesson
learnt from America’s independence.35 For this reason the British introduced responsible selfgovernment in many of their colonies, with the idea of their gradual emancipation. It was
hoped that displaying a facilitating and tolerating attitude would help foster close
relationships between Britain and its colonies, if after an indeterminable period of time
independence would indeed be reached.36
Legacy of the British Empire: The Commonwealth
The link between the Commonwealth and the British colonial past is easily made: It
started off as an organisation for countries previously constitutionally tied to Britain, among
which were its colonies. At the head stands the British monarch, so recognised by all its
members. The British Commonwealth was based on democracy and human rights, ‘AngloSaxon democratic principles’37, and has gone through a range of developments since its
inception. The Commonwealth demanded no further membership conditions, and was
primarily seen as a useful tool in North-South dialogue.38
The origins of Commonwealth perspectives can all be traced back to the late British
Empire and early British Commonwealth period.39 Late imperial Britain hoped for the
establishment of an ‘Anglo sphere’ in the form of a federal imperial entity. Two strands of
thought with regard to Commonwealth perspectives can be distinguished during inter-war
Britain; conservative and imperial on the one hand and leftist on the other. Both were
concerned with new, future roles of British Dominions and members of colonial empire, with
the goal of contributing to a ‘wider peaceful and federated world’.40
After independence most former British colonies became part of the British
Commonwealth. Commonwealth membership entailed being ‘equal in status and in no way
subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united
34 Ibidem.
35 Wesseling, Europa’s Koloniale Eeuw, 289.
36 Ibidem.
37 David Sanders, Losing an Empire, Finding a Role. British Foreign Policy since 1945 (New York: 1989), 148.
38 James Mayall, ‘Democractizing the Commonwealth’ International Affairs vol. 74, no. 2 (1998) pp. 379– 392, 380.
39 Ibidem, 388.
40 Ibidem, 389.
Page | 12
by common allegiance to the Crown’.41 Sometimes referred to as the continuation of informal
empire, the Commonwealth can be seen as the realisation of the above mentioned British
hopes. What is meant with informal empire, is that despite colonial independence, Britain had
found a new way to protect its vital interests by retaining close relationships with its former
colonies through the Commonwealth.42
In later years, the leading aspect of Britain’s role would recede and the British
Commonwealth was changed to simply the Commonwealth. Indeed, Britain has departed
from its previous and initial prerogatives to carry out organisational functions in the sixties43,
which means it has not run the Commonwealth from that point onward.44 Membership
requirements also changed, as it was no longer necessary to share a direct constitutional
relationship with Britain. An important additional development which took place at the end of
the Cold War was the added principle of economic freedom, accepted as an equation to
democratic freedom.45 Since then, the Commonwealth has reaffirmed its principles, to which
belong ‘international peace and security, democracy and human rights to, inter alia,
development, gender equality, good governance and civil society’.46 The Commonwealth can
now be seen as an international organisation rather than a British organisation.47
In his article on British North-South relations, John Vogler states that the British
character with regard to their role in the political arena expressed itself as not daring to lead,
‘except with great timidity for fear of being accused of intolerable arrogance’. Vogler
concludes that this character trait of British foreign policy; its reluctance to lead, is not a
matter of insensitivity but the result of Britain’s imperial past. But, ‘none the less the
Commonwealth remains rooted in British political consciousness.’
British hopes of a close relationship to former colonies after colonial independence,
indicating nostalgia for the former empire, is expressed by Vogler as follows: ‘A skeptical
observer might compare the function of the organization [the Commonwealth] to that of
41The Commonwealth, ‘History’
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/191086/191247/34493/history/http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/191086/191247/34493
/history/ (14 October 2012).
42 Vale, ‘What Impact did Decolonization have on Britain’, 2.
43John Vogler, 'Britain and North-South Relations', British Foreign Policy. Tradition, Change and Transformation (London: 1988) 207
44 Mayall, ‘Democractizing the Commonwealth’, 380.
45 Ibidem, 392.
46 Timothy M. Shaw and Lucian M. Ashworth, ‘Commonwealth Perspectives on International Relations’ International Affairs Vol. 86, (5),
(September 2010) p. 1149–1165, 1153..
47 Shaw, ‘Commonwealth Perspectives’, 1155.
Page | 13
methadone for the drug addict; necessary to wean the British from a psychological
dependence upon empire, but creating its own insidious problem of addiction’48. Vogler
provides an idea of how the character of British relations with its former colonies belonging
to the Commonwealth can be defined. Vogler’s article was published in 1988: Connected to
this study, the question that arises is, if Vogler’s findings can be seen as a general character
trait of British relations with its former colonies; is Britain cured from its addiction to
empire?
The structure of this dissertation is set out in a chapter explaining and legitimising this
research’s methodology followed up by a chapter on Anglo-Burmese history, which provides
this study with a background. The succeeding chapter zooms in on discourse, and further
explains the theoretical and historical analysis of this study and provides the context in which
the research is placed. Chapter five covers the empirical research and is split up by the six
events in the form of paragraphs in which the newspaper analysis is discussed; this chapter is
structured on the previous two chapters. Their aim of providing a background and context
facilitate the reaching of this study’s objective to establish whether former colonial ties still
influence part of modern British perspectives on Burma and how this influence exerts itself.
Stress is laid on “part” of the modern perspective, as only a small portion of the British press
was subjected to analysis.
2
METHODOLOGY
Quantitative research
The main question of this study is: Do colonial ties play a role in British
perception/discourse on Burma, as represented by the media? The type of media that was
chosen to be analysed were newspapers; two British newspapers and two foreign ones. ‘The
sourcing and construct of the news is intimately linked with the actions and opinions of
(usually powerful) social groups’49. Additionally, newspapers fall under ‘[m]ass production
and distribution of message systems [that] transform[s] selective private perspectives into
48 John Vogler, ‘Britain and North-South Relations’ in: Michael Smith, Steve Smith and Brian White (eds), British Foreign Policy:
Tradition, Change and Transformation (London: 1988), 205.
49 Richardson, Analysing Newspapers, 1.
Page | 14
broad public perspectives’.50 Concluding from the above, I built on the assumption that
national newspapers represent a part of a national society and vice versa.
It could be argued that the more popular the newspaper, the larger the group within
society that is being represented by the newspaper. For this study, it was chosen to include
one broadsheet and one popular newspaper per country, in order to broaden the representative
account of each national society. The undertaking of a broader research project, including
more newspapers, was prohibited by the fixed amount of space and time as dictated by the
study programme. In effect, this means that the media analysed in this study can only count
as a representation of a narrow segment of society.
The choice was made to first and foremost look at the most popular British broadsheet,
and additionally at the most popular British tabloid. These were compared to a foreign
broadsheet and tabloid. The function of the latter is solely that of neutral standard, serving
first and foremost to facilitate the characterisation of Britain’s stance, and whether indeed it
has been influenced by the colonial past.
The Netherlands was selected as the comparative neutral standard. Dutch newspaper
coverage on the same topic within the same time period was compared to that of the British.
The search for a neutral standard demanded a choice of country with a comparable colonial
past and a relatively similar society to that of Britain. The reasoning behind this is that the
smaller the differences between both factors to be compared, the more the subtle differences
stand out.
Coming to terms with the colonial past is a topic the Netherlands can relate to. The Dutch
post-colonial debate manifests itself in for example the Rawagede lawsuit and the
inauguration of the Slave Monument in 2002. Furthermore, during the colonial era the Dutch
presence, like the British, was strongly felt in South East Asia. Thus, it would not be out of
the ordinary if Dutch newspapers would write about Britain and the colonial past in their
newspaper articles featuring Burma’s recent political developments. Applied to this study this
would mean, that should a difference between British and Dutch newspapers occur with
regard to references to the colonial past, this would count as a strong signal of the colonial
past influencing present day perception.
Further similarities between the British and Dutch are found early onwards in the
European colonial era. Amongst the leading European colonial powers present in South East
Asia were France, Britain and the Netherlands. Both the British and Dutch presence started
50 Ibidem, 15.
Page | 15
out in the form of chartered companies, both eventually taken over—or controlled—by the
state. Synchronous to the establishment by both countries of ‘effective state control over
tropical administration, ... was the dawn of modern Liberalism’51. Thus, both British and
Dutch colonial policy was influenced by this ideology, albeit in different ways.52 France’s
presence on the other hand, can be explained by its ideological drive to expand the French
empire, in order to regain its once mighty position in the political arena. During the
imperialist era the different European colonial characters became more pronounced, as more
countries started scrambling for empire.
The comparative analysis of British and Dutch newspaper coverage spans a time frame of
ten years, from May 2002, to May 2012. These dates were selected after considering a certain
set of various events in Burma leading up to Aung San Suu Kyi’s final release and political
victory. These events, six in total, make up the testing points within the ten-year time span.
The period of Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest starting in 2003 is not only relevant
because it was the longest and the most final one, it also was the most restrictive.53 Aung San
Suu Kyi’s fame and popularity have especially increased over the past ten years which has
also contributed to the decision to not include newspaper coverage before 2002.
Six outstanding events were taken into account in the search for newspaper articles.
These are:
1. 2002 – May 6; Aung San Suu Kyi release from house arrest
2. 2003 – May 30; Aung San Suu Kyi house arrest renewed
3. 2009 – August 11; detention is extended by eighteen months
4. 2010 - November 7/13; Myanmar’s first election in twenty years /Aung San Suu Kyi
release from house arrest
5. 2012 - January 18; Aung San Suu Kyi registers for by elections
6. 2012 - April 1; Aung San Suu Kyi wins seat in Parliament
Articles containing the keyword ‘Aung San Suu Kyi’ were searched for in all previously
named newspapers. Whilst performing the article search, it was chosen to cover one month
51 John S. Furnivall, Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands India (New York: 1956), 282.
52 Ibidem, 286.
53 Peter Popham, ‘Her Nation’s Best Hope’, New Statesman vol. 139, no. 5007 (2010), 22.
Page | 16
prior- and one month post to the above named dates, in order to garner a substantive amount
of articles. The analysis of the articles was split up by the events that each form separate
paragraphs. In this study, quantitative research comprises the counting of references to the
colonial past in all articles, comparing the amount of references in British newspapers to
Dutch newspapers. The next step was to give meaning to the results through theoretical and
historical analysis by placing them within a context. This was done by seeing whether these
references reflect colonial discourse.
Qualitative research and colonial discourse
As has probably become clear, this study researches the effects of colonial legacy. More
specifically, the effects of the colonial legacy on present day Britain’s perception on Burma.
Britain’s perception on Burma, in its turn, characterises and influences Anglo-Burmese
bilateral relations.
Colonial legacy manifests itself in different ways. A form in which colonial legacy can
present itself, is through colonial discourse and its continuation up to the present. The word
discourse in itself can be defined in more than one way, some definitions being more specific
than others. A broad definition of discourse as phrased by Scollon and Wong Scollon for
example, is ‘refer[ring] to the socially shared habits of thought, perception and behaviour,
reflected in numerous texts belonging to different genres’.54
The more specific term colonial discourse is described by David Spurr in The Rhetoric of
Empire as ‘The particular languages which belong to, enable and are generated by the
historical process of colonization,’55 or as is explained in Colonial Discourse and PostColonial Theory: A Reader: ‘The variety of textual forms in which the West produced and
codified knowledge about non-metropolitan areas and cultures, especially those under
colonial control’.56
As a type of discourse, colonial discourse is a product of the critical post-colonial theory.
The continuation of colonial discourse from the colonial era to the post-independence era, is
the main subject studied by post-colonial theorists. Stating broadly, colonial discourse as part
54 Ron Scollon and Suzanne Wong Scollon , ‘Discourse and Intercultural Communication’ in: Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and
Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (Malden: 2001), 538.
55 David Spurr, The Rhetoric of Empire: Colonial Discourse in Journalism, Travel Writing and Imperial Administration (PostContemporary Interventions) (Durham: 1993), 1.
56 Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman (eds), Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader (New York: 1994), 5.
Page | 17
of post-colonial theory can be seen as a critical interpretation of discourse within the West
with regard to its colonies, and the effects of this discourse after colonial independence.
Edward Said, seen as the founder of post-colonial theory, proposes that colonial discourse
should be seen as a Western-constructed notion of ‘the Orient’, a cultural representation of a
certain part of the colonised world. This representation was meant to serve as a contribution
to, and a legitimisation for Western domination. Despite decolonisation after World War II,
this image of the Orient has persisted, because Western powers feed off this representation
which they have imposed on the rest of the world.57 Added to this, ‘it exists even within the
purportedly objective scholarship of Western academia’.58
Along those lines, David Spurr has already tried to show ‘how journalism and other forms
of nonfiction [...] depend on the use of myth, symbol, metaphor...’59, thus presents journalism
‘as the means for staging an introductory analysis of colonial discourse’60. He identifies
twelve tropes that emerged from the Western colonial experience, which he uses to “map”
colonial discourse.61 Among these tropes are: Debasement, Eroticization, Insubstantialization,
and Surveillance to name a few.
The difference between Scollon and Wong Scollon’s definition of discourse and the
definition of the word used in colonial discourse is that the latter is viewed as a tool used in
power-relations.62 An additional and crucial difference is that ‘the [former] refers to instances
of language in use, actual speech events; the [latter] to (far more abstract) ways of using
language: configurations of things that can (in particular cultural and institutional contexts)
be spoken about, ways of thinking and speaking about them, and ways of behaving in relation
to them’.63
Discourse has become an object of study that led to the development of different kinds of
discourse analyses, and is used across disciplines. Discourse research is a qualitative
enterprise, as it is based on the action of interpreting. Its value expresses itself in providing
context, adding meaning, or making sense.64 This study employs discourse research to place
57 Ibidem, 12.
58 Ibidem.
59 David Spurr, The Rhetoric of Empire, 2-3.
60 Ibidem.
61 Ibidem, 3.
62 Hugh Trappes-Lomax, ‘What is Discourse’ in: Alan Davies, Catherine Elder (eds), Discourse Analysis – The Handbook of Applied
Linguistics (Malden: 2008), 139.
63 Ibidem, 140.
64 Ibidem, 141.
Page | 18
the results obtained by quantitative research within context; to provide them with added
meaning. Here, the focus lies on colonial discourse, as it fits within the broader topic of this
study, colonial legacies, and will be discussed in chapter four.
3
ANGLO-BURMESE HISTORY
The colonial era
‘the image of Burmese as helpless children would persist right up to the granting of independence in 1948’
Kwasi Kwarteng, Ghosts of Empire
The writing of this chapter on the history of Anglo-Burmese relations was done whilst
keeping in mind—as a historical parallel to the outcome of this study—the above statement
by Kwasi Kwarteng, as it summarises the general British view of the Burmans during the
colonial era.
Burma is an ethnically diverse country and mainly constitutes the ethnic Burmans, Mons,
Karens and hill peoples.
The Burmese were first introduced to European imperialism when they stood face to face
with the British power in neighbouring country India.65 Despite their isolated geographical
position, some of the coastal Burmese had previously encountered Europeans before, but
contact did not extend itself further than between merchants.
The first form of diplomatic contact between Burma and Britain was between the English
East India Company and Burmese royalty. Due to very different interpretations of diplomacy,
this initial contact did not run smoothly66; a reflection of the further development of bilateral
relations in the early colonial era: Burmese colonisation by the British started off with three
wars in the course of the nineteenth century. Previously, historians have stated that the
motivation behind these wars was ‘that the Kings of Burma were arrogant barbarians,
absolutely without any knowledge of diplomacy and diplomatic practice, whose foolish
actions forced the British to annex the country’.67 This “backward barbarianism” gave cause
for Britain to take on the white man’s burden, and ‘provide the law and order for Burma’68.
65 Maung Htin Aung, The Stricken Peacock. Anglo-Burmese Relations 1752-1948 (The Hague: 1965), 11.
66 Aung, The Stricken Peacock, 16.
67 Ibidem, vii.
68 Kwasi Kwarteng, Ghosts of Empire (Bloomsbury: 201), 188.
Page | 19
British occupation was complete after Burmese King Thibaw was deposed in 1885. As
previously mentioned, British colonial occupation stimulated self-government. The idea
behind this policy was said to be to prepare colonies for future independence. However, this
choice of policy in Burma led to intensified ethnic pluralities and national disunity.69
Consequentially, closer to the end of British colonial rule Burmese nationalists led by
General Aung San would accuse Britain for political identity building within Burma.70
As opposed to other British colonies in Asia, much of the country and culture was left in
its original state during and after colonial rule.71 Maung Htin Aung states in The Stricken
Peacock that in effect, the Burmese were able to quickly let go of their resentment towards
their foreign occupier, despite the country’s violent annexation by the British: ‘[C]ontrary to
expectations, British rule did not affect the general structure of their society. The Burmese
[...] were ruled by British officials who treated them with tact and sympathy [...] soon
abandoning any idea of a whiteman’s burden with which they might have originally arrived at
the port of Rangoon’.72
Independence
During World War II Burma was invaded by the Japanese, after which the British were
forced to leave their colony. Ethnic strife was further exacerbated by the former, as was
nationalist resentment fostered towards the British. During the Japanese occupation Burma
was proclaimed independent by the nationalists who hoped to conquer the ethnic conflicts
within and achieve national unity.
At the end of World War II, Britain reasserted control over Burma with the plan to
prepare the country for independence, albeit along British lines. The eventual idea was ‘to
restore British administration to Burma and to bring the country to such a stage of political
and economic development that it could be handed over to a responsible Burmese
government as a Dominion within the Commonwealth [italics added]’.73 The project was to
be assisted by Lord Louis Mountbatten, Supreme Commander of Southeast Asia; and
69 Andrew Selt, ‘Race and Resistance in Burma, 1942-1945’ in: James D. Le Sueur (ed), The Decolonization Reader (New York: 2003)
241-255, 242.
70 Ibidem, 243.
71 Ibidem, 96.
72 Aung, The Stricken Peacock, 95/96.
73 Selt, ‘Race and Resistance in Burma’, 248/249.
Page | 20
Governor Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, who would later be succeeded by Sir Hubert Rance in
1946.74 The character of Burma’s transition to independence according to historian Hubert
Tinker ‘could hardly be called an ‘ordered, planned and peaceful ‘transfer of power’’.75
However, compared to other fellow-European colonisers in the throes of delivering their
colonies’ independence, Britain’s general pragmatism eased the process. This seemingly easy
going attitude can be explained by the idea that assisting with independence would sustain
future bilateral ties between Britain and its colonies, which in turn would help to retain and
secure British interests.76
The Burmese National Party (BNP) led by General Aung San had been branded a traitor
army by more than one British governing department. Despite this view, Lord Mountbatten
upon return tried to establish good relations with Aung San and his nationalist army.77 The
Japanese threat had not altogether subsided yet, and the last thing Britain needed was having
to deal with a guerilla rebellion; thus being on good terms with the BNP was imperative.
Aung San’s revelation about rejecting Commonwealth membership after independence
gave cause for Britain to worry. Concerns were that other colonies, Ceylon and Malaya,
would choose to walk the same path. Sir Hubert Rance thus tried his best to persuade Aung
San to consider temporary membership as a Dominion at least (something previously unheard
of in British policy78); however, Rance’s inventive solutions did not provoke positive
reactions within Britain. Voiced concern was that Dominion status for Burma (as was
suggested by Rance) within the Commonwealth would turn the institution into a joke, and
that this would not be fair on other Dominions.79 Dominion status after all, ‘implied equality
with Britain’80, and was meant for Britain’s “white” colonies (New-Zealand, Australia,
Canada, South-Africa and the Irish Free State).
Despite radio-silence on Burma’s part with regard to Rance’s suggestion, Rance
attempted to challenge these “dated” conceptions of Commonwealth associations. He found
74 Hugh Tinker, ‘Burma’s Struggle for Independence: The Transfer of Power Thesis Re-examined’ Modern Asian Studies vol. 20, no. 3
(1986), 461-481, 470.
75 S.R. Ashton, ‘Burma, Britain, and the Commonwealth’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History vol. 29, no. 1 (2001) pp.
65-91, 66.
76 Vale, ‘What Impact did Decolonization have on Britain’, 3.
77 Tinker, ‘Burma’s Struggle for Independence’, 462.
78 Robert H. Taylor, ‘Politics in Late Colonial Burma: The Case of U Saw’ Modern Asian Studies vol. 10, no. 2 (1976) pp 161-193, 175.
79 Tinker, ‘Burma’s Struggle for Independence’, 475.
80 The Commonwealth, ‘History’
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/191086/191247/34493/history/http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/191086/191247/34493
/history/ (14 October 2012).
Page | 21
support in the Governor-General of the Malayan Union, who emphasised his plea to the
Colonial Secretary with the concern that “‘some other external influence will inevitably take
its place’”81, and that ‘this might be America, but it was more likely to be a Communist
China.’82 Concluding; some circles within Britain felt the need to retain British influence in
Asia after colonial independence for what appeared to be security reasons. The means to this
goal can be summed up as a British lenient and forthcoming attitude towards the ex-colony,
and coaxing it to remain within the British sphere (the Commonwealth). However, Burma
had already slipped through Britain’s fingers; but although it was too late for Britain to keep
Burma, they had learnt their lesson and in the case of India, Britain beforehand made an
exception by granting it Dominion status straight away.83
Having failed to convince Burma to become a member of the Commonwealth, Britain
eventually had no choice but to accept defeat, refusing (for reasons of which some were
motivated by self-interest) to let it stand in the way of otherwise good relations. The final
conclusion was that Burma would become a republic, a non-member of the Commonwealth,
and General Aung San would become its Prime Minister.84 It was due to General Rance that
Aung San’s party, the AFPFL, was promoted in London as the most suitable candidate to
assume leadership.
Remaining on good terms with Burma and its leading party the AFPFL was needed as
London relied on the high levels of rice exports, as also regional security: London depended
on Burma as one of the main exporters of rice to provide its neighbours with food the next
season; and the AFPFL ‘commanded popular support’, thus could provide the country with
stability85.
However, as events turned out, Aung San would never uphold his promised title, for he
was shot dead on July 17, 1947. His assassination caused the country to balance on the edge
of turmoil. That entire month the situation in Burma was volatile to the extent that conflict
could break out at any moment:
‘Rumours of a British plan to kill Aung San and substitute U Saw [Prime Minister of Burma
during the Japanese occupation] began to circulate, even among responsible politicians. Rangoon
81 Tinker, ‘Burma’s Struggle for Independence’, 476.
82 Ibidem.
83 Ashton, ‘Burma, Britain, and the Commonwealth’, 66/67.
84 Tinker, ‘Burma’s Struggle for Independence’, 477.
85 Ashton, ‘Burma, Britain, and the Commonwealth’, 70.
Page | 22
was a stir with private armies and the countryside was thick with weapons, Japanese and British, in
the hands of self-styled freedom fighters, half bandit, half rebel.’86
Post-independence
‘With the charismatic center of Burma’s leadership gone, their lieutenants would lead
Burma into one of the world’s longest civil wars’87; a dramatic but fitting introduction to
Burma’s post-independence era as phrased by Michael Charney.
After Aung San’s assassination, U Nu took on the role of Prime Minister. U Nu
harboured ‘considerable animosity and a deep mistrust of General Ne Win’, Burma’s
commander-in-chief and Deputy Prime Minister in between ’49-’50.88 Although Britain took
U Nu’s suspicions seriously, the eventual conclusion was that General Ne Win’s ‘politics ...
were basically sound’, and that the rumours about his ‘political ambitions were without
foundation’.89 Two decades later, in ’62, General Ne Win performed a coup. Through his
one-party system he has stayed in control until ’88.90
Clement Attlee was the last British Prime Minister (until recently, by Prime Minister
Cameron in 2012) to make an appearance in Burma. The absence of British representatives
reflects the degree of intensity of Anglo-Burmese relations in between the years of Burma’s
independence and the past couple of decades.
The Commonwealth being the main binding factor between Britain and its colonies,
meant that its absence left little to tie Burma to Britain. From its year of independence
onwards, Burma left the topic of the Commonwealth unmentioned, and Britain seemed to
view Burma as ‘an unfortunate reminder of something they would rather have forgotten: how
not to manage the process of disengagement’91.
86 Tinker, ‘Burma’s Struggle for Independence’, 478.
87 Michael Charney, A History of Modern Burma (Cambridge: 2009) 71.
88 Ashton, ‘Burma, Britain, and the Commonwealth’, 81.
89 Ibidem, 83.
90 Ibidem.
91 Ibidem, 66/67.
Page | 23
4
DISCOURSE, AND COLONIAL DISCOURSE WITHIN BRITAIN
The cross-disciplined field of discourse studies has many sub-areas each of which study
the notion of discourse in different ways. Adding to the fogginess of this observation,
discourse can be defined in numerous ways. Whereas linguists concern themselves with
discourse referred to as ‘instances of language in use, actual speech events’92, discourse
within critical theory is translated in the far more abstract ways ‘of using language:
configurations of things that can (in particular cultural and institutional contexts) be spoken
about, ways of thinking and speaking about them, and ways of behaving in relation to
them.’93
As mentioned before, colonial discourse is a product of the critical post-colonial theory.
Being a form of critical discourse approach, it ‘concerns [...] issues of identity, dominance
and resistance, and ... seeking out evidence in text – especially (to date) media and
advertising texts, and political documents and speeches – of class, gender, ethnic and other
kinds of bias’94. Along those lines of dominance and resistance, colonial discourse is, more
specifically, linked with power relations of colonial hegemony.95
The formal study of colonial discourse as part of post-colonial theory finds its origins in
the 1970’s, inaugurated by the work of Edward Said, Orientalism.96 Said’s work can be seen
as a contribution to a better understanding of the operations of cultural domination.97 The
object of cultural domination in Said’s orientalism, were the Arabic, Islamic peoples in
specifically those regions colonised by the British and the French, of the geographical area
comprising the Near- and Middle East.98 However, the message in Orientalism reads that his
work should be seen as a starting point of reference. Consequently, orientalism could
possibly be applied to other countries and regions besides Britain and France as colonisers,
and the near- and Middle East as colonised.99
92 Trappes-Lomax, ‘What is Discourse’, 140.
93 Ibidem.
94 Trappes-Lomax, ‘What is Discourse’, 140.
95 Francis Barker, Peter Hulme, Margaret Iversen (eds), Colonial Discourse/Post-Colonial Theory (Manchester: 1996), 2.
96 Williams, Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory, 5.
97 Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: 1979), 56.
98 Said, Orientalism, 43.
99 Ibidem, 43, 51.
Page | 24
This domination manifested itself in an archive of ‘knowledge’ about the East. This
knowledge consisted of ideas and values, and was used to assign the East with an identity.100
The construction of identity involved depicting the Self (in this case the West) as different
if not opposite to the Other (the Orient/East), and in which the position of the Self in relation
to the Other is superior.101 This assigning of identity stood in service of generating more
power, and as such helped to sustain Western domination over the East.102 Shortly
summarised, Orientalism is ‘the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient—dealing
with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it,
settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a Western style for dominating,
restructuring, and having authority over the Orient’103, and should be termed a discourse in
the Foucauldian sense.104
Edward Said was partly inspired by French philosopher Michel Foucault, whose concept
of discourse is not only a way of 'seeing, analyzing and acting in the world... within
sociocultural and historical periods', but which also brings forth power distribution, 'such that
participants in these periods take on the discipline of living out their periods' discourses.105
The research topic of this essay, colonial legacy, can be defined as the aftermath of
colonialism’s complex processes. Colonial discourse provides these processes with a
vocabulary106 -albeit a specific one, from a certain, critical angle.
It could be argued that the consequence of positively establishing that colonial discourse
affects the outcome of the results obtained from the quantitative research in this study, leads
to an understanding of the British political paradigm and how it (in certain circumstances) is
(partly) structured on colonial discourse.
100 Ibidem, 71.
101 Ibidem, 289-305.
102 Ibidem, 75.
103 Ibidem, 4.
104 Ibidem, 27, 135.
105 Ron Scollon and Suzanne Wong Scollon , ‘Discourse and Intercultural Communication’ in: Deborah
Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen
and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (Malden: 2001), 542
106 Barker, Colonial Discourse/Post-Colonial Theory, 5.
Page | 25
Manifestations of colonial discourse in Britain
In The Rhetoric of Empire, David Spurr sees colonial discourse as consisting of multiple
colonial “discourses”, ‘each adapted to a specific historical situation’107. In his book he
identifies the basic rhetorical features of colonial discourse, and thereby specificises the term,
almost adding to it a sense of tangibility. Spurr draws from French, British and American
journalistic sources. His aim is not to generalise the different encounters, but, taking into
account the obvious differences affected by time and geography, he tries to ‘identify the
unexpected parallels and the common genealogies that unite these apparently disparate
occasions of discourse’.108 This approach was found to be useful for processing the
qualitative research undertaken in this study. The different features of colonial discourse as
named by Spurr make it easier what to look out for while conducting an analysis of the
newspaper articles.
Furthermore, Spurr, as opposed to many within the field of post-colonial theory109,
focuses on non-fiction, primarily journalistic sources, as is also done in this study. Spurr
highlights the characteristics belonging to journalism distinguishing it from fiction, namely
that it is conventionally expected to be grounded in an historical actuality.110 ‘Its relation to
this actuality is understood to be primarily metonymic and historically referential rather than
metaphoric and self-referential’.111 By bringing this difference between journalism and
fiction to the attention, and specificising colonial discourse, Spurr sets a helpful and relevant
example for this study to follow.
In The Rhetoric of Empire Spurr attempts to map colonial discourse, resulting in the
discernment of twelve rhetorical modes, or ‘ways of writing about non-Western peoples’.
These are: Surveillance, Appropriation, Aestheticisation, Classification, Debasement,
Negation, Affirmation, Idealisation, Insubstantialisation, Naturalisation, Eroticisation, and
Resistance. Each of these will shortly be touched upon below.
Each of the above tropes are manifestations in which the Self is seen to hold power over,
or hold a more powerful position than, the Other. In other words, in relation to each other the
Self is inherently superior, which turns the Other into being inherently inferior. The Self in
107 David Spurr, The Rhetoric of Empire (London: 1993) 1.
108 Spurr, The Rhetoric of Empire, 4.
109 Ibidem, 2.
110 Ibidem.
111 Ibidem.
Page | 26
this case refers to the West, while the Other refers to “the Third World”. Surveillance is one
such power, ‘implied by the gaze’112. While surveying from a colonial discourse point of
view, attention is given to the differences in identity, combined with an authoritative position
of the Self. This can also manifest itself in seemingly innocent, “positive” descriptions such
as beauty, which is translated as the valorisation of the Other by the Self; ‘the material value
of the body as labor supply, its aesthetic value [...]’.113
Appropriation deals with the transferring of ‘the locus of [the coloniser’s] desire onto the
object itself’, turning the object into something useful, or which can be used for productive
ends, from the point of view of the coloniser.
Aestheticisation refers to the act of transforming Third World suffering into a form of art.
This is done in a way in which ‘[t]heir suffering is interpreted as giving expression to
elemental passions which law and reason are supposed to have suppressed in the West’114.
Third World suffering coloured by a splash of melodrama or picturesqueness are instances of
aestheticisation, tailored to fit the taste of Western consumers.115
The act of Classification refers to the measuring of Third World countries along the lines
of Western norms or standards, in which they are assigned general characteristics that serve
as an explanation for failing to meet these norms/standards. Classification in Western writing
‘generates an ideologically charged meaning from its perceptions of non-Western
cultures’.116 Classification within Western discourse takes on the character of assigning an
order with a hierarchy. With regard to politics this can translate itself as the Western structure
being highly developed, political structures deviating from those in the West as being in
development or underdeveloped.117
Debasement of the Other is connected to ‘the need for positive self-definition…’.118
Connected in a way to the classification trope, this one focuses on the negative end of it. The
Other is seen to be possessing inherent negative characteristics such as ‘dishonesty…,
superstition, lack of self-discipline, individual filth, indolence, and sexual promiscuity’119,
112 Ibidem, 13.
113 Ibidem, 22.
114 Ibidem, 46.
115 Ibidem, 46/47.
116 Ibidem, 62.
117 Ibidem, 68.
118 Ibidem.
119 Ibidem.
Page | 27
which serve as an explanation for those societies struggling with ‘social problems in health
and sanitation, unemployment, or population growth’120
Negation is a reaction to those objects the writer/Self cannot provide an adequate
framework of interpretation for. Negation equals emptiness, nothingness, death, and turns the
writer into the coloniser. The writer decides when value is assigned to that what is being
negated, which is at the point when the negated object reaches the positive side of two
oppositional concepts determined by the ‘coloniser’/writer (good/evil, life/death, etc.).121
Validating the colonial enterprise, or the authority of the Self over the Other needs to be
constantly repeated to strengthen/affirm the existing order and position of the Self with
regard to power relations. As such is explained the trope of Affirmation and finds its main
example in the idea behind the white man’s burden; he takes responsibility to exercise his
moral superiority over the lesser Other.122
Idealising (Idealization) the Other is done by projecting Western values onto the object
instead of appreciating actual foreign characteristics and distancing oneself from those of the
West. Motivations for idealisation depend on events within history and geographical position
felt to require further reflection or attention.
The non-Western world is seen to be as insubstantial (Insubstantialization), a fantastical
realm serving as the stage on which the drama takes place of the Self. The world belonging to
the Other is simply a means to a goal, a world subjected by the West, thus implicitly unequal
and inferior to the Self. Spurr states that this particular trope is still widely employed to
describe the Third World, little changed from its original form, found in colonial fictive
writing.123
In colonial discourse nature is there to be cultivated, and can be seen as an antithesis to
culture and civilisation. Thus, naturalising (Naturalization) the Other, justifies its domination
by the Self. Spurr notes how Western discourse interprets the identification of the Third
World with nature as ‘a simple state of what is’, instead of an idea belonging to a theory.
Furthermore, naturalisation insinuates simplicity of Third World people compared to the
West, as they are governed by forces of nature.124
Eroticization takes place as ‘the colonised’ displaces the position of ‘the woman’ in
Western discourse. In this, Spurr points to Foucault’s explanation of the ‘reductive process
120 Ibidem.
121 Ibidem, 92.
122 Ibidem, 109-111.
123 Ibidem, 150-151.
124 Ibidem, 166-167.
Page | 28
[…] that [integrates] the feminine role within the mechanisms of knowledge and power’.125
This is done firstly by defining the female body through emphasis on her reproductive/sexual
functions. Secondly, the body as such defined, represents the woman in her totality; her
nature and the behaviour flowing forth from this.126 Eroticisation fits within a power structure
in the sense that an eroticised object is there to be conquered.127
The final trope is that of Resistance. If colonial discourse is imagined as a coin, the
position of power, or the authors of colonial discourse, are on the one side while the flipside
is represented by the resisting party, often in the form of the colonised. The very existence of
a demarcated framework such as colonial discourse implies the existence of a resisting force
which is on the other side/outside of the framework
As is also stated by Spurr, it is hard to avoid a certain degree of abstraction and reduction
while subjecting the texts in this study to the above discourse approach.128 This notion is
taken into account while using this approach as a means of contextualising and giving
meaning to the empirical results. Furthermore, in his approach, Spurr does not imply his list
of modes to be definitive. Additionally, overlap and subcategorisation can take place among
tropes, thus should not be understood as existing out of isolated categories.129
A worthy point of criticism directed at Spurr is his tendency to reduce the different
colonial experiences, spread out over time and geography, into one. Dane Kennedy points out
that the problem with Spurr’s approach, and many others in the field of post-colonial theory,
is that history is completely set aside by ‘ignoring the[ir] profoundly different historical
experiences’ when discussing colonial discourse.130 However, in this study Spurr is used
nonetheless as a lead in order to discern colonial discourse. This study checks whether any of
Spurr’s tropes are visible, if only hints of it in the newspaper articles, which could point to
the presence of colonial discourse. This is opposed to an approach whereby each newspaper
article is interpreted beforehand as being a product of colonial discourse and then choosing
which trope it can be best categorised under. So, taking Kennedy’s criticism into account,
125 Ibidem, 170-171.
126 Ibidem.
127 Ibidem, 178-182.
128 Ibidem, 4.
129 Ibidem, 4.
130 Dane Kennedy, ‘Imperial History and Post-Colonial Theory’, in: James D. Le Seuer (ed), The Decolonization Reader (London: 2003),
15.
Page | 29
David Spurr still provides this study with a helpful tool to wield, precisely because its
essentialising of colonial discourse.
5
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH: BRITAIN’S PRESENT STANCE WITH REGARD TO
BURMA; INFLUENCED BY THE COLONIAL PAST?
Approaches to mass media analysis include content analysis, and discourse analysis.
Discourse analysis in itself has many different approaches to it, without a fixed, agreed upon
body of content for it.131 Content analysis is defined as ‘a research technique for the
objective, systematic and quantitative description of the manifest content of
communication’.132 In other words, content analysis takes on a more objective stance than
discourse analysis as it focuses on ‘what-is-said’133 as opposed to intensive interpretation of a
text.
Discourse analysis is an intensive process, taking small details into consideration. Teun
van Dijk for example, states in the introduction of Discourse Communication: New
Approaches to the Analysis of Mass Media that discourse, or ‘ideological positions, interests
or power, can also be ‘signaled’ through such apparently ‘context-free’ language
characteristics’134, in other words, texts that appear neutral, but are not.
The research below relies on quantitative- and for a big part on discourse analysis.
Initially, the first approach takes on the form of content analysis by counting the amount of
times references to the colonial past are made, as was also discussed in the chapter on
methodology. This is based on the idea that irregular amounts of references between the two
countries could indicate a less or stronger influence of the colonial past on the present. The
hypothesis of this dissertation is that British newspapers contain more references to the
colonial past than the Dutch ones because of Britain and Burma’s shared history.
Finally, the content analysis will in turn be subjected to discourse analysis. It is stated by
John E. Richardson that quantitative analysis, although beneficial, ‘tends to skate over
complex and varied processes of meaning-making within texts’135. On the other hand,
131 James Paul Gee, How to do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit (New York: 2011), X.
132 Richardson, Analysing Newspapers, 16.
133 Ibidem.
134 Teun Adrianus van Dijk, (ed), Discourse Communication: New Approaches to the Analysis of Mass Media (Berlin: 1985), 4.
135 Richardson, Analysing Newspapers, 21.
Page | 30
discourse analysis may be lacking in objectivity, as it relies purely on interpretation. It is
believed that in choosing to combine these two methods, this study is profiting from the best
of both worlds. This study does not attempt to establish a general political British discourse.
Instead, and more specifically, discourse analysis is used with the aim to find out whether
contemporary discourse reflects a discourse rooted in the colonial past, namely colonial
discourse, discussed in chapter three.
It needs to be stated that the research questions posed below may not take into account all
the subtle expressions, or different interpretations of discourse. Although the effort is made to
retain an objective stance, it is acknowledged that discourse analysis is subject to the
influence of personal interpretation.
Two British newspapers were contrasted to two Dutch newspapers. The Daily Telegraph
was decided upon to represent British political elite opinion and the NRC Handelsblad to
represent Dutch political elite opinion. The Daily Telegraph is Britain’s most widely read
broadsheet newspaper.136 The NRC Handelsblad is the Netherlands’ second most popular
broadsheet newspaper and known for its neutral stance.137 the motivation behind this
particular choice is the combination of neutrality and high level of popularity.
In this study, British popular opinion is represented by The Daily Mail, and Dutch popular
opinion by De Telegraaf. The first was chosen for its high level of popularity, being Britain’s
second most-read mid-market tabloid, and its similarity to De Telegraaf.138 The latter is the
Netherlands’ most popular near-tabloid newspaper, and tries to retain a neutral stance.139
As was also previously mentioned, a set of six dates were included in the search for
articles, in combination with the keyword ‘Aung San Suu Kyi’. Below is an overview of the
dates that were included in the search:
(1) 2002 – May 6; Aung San Suu Kyi release from house arrest
(2) 2003 – May 30; Aung San Suu Kyi house arrest renewed
(3) 2009 – August 11; detention is extended by eighteen months
(4) 2010 - November 7 and 13; Myanmar’s first election in twenty years and Aung San
Suu Kyi release from house arrest
136 Media UK ‘Newspapers in the UK: An Introduction’ (29 September 2009) http://www.mediauk.com/article/4/newspapers-in-the-uk-anintroduction. (12 October 2012).
137 Ellen Hoogendam, Kwaliteitskrant Versus Populaire Krant (Rotterdam: 2009), 17.
138 Hoogendam, Kwaliteitskrant Versus Populaire Krant, 19.
139 Ibidem.
Page | 31
(5) 2012 - January 18; Aung San Suu Kyi registers for by elections
(6) 2012 - April 1; Suu Kyi wins seat in Parliament
These dates cover the most outstanding events in Aung San Suu Kyi’s (political) life the
past ten years, thus have the most potential of attracting the attention of the international
media.
The numbers of articles found are represented in the following table (1.0):
Table 1.0
The Daily Telegraph
1:12
2:5
3:8
4:25
5:19
6:26
:
95
The Daily Mail
1:0
2:0
3:4
4:8
5:5
6:12
:
29
UK TOTAL
12
5
12
33
24
38
:
124
NRC Handelsblad
1:9
2:10
3:18
4:21
5:11
6:20
:
89
De Telegraaf
1:1
2:3
3:4
4:0
5:2
6:4
:
14
NL TOTAL
10
13
22
21
13
24
:
103
Whilst reading the articles the following sub-questions were asked:
1.
Are there any explicit or implicit references to the (colonial) past, and in what
manner are they expressed (critical – positive)?
Question 1 serves as a measuring tool used to establish the influence of the colonial past
on present day British perception of Burma. The objective is to count how often references to
the colonial past were made, and whether this happens more, or less, in British newspapers
compared to Dutch newspapers. A higher amount of references in British newspapers is
interpreted as indicating a link between the present and Anglo-Burmese colonial past.
Analysing the manner in which these references are expressed will lead to an
understanding of contemporary discourse and the retracing to historical events. The way in
which this is done is by paying attention to noticeable differences between the two countries’
way of reporting.
Page | 32
2.
Are there any explicit or implicit references to Britain, and in what manner are they
expressed (critical – positive)?
Question 2 serves to contrast the amount of times Britain is mentioned in Dutch and in
British newspapers. If for example it turns out that there are more references made to Britain
in British newspapers, it could be interpreted as an indication that there is a special
relationship – a result from the shared colonial past between Burma and Britain, according to
British perception. The manner in which these references are expressed, serves to clarify the
way this relationship is perceived and how Britain sees itself in relation to Burma.
3.
Is colonial discourse reflected in any of the articles containing the above mentioned
references?
Sub questions:
3.1
Is there any perceivable distinction being made between the Self and the
Other?
3.2
If so, is the Other depicted/presented as being subordinate in any way to the
Self – and can any of Spurr’s twelve tropes be discerned?
The answer to question 3 is meant to give added meaning to the outcome of the previous
two questions by trying to place them into context. In trying to discover if the colonial past
still plays a role in Britain by comparing the amounts of references between countries, the
next question is, are characteristics of the colonial relationship, in the form of colonial
discourse, still reflected in present British discourse as well? As the focus in this study lies on
Britain and the character of British-Burmese relations, this question only applies to the
British results. Attention is given to how Aung San Suu Kyi is portrayed as she is generally
identified as representing Burma and the Burmese people (the Other).
Each of the six events represent a paragraph in which the outcome of both the British and
Dutch newspaper analysis will be evaluated. These chapters are followed by the conclusion.
2002 – May 6; Aung San Suu Kyi release from house arrest
In total, the keyword Aung San Suu Kyi brought forth more hits in British newspapers
than its Dutch counterparts as was already apparent from Table 1.0 above. In these articles,
Page | 33
more referrals to the past and to Britain were found in the British than in the Dutch
newspapers. Both countries taken together, the broadsheets reported more on Burma and
Aung San Suu Kyi than the tabloids, and with regard to the British newspapers, all referrals
were found in the broadsheets only.
In five out of twelve articles The Daily Telegraph referred either or both to England
and/or to the colonial past, none of them critically. At first glance all referrals seemed neutral.
England was usually referred to as the place where Aung San Suu Kyi completed her
academic career, where she lived before moving back to Burma, or as her husband’s country
of origin.
Referrals to the colonial past were made in the context of explaining her relation to
General Aung San, her father; a key figure in Burma’s independence process.
The one time the colonial past and Britain were brought up in the NRC Handelsblad, is in
a seemingly neutral referral to Aung San Suu Kyi’s British husband and again, in explanation
of her relation to General Aung San.
The first article in The Daily Telegraph referring to the colonial past, is article six and
states as thus: ‘As daughter of Aung San, a hero of Burma's post-war struggle for
independence’. The use of the word hero assigns a certain quality to Burma’s independence
cause.
The article does not explicitly write in terms of us/them or Self/Other. However, it could
be argued that Aung San Suu Kyi’s description in this article says something about Burma in
the sense that Aung San Suu Kyi could be seen as a representation of Burma to some degree.
Aung San Suu Kyi is paradoxically described as a ‘fragile femininity with a core of steel’;
further words used, are ‘graceful’, ‘orchids and sarong’, but at the same time as ‘someone
who would never compromise her ideals’. Her physical features are pointed out by words
emphasising her Asian (sarong, orchids) and feminine (graceful, orchids) identity. Mentally,
she is strong, determined, developed, cultivated. Connected to this, the same article mentions
how Burma is her native country, but that she moved to England in order to study; and while
under house arrest ‘listening to the BBC’, which could be interpreted as a measurement of her
cultivation. Perhaps her fragile femininity portrays her Burmese background, while her steely
core is understood to be hardened due to the English influence. In support of this statement,
article twelve highlights the fact that her academic career took place in England.140 England
140 James Owen, ‘Don’t make Burma the new Provence’ The Daily Telegraph 27 April, 2002: 14.
Page | 34
is thus placed in a fortunate position as it helped form this ‘Nobel Laureate’ who she has
become.
In some of the articles containing references, there is indeed a distinction made between
the Self and Other. This is expressed by the use of words such as ‘the West’ in combination
with ‘we’, and ‘they’ on the other hand.141 ‘They’ can be interpreted as referring to the junta,
Burma, the Burmese people.142 The article explains how ‘we’ should not support the regime
by investing in Burma, and by not doing so ‘we’ are supporting Aung San Suu Kyi’s
democratic cause instead. ‘We’, ‘The West’ or the Self, are placed in a fortunate and superior
position, regardless of to whom the word ‘they’ refers to. This is because the Self is presented
with a choice. ‘We’ can choose who to support: The regime, or Aung San Suu Kyi.
Furthermore, the tone of voice used in the following sentence: ‘the West should not bestow
the slightest political reward or grace on them (the regime)’143 insinuates superiority, like that
of a school master in relation to a naughty child.
Tropes that spring to mind whilst analysing the articles, are those of ‘Classification’ and
‘Validation’. Classification takes place as Burma is measured by its political structure, ‘The
West’, proponent of democracy, being the ultimate goal. The validation trope, meaning
validating the superior Self’s actions in relation to the Other is mirrored in the article in
which it implies that the Self is in a position to reprimand the Other.
2003 – May 30; Aung San Suu Kyi house arrest renewed
The event in which Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest was renewed is one of the least
covered as is also reflected in Table 1.0.
Searching for the key word Aung San Suu Kyi yielded the most results in Dutch
newspapers: Thirteen articles in total, as opposed to five articles in British newspapers.
141 James Mawdsley, ‘Freedom for Suu Kyi is only a start: all Burmese want liberty. James Mawdsley, who was twice imprisoned and
tortured by the junta, urges the West not to relent’ The Daily Telegraph 7 May, 2002: 18.
142 Ibidem.
143 Ibidem.
Page | 35
Of the thirteen Dutch articles, only one referred to both Britain and the colonial past.
Similarly, British newspapers mentioned Britain only once. None of the references were
interpreted as critical.
Whilst reading the British newspaper article containing the singular reference, no explicit
distinction seemed to be made between the Self and Other. The reference reads as thus: ‘Last
night, Burma's ambassador to London was summoned to the Foreign Office to face demands
for the release of Suu Kyi.’; this sentence implies a certain feeling of responsibility from
Britain’s side towards Burma.
2009 – August 11; detention is extended by eighteen months
The search for the keyword Aung San Suu Kyi resulted in a total amount of twenty-two
Dutch newspaper articles and twelve English newspaper articles. Despite this seemingly
striking irregularity, only four minor references to either the past or Britain were found in the
twenty-two Dutch articles, whilst similarly in the English ones, also four were found.
In both countries’ newspapers Britain was mostly referred to indirectly, by the
mentioning of its representer, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and his opinion on either the
Burmese junta or Aung San Suu Kyi in which he supports Aung San Suu Kyi’s cause. Both
Dutch as well as English newspapers describe his emotional state as ‘angry and sad’144 with
regard to Aung San Suu Kyi’s arrest. By displaying his distress and concern for one of
Burma’s leaders, he is presented in more of a positive, than critical light.
Of all the references in both Dutch and English newspapers only one brief and indirect
referral to the colonial past was made by the NRC Handelsblad, by describing Aung San Suu
Kyi as the daughter of the ‘murdered independence warrior Aung San’.145
Concluding, more referrals were made to Britain in English newspapers than in Dutch
newspapers. The above reference to the colonial past in the NRC Handelsblad was not
considered as a significant, meaningful, thus valid reference, as its primary goal was not to
convey information about the past. As such, it was concluded that there was no mention of
colonial history in any of the articles.
144 NRC Handelsblad, ‘Protesten na veroordeling van Suu Kyi; Huisarrest voor Birmese politica’ 11 August, 2009: 1.
145 Elske Schouten, ‘Weinig kans op verrassing in proces Suu Kyi in Birma’ NRC Handelsblad 30 July, 2009: 4.
Page | 36
In this specific time period covered by this paragraph, English newspapers focused more
on the present than the Dutch, if only slightly, as only once did a Dutch newspaper indirectly
refer to the past. None of the referrals were interpreted as critical.
The references to Britain took on the form of the British Prime Minister in most cases, in
which his concern for Aung San Suu Kyi is emphasised.
None of Spurr’s tropes are easily identifiable in any of the articles. In that sense, colonial
discourse is not obviously present. However, a recurring word which was interpreted as used
to construct an image of the Self, is ‘the West’. Furthermore, one article stated that ‘In this
part of the world, Western notions of democracy and the rule of law tend to take second place
to hard-nosed economic considerations’146. “This part of the world” refers to the Asian
continent (and not just Burma), and comes close to the trope described by Spurr as
classification.
When it comes to Burma, the Burmese people and Aung San Suu Kyi, are always referred
to in a “positive” manner; (‘brave and indomitable’147, ‘the symbol of Burmese
democracy’148) Aung San Suu Kyi is bestowed an almost saint-like status which she seems to
have earned by her persistence with regard to democratic- and human rights values.
2010 - November 13; Aung San Suu Kyi released from house arrest
Searching for Aung San Suu Kyi on this particular date yielded more results than
previous dates; Aung San Suu Kyi’s release from years of house arrest marking an especially
outstanding event in both her life as the stage of Burma’s political development.
Thirty-three articles were found using the keyword Aung San Suu Kyi in British
newspapers, in contrast to twenty-one articles in Dutch newspapers.
In total, three minor references to either Britain or the colonial past were found in Dutch
newspapers and twelve references in the British ones.
The Dutch NRC Handelsblad’s sole referral to the colonial past was found in a
description of Aung San Suu Kyi’s identity as the daughter of General Aung San ‘who
146 The Daily Telegraph, ‘Ways to persuade Burma’ 12 August, 2009: 21.
147 Ibidem.
148 Ibidem.
Page | 37
liberated colonial Burma from the British’149. This referral was interpreted as critical of the
colonial occupation of Burma by Britain, judged by the use of the word ‘liberated’, translated
as freed, in the most positive sense.
In total, five references to the colonial past were found in British newspapers, two of
which in The Daily Mail, and three in The Daily Telegraph. The Daily Mail’s reference
seemed to serve as an explanation for her favoured (house arrest instead of stowed away in
jail) treatment by her captors, because of her status as daughter of ‘the late General Aung
San, who secured independence from Britain’150. This reference is interpreted as neutral.
Mentioning this event in the past is used as a side note to explain the junta’s behaviour
towards Aung San Suu Kyi. Furthermore, the language used –‘secured independence’ as
opposed to ‘liberated from the British’-- is of an equal neutral tone. The second reference
likewise refers to the past, by explaining her descent from ‘General Aung San, the national
hero who won Burma independence from the British’151; this reference was interpreted as
ringing more positive than the former by the use of the words/sentences ‘hero’, and ‘won
Burma independence from the British’, which consequently places the British occupiers at
the time of independence in a more critical light.
In The Daily Telegraph the first direct, explicit reference to the colonial past was found in
the following reference: ‘Burma was under British rule from 1824 to 1948 and, save for a
brief window of democracy, has been ruled by a military junta since independence. Suu Kyi's
story reminds us that Britain's past is inextricable from present conflicts’152. This reference
insinuates that Britain is partly responsible—because of its actions in the past--for the present
day conflict in Burma, and was interpreted as critical with regard to Britain’s colonial past.
The other two references to the past were minor and indirect to such an extent that it was
difficult to interpret their added value to this study.
The NRC Handelsblad refers to Britain twice; once in the context of providing the reader
with background information of Aung San Suu Kyi’s split family’s whereabouts; the second
refers to Britain by highlighting Aung San Suu Kyi’s Oxford education in Political Science.
The tone of the article is especially lauding with regard to Aung San Suu Kyi. As a former
Oxford scholar the reader assumes that Britain contributed to her personal development as it
149 NRC Handelsblad, ‘Suu Kyi: junta niet milder’18 November, 2010: 7.
150 Peter MacKay, ‘Why this toadying to bush the bungler?’ The Daily Mail 14 November, 2010: Column.
151 Justin Wintle, ‘Cold-blooded regime whose hallmark is mass murder’ The Daily Mail 13 November, 2010.
152 Sameer Rahim, ‘History is dangerous, teachers need to be brave; INTERVIEW Simon Schama, the new government adviser on history
teaching, tells Sameer Rahim why children need a return to chronology’ The Daily Telegraph 20 November, 2010: 16.
Page | 38
provided her with a superior education, resulting in the ‘heroine’153 she has become.
Concluding, Dutch newspapers were interpreted as showing the tendency to be neutral if not
positive with regard to Britain.
The Daily Mail’s less straightforward references to Britain present itself by its
descriptions of Aung San Suu Kyi as a ‘former British housewife’, and by mentioning British
political figures such as David Cameron and William Hague. All references are considered
positive, however indirectly, and viewed from different perspectives: A big portion of The
Daily Mail’s target audience is made up of females above fifty-five.154 This group is likely to
identify themselves in a positive manner with Aung San Suu Kyi as a former British
housewife.
British Prime Minister David Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague are both
mentioned in the context of expressing concern for the Burmese people and support of Aung
San Suu Kyi.155 Consequently, this labels Britain (the Ministers being British representatives)
positively, as showing a sense of responsibility and concern for Burma.
Almost all references to Britain in The Daily Telegraph were deemed minor, and
concerned providing the reader with background information on the whereabouts of Aung
San Suu Kyi’s closest family. As such, considering the subject of this study, these references
were interpreted as neutral. British Foreign Affairs Minister William Hague was mentioned
once in a similar context, described as noted previously by The Daily Mail. However, one
outstanding article on imperial history shone a rather critical light on Britain, and discussed
the existing tendency within the country to avoid, and sometimes to even glorify the subject:
‘"We've got all kinds of things to be ashamed of but we have things to celebrate too," he tells
me. "That this story matters seems to be unarguable. Why would kids of Asian background
not want to know about the age of empire?" Well, I say, might it not be awkward in a
multiracial classroom to discuss both the crimes and achievements of the empire?’156.
The most remarkable sign of colonial discourse is found in how Aung San Suu Kyi is
described, taking into consideration that she is generally regarded as the representation of
Burma. As was previously observed, again, more than once the use of a paradox was made:
‘an elegant but frail woman with a lion-sized, incorrigible heart’. Also, mention is made of
153 Elske Schouten, ‘Heldin wacht na vrijlating een ander Birma’ NRC Handelsblad 12 November, 2010: 5.
154 University of Winchester, ‘Journalism’ http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=387, November 10, 2012.
155 The Daily Mail, ‘Hague in attack on Burma elections’ 7 November, 2010.
156 Rahim, ‘History is dangerous, teachers need to be brave’ The Daily Telegraph 20 November, 2010: 16.
Page | 39
her (non-customary/non-Western) appearance: ‘lilac dress and with a customary flower in her
hair’157. Should this description of Aung San Suu Kyi be interpreted as reflecting the Other
from the perspective of the Self, then the next question asked is: Is the Other presented as
subordinate to the Self? Frail; feminine; elegant; exotic physical features; possessing an
almost holy and pure soul, seems likely to provoke a protective, supportive response, which
can be indeed found in the ‘West’, the cradle (or father) of democracy. In this sense it could
be argued that the Other, somewhat depicted as dependent in its craving for support from the
Self, is subordinate to the latter.
Another example which could be interpreted as displaying colonial discourse is found in
the following text: ‘China, India, Thailand, Singapore and South Korea are all keen to
continue doing business with the country - and in this part of the world, Western notions of
pluralism tend to take second place to hard-nosed economic considerations. But it must be in
the long term interests of them all that Burma starts shedding its status as an international
pariah [...]. This is a point David Cameron could usefully make to China's leaders on his visit
to Beijing this week.’158 The Other being China, India, Thailand, Singapore and South Korea,
is placed in a subordinate position in relation to the Self; ‘this part of the world’, or the West,
feeling itself to be in a position of reprimanding, almost correcting the Other.
Tropes that spring to mind whilst reading the above articles were those of ‘Idealization’
and ‘Affirmation’. Aung San Suu Kyi is being idealised as Western values--such as being
pro-democratic, pure, incorrigible--are reflected onto her. Affirmation takes place by
‘justify[ing] the authority of those in control of the discourse through demonstrations of
moral superiority’.159
2012 - January 18; Aung San Suu Kyi registers for by elections
Reaching a total of seventeen articles, Dutch newspapers implicitly or explicitly referred
to the colonial past four times, and twice to Britain. Twenty-six articles were found
containing the keyword Aung San Suu Kyi in British newspapers, of which three contained
references to the colonial past, and eight to Britain.
157 Jonathan Petre, ‘Free! Little woman with a lion’s heart’ The Daily Mail 13 November, 2010.
158 The Daily Telegraph, ‘Burmese daze’ 9 November 2010: 23.
159 Spurr, The Rhetoric of Empire, 110.
Page | 40
The references to the colonial past found in Dutch newspapers, shortly but explicitly
touched upon the subject either by using it as an analogy to Burma (... which closed off the
former British colony from the rest of the world160), or to provide background information on
the sixty-fourth celebration of Burma’s national independence day. The tone of these
references was interpreted as neutrally informative, if anything at all.
Less references to the colonial past, either implicitly or explicitly, were found in British
newspapers despite the bigger amount of articles. The objective of all references seemed to
be to provide the reader with (historical) background information on the article’s main topic.
The first article did this in the context of clashes between ethnic minorities and the
government; a conflict springing from the time of ‘independence from Britain’161. This
reference could both transfer the message of Britain’s past role as being positive and
negative. Positive in the sense that the British retreat from Burma marked the downfall of the
country, which, as soon as it was left on its own burst out in conflict, or; negative in the sense
that Britain’s occupation was most likely the main source of erupting conflicts in the postindependence era.
The second reference is used as a side note to the main news topic about British advice
directed at the Burmese gouvernment on their intrastate conflict; however, adding that ‘Any
involvement of Britain, as a former colonial power, is highly sensitive for a former military
government which depicts its role as the guardian of national independence’162 shows the
hesitant character of Britain in its role as advisor.
The third reference is in mention of the celebration of Burma’s national Independence
Day, ‘by hailing Burma's transformation from "authoritarian" military rule to "democracy” 163.
No explicit judgment is made about the colonial past, but mentioning the turnover from
authoritarian regime to democracy in the same sentence as celebrating Burma’s Independence
Day could be interpreted as implying a critical comparison of the colonial period to that of
Burma’s authoritarian age.
Two references to Britain were found in the Dutch newspaper articles, both of them in the
NRC Handelsblad. One minor reference was found in a description of her husband, the other
160 De Telegraaf, ‘Politieke droom, gebroken hart; The Lady’ 18 January, 2012: 19.
161 Jane Archer, ‘Where you should cruise in 2012; Attractive deals and new routes make this the year to sail away, says Jane Archer’ The
Daily Telegraph 7 January, 2012: 23.
162 Dean Nelson, ‘Hague offers Burma help to broker peace with rebels as he hails 'irreversible reform'’ The Daily Telegraph 6 January,
2012: 18.
163 David Blair and Dean Nelson, ‘Free jailed activists, Hague tells Burma’ The Daily Telegraph 5 January, 2012: 16.
Page | 41
in mentioning Foreign Secretary William Hague. The latter being the most elaborate, was
mentioned in the context of a British Foreign Secretary visiting Burma for the first time since
1955. This was interpreted as positive, as it shows Britain’s concern and sense of
responsibility for Burma and its people.
The colonial past was not mentioned as much as Britain was in the British newspaper
articles: Eight references to Britain were found. The Daily Mail referred to Britain in three
out of five articles, in which the news about Foreign Secretary Hague’s visit to Burma is
related. The Daily Telegraph equally refers to Britain in the form of relating the news of
William Hague’s visit to Burma. Of these references none were considered critical, although
one article in particular stood out for its positive tone with regard to Britain. This was done
by placing emphasis on Britain’s commitment to Burma’s future by mentioning that Britain,
‘as Burma’s largest aid donor, ... Mr Hague wants to direct some of that £60 million a year
aid to provide relief and rehabilitation for the thousands of displaced residents of rebel
areas’164. Additionally, The Daily Telegraph mentioned how ‘the UK [is] the largest bilateral
donor in Burma’165 adding strength to the idea of an existing awareness about a special
relationship between the two countries.
Concluding: Overall, British newspapers were more explicitly positive when referring to
Britain and did so more often than their Dutch counterparts.
Many articles found in the timeframe marked by this paragraph feature news about
Foreign Secretary William Hague visiting Burma. It could be argued that Hague, representing
Britain, takes on the form of the Self. His actions involve recommendations, demands166 and
the handing out of advice to Burmese President Thein Sein (who represents the Other): ‘Mr
Hague told President Thein Sein that Britain would recommend the lifting of EU sanctions in
April if all political prisoners were freed. The Foreign Secretary added that aid agencies
should also be allowed to reach conflict zones [...], and forthcoming parliamentary byelections must be free and fair’.167 In this regard, as was also stated in the previous paragraph,
the Other is placed in an inferior position, looking up and complying to the authoritative face
of the Self.
164 Nelson, ‘Hague offers Burma help to broker peace’ The Daily Telegraph 6 January, 2012: 18.
165 Blair, ‘Free jailed activists, Hague tells Burma’ The Daily Telegraph 5 January, 2012: 16.
166 The Daily Telegraph, ‘Our friends in the East’ 6 January, 2012: 23.
167 Ibidem.
Page | 42
Another observation regarding the Self and Other was made after analysing an article
featuring news on Burma and blocs of economic allegiance, in which the article made a
distinction between the West168 on the one hand, and Asia–China in particular--on the other.
The article suggests the existence of a power struggle between the West and China, with
Burma in their midst. The West comes out on top whilst China is portrayed in a more
negative light. Stating that ‘Burma would have risked becoming an economic colony of its
giant neighbour [China]’, implies that China is out to dominate—conquer, even--the newly
opened-up country, by turning it into a colony.
The above distinctions made between Self and Other remind of the tropes termed by
Spurr as ‘Classification’, and ‘Affirmation’. The latter takes place in the sense that ‘“to
affirm” has traditionally signified the exercise of power, or at least the desire to exercise the
vestiges of an authority once held’169; the fact that the Self sees itself in a position to demand,
implies it assumes authority over the Other.
Classifying the Other entails ‘the condescending tone which lectures [Africans]/[the
Other] on how they should govern themselves’, behaviour springing from the idea that nonWestern cultures should be measured to the degree they meet the Western standard, and are
deemed a failure or a success according to this measurement.170
2012 - April 1; Suu Kyi wins seat in Parliament
The keyword Aung San Suu Kyi yielded twenty-four results in Dutch newspapers and
thirty-eight in British newspapers.
In all of the twenty-four Dutch articles, four minor references to the colonial past were
found. The manner in which these references were expressed was interpreted as ranging from
critical to positive; all four of them used in different contexts. The reference interpreted as
critical states how ‘the exploitation of their country [Burma] by foreign powers is an old
trauma for the Burmese as it had happened in the colonial era by the British’.171 Two
references were found in travel reviews and related the beauty of Burma’s colonial
heritage.172
168 Ibidem.
169 Spurr, The Rhetoric of Empire, 110.
170 Ibidem, 62.
171 De Telegraaf, ‘Mysterieus Myanmar; Bijzonder land steeds beter te ontdekken’ 6 April, 2012: 3.
172 De Telegraaf, ‘Mysterieus Myanmar; Bijzonder land steeds beter te ontdekken’ 6 April, 2012: 3; Ivo Weyel, ‘Blootsvoets naar
Boeddha’ NRC Handelsblad 1 May, 2012: Lux.
Page | 43
Six references in total were found in all of the thirty-eight British articles, mostly by
referring to Burma as a former colony of Britain173. This is often done however, in context of
the British Prime Minister’s first visit to Burma since its independence, which links this
particular event to the colonial past. By doing so it acknowledges that the past still influences
the present174. The following quote in the same article supports this assumption: ‘We have
long had ties with Burma and a long history with the country. We are the world's largest
bilateral aid donor to Burma’.175
One article in The Daily Telegraph featured as its main topic the colonial district in
Rangoon, Burma. It relates how the opening up of the country poses a threat to Burma’s
colonial heritage, which in this article is described as an asset; a left-over of a rich history:
‘its admired Raj-era buildings’, ‘one of Asia's last intact colonial districts [...] remind Burma
[...] of its history as a hub of global trade’, ‘George Orwell stayed at one of the only colonial
buildings to have been restored sympathetically - the Strand Hotel - during his time in Burma
as a policeman. The Pegu Club, once the retreat of British officers and officials, hosted
Rudyard Kipling in 1889, but today serves only as a touchline for children playing football on
its drive. The building has been locked to prevent further damage, but most of its wooden
annexes are tumbling down’176. The article is concluded by the surprised reaction of the
fondness--instead of the apparently expected disinterest or even antagonism--towards
Burma’s colonial heritage within Burma itself.177
The influence of the colonial past is more tangible in British than in Dutch newspapers
and is mentioned in the context of current Anglo-Burmese bilateral relations. The character of
these relations show a pro-active British stance. Examples of this are the spending of aid
money on Burma (Britain being the biggest aid donor) and visits by the British Prime
Minister to the country.
Of the Dutch newspapers only De Telegraaf refers to Britain once, by mentioning British
Prime Minister ‘Cameron’s visit to Myanmar, as one of the first world leaders to do so’. No
173 Claudia Joseph & Elizabeth Sanderson, ‘Hidden torment of the steel butterfly’ The Daily Mail 14 April, 2012; The Daily Mail, ‘Heroine
of Burma takes her country a step closer to freedom’ 1 April, 2012.
174 Rowena Mason, ‘Cameron will offer Burma help to build a democracy; PM seeks to seal Burma's democratic future’ The Daily
Telegraph 13 April, 2012: 1, 2.
175 Ibidem.
176 Dean Nelson, ‘Saving Burma's heritage from the bulldozers’ The Daily Telegraph 10 April, 2012: 17.
177 Ibidem.
Page | 44
link is made to Britain and Burma’s shared history; instead, it is implied that Cameron’s visit
is motivated by economic incentives.178
From the total amount of thirty-eight articles found in The Daily Telegraph and The Daily
Mail, fifteen referred to Britain. These displayed a strong focus on Cameron’s visit to Burma
and how this was the first one made by a British Prime Minister since Burma’s
independence179, and/or as the first world leader since the power transfer by the junta. 180 The
Daily Mail reported more critically on this event than The Daily Telegraph, shown by the
following: ‘The problems of home must seem a million miles away, as David Cameron
savours his regal reception as the first British Prime Minister to visit Burma. The Mail hates
to put a dampener on his triumphal jaunt. But isn't this vanity globetrotting disturbingly
reminiscent of Tony Blair? And aren't voters entitled to ask how he can hope to serve their
interests by chasing photo-opportunities in the Far East?’181 Another article relates the news
on a similarly sarcastic note: ‘David Cameron may have been in his element strolling through
a garden with Nobel Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi last week, but when he returns to
Downing Street tomorrow he'll find a more prosaic matter waiting’182. An explanation of The
Daily Mail’s more critical tone can be explained by its overall more right-wing, conservative
stance.183
In comparing the references made to Britain between Dutch and British newspapers, the
conclusion was reached that British newspapers reported more often and more positively
about Britain than their Dutch counterparts. The majority of the British references covered
news on David Cameron’s visit to Burma as the first British Prime Minister to do so since
Burma’s independence, and his interest and concern in, and for, the country and its people.
The focus on this topic was interpreted as suggesting an awareness of a relationship between
Burma and Britain, rooted in history.
More than once the Self versus Other takes the form of Cameron/Clinton/the West versus
Burma, the latter of which appears to be in need of guidance, as is implied for example by
178 De Telegraaf, ‘Bedrijven en toerist ontdekken Myanmar; Lokale ondernemer zoekt partners’ April 11, 2012: 29.
179 The Daily Mail, ‘Hidden torment of the steel butterfly’ 14 April, 2012; ‘Black dog’ 14 April, 2012; ‘No times for gilded palaces, Mr
Cameron’ 13 April, 2012; ‘King David plays the global statesman…and oh, how lovely to be away from all those boring problems back
home’ 13 April, 2012; ‘Cameron’s historic trip to meet brave Burma rebel’ 9 April, 2012.
180 Rowena Mason, ‘Cameron's historic Burma visit; Prime Minister to become first Western leader to visit country as Suu Kyi prepares to
take her seat in parliament’ The Daily Telegraph 10 April, 2012: 2.
181 The Daily Mail, ‘No times for gilded palaces, Mr Cameron’ 13 April, 2012.
182 James Forsyth, ‘ In the corridors of power’ The Daily Mail 14 April, 2012.
183 Dean Hardman, Political Ideology and Identity in British Newspaper Discourse (University of Nottingham: 2008) 247.
Page | 45
The Daily Telegraph: ‘The road to full democracy is pitted with risk. That is why Mr
Cameron's presence in Burma is so important.’184
Further on, the following statements were found in two different articles—also belonging
to The Daily Telegraph: ‘Mr Cameron is expected to urge Islamic countries to embrace
democracy like Indonesia and Malaysia, where he is heading on the next leg of his trip’ 185,
and; ‘MUSLIMS must embrace democracy and respect the rights of Christians around the
world, David Cameron will say today.’186. First of all, Cameron’s tour of promoting
democracy in Islamic countries is mentioned in the same breath as Burma’s political
transition, despite Burma not being an Islamic country. This makes it easy for the reader to
interpret that Islamic, Eastern/Asian, non-democratic must all be interchangeable; not to
mention reduces the Other to a single entity instead of a geographical area made up of
different countries, cultures, religions, and so on.
With regard to the above citations, it was interpreted that Islamic countries represent the
Other, Cameron the Self. These pieces of text deliver the message that Islamic countries are
generally not democratic, and as Cameron’s objective seems to be the ‘embrace [of]
democracy’ by Islamic countries, the assumption is easily made that their political structure
surely leaves room for improvement. The fact that Cameron is in a position to urge on other
countries to change their political structure, insinuates that he is an authority within the
‘realm of democracy’. As a result this places the Self in a superior position to the Other.
Similar to the observation in paragraph on Aung San Suu Kyi release from house arrest,
The Daily Mail uses some sort of oxymoron (‘steel butterfly’) and mentions physical
attributes (‘customary flower in her hair’) to describe Aung San Suu Kyi, and further
elaborates on the suffering she has had to endure.187 If Aung San Suu Kyi is taken to
represent the Other, then the same conclusion can be made as was done in previous
paragraphs; namely that the Other is placed in a helpless position, provoking reactions of
pity, consequently being placed in hardly an independent, developed—let alone superior—
position.
All references to Burma in one particular article in The Daily Mail were taken together,
and resulted in the following: ‘ENTHRONED in a gilded palace beside President Thein
184 The Daily Telegraph, ‘Burmese diplomacy’ 10 April, 2012: 21.
185 Rowena Mason, ‘British arms firms to sell to Indonesia’ The Daily Telegraph 11 April, 2012: 4.
186 Rowena Mason, ‘Cameron in human rights plea to Muslims; Respect Christian rights, Muslims told’ The Daily Telegraph 12 April,
2012: 1,4.
187 Claudia Joseph & Elizabeth Sanderson, ‘Hidden torment of the steel butterfly’ The Daily Mail 14 April, 2012; The Daily Mail, ‘Heroine
of Burma takes her country a step closer to freedom’ 1 April, 2012.
Page | 46
Sein... the seductive attractions of strolling in a perfumed garden with the photogenic Nobel
Prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi... a country barely emerging from brutal dictatorship’.188 In
its description of Burma, this article explicitly distinguishes between the Self and Other,
shown by the use of the word ‘we’re [British citizens]’.189 The message brought across by
this depiction of the Other, is that of beauty (gilded palace, perfumed garden) and savagery
(brutal dictatorship); concepts discussed by Spurr under the tropes of Aestheticization and
Classification. A reason why aestheticisation is used in journalism according to Spurr, is ‘in
order to provide a context for the understanding of foreign reality’ and as such ‘intervenes as
a mediating [...] power in the interpretation of cultures’.190 Whether or not it is relevant to
mention that Burma has just emerged from brutal dictatorship considering its recent political
developments, classifying it as such implies the measurement alongside ‘Western’ lines of
political development. Furthermore, the message that the above descriptions bring across
paint a rather simplistic picture of Burma, as being no more than exotically beautiful and
savage (until recently).
Partial conclusion
The contrast between the amount of references to the colonial past in British and Dutch
newspaper articles suggests the presence of an awareness within Britain that Anglo-Burmese
relations are rooted in a shared colonial history. This colonial heritage expresses itself
through a pro-active if not leading role by Britain, in promoting and supporting democracy
and human rights in Burma. In doing so, Britain takes on the role of advisor—sometimes
reminiscent of a fair but reprimanding schoolteacher—ready to guide Burma to democracy,
presumed to be the ultimate objective. On a side note: A big part of the references was used
to supply the readers with background information on Burma, which suggests the existence of
the thought by the authors that probably not many people in Britain are aware of the shared
past between Burma and Britain.
The colonial past is never elaborately touched upon; save once, discussed in paragraph
‘2010 - November 13’: In this article, History is dangerous, teachers need to be brave191, the
188 The Daily Mail, ‘No times for gilded palaces, Mr Cameron’ 13 April, 2012.
189 Ibidem.
190 Spurr, The Rhetoric of Empire, 54.
191 Rahim, ‘History is dangerous, teachers need to be brave’ The Daily Telegraph 20 November, 2010: 16.
Page | 47
reluctance within Britain to talk about the colonial past is discussed. Guilt and embarrassment
with regard to the colonial past is widely felt on the one hand while on the other, avoiding the
subject draws out reactions of pride and nostalgia from some corners in Britain; the former
empire should be seen as something good. These sentiments, embarrassment, guilt, pride and
nostalgia for empire, seem to be rotating subjects within the British debate on the colonial
past and the way it should be treated. The outcome of the analysis of British newspaper
articles seems to reflect these sentiments to a certain degree: The responsibility felt towards a
former colony to guide it to a “better future” (democracy & human rights) could be
interpreted as making amends for past wrongs; absence of elaborating on the colonial past
could equally signal embarrassment and guilt. The outcome also hints at Britain attempting to
take on a leading role with regard to their former colony, which could be linked to a longing
for more importance and prominence on the international political stage192, as it did “back in
the (g)olden days”. This observation does not seem to match Britain’s stance towards the
Commonwealth ‘as [a country] not daring to lead’193. Perhaps this is because Britain’s search
for a role within the international community still has not come to an end, or it may be
because Burma, being a non-member of the Commonwealth and seen perhaps as a lone, lost
sheep, formed an opportunity for Britain to show its leadership potential (and possibly the
economic benefits which the reaffirming of bilateral ties could yield).
Over time, an increase in the amount of articles on Aung San Suu Kyi can be seen, both
in Dutch as in English newspaper articles. The events leading up to the opening-up of Burma
to the rest of the world after years of isolation is a big enough cause. In Britain, this seems to
coincide with more political activity directed at Burma; commenting by official British
representatives and ultimately even visits by the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister in
2012. One of Britain’s motives seems to be investment in Burma. That it is one of the first
countries to pay Burma a visit seems to suggest it thinks of itself as being in an advantageous
position, very likely because of its link to the colonial past.
Establishing the influence of colonial discourse was done by distinguishing the use of
Self- and Other dichotomies in the British newspaper articles. Additionally, it was attempted
to discern any of the tropes as mentioned by Spurr in The Rhetoric of Empire. The Self was
192 David Sanders, Losing an Empire, Finding a Role (New York: 1989) 292/293.
193 Vogler, 'Britain and North-South Relations', 207.
Page | 48
found to take on the form of Britain, British citizens, democratic countries, British
representatives, the West; the Other took on the form of Aung San Suu Kyi, the East, Asia,
Islamic countries, Burma.
Defining the characteristics of colonial discourse was done by attempting to discern
David Spurr’s colonial discourse tropes. Colonial discourse was seen to manifest itself in the
form of ‘Aestheticization’, ‘Affirmation’, ‘Classification’ , ‘Idealization’ ‘Validation’;
‘Classification’ appeared to be the most dominantly present, followed up by ‘Affirmation’.
6
CONCLUSION
The objective of this study was to find out if the colonial past affects the present-day
British stance towards Burma. Additionally, in further characterising this stance, it was
questioned whether colonial discourse appears to play a role; and if so, how it manifests
itself.
The research performed to establish an answer comprised comparative newspaper
analysis, in which British newspaper coverage on Aung San Suu Kyi as representing Burma
was compared to that of Dutch newspapers. Analysing whether colonial discourse affects
present-day British discourse was facilitated by David Spurr’s theory on existing tropes
within colonial discourse, inspired by French, British and American journalism, travel writing
and imperial administration.
The observation that more British newspaper articles were found covering Burma than
Dutch ones; together with more references to both the colonial past and Britain in relation to
Burma in British newspapers compared to the Dutch, led to the conclusion that the colonial
past indeed influences the way Britain relates itself to Burma.
The outcome of the qualitative research performed in this study revealed that colonial
discourse appears to be present and partly characterises Britain’s stance. However, it should
be noted that this could also be a more general characteristic of Western countries’ attitudes
towards countries considered to belong to the Third World. In effect, colonial discourse is not
necessarily an exceptional characteristic of the British stance towards Burma.
The articles reflect a firm belief within Britain in the universal value of Western
democracy in which the country appears to want to take on a leading and advisory role. This
is where colonial discourse starts to shine through:
Page | 49
Of all the tropes within colonial discourse as defined by David Spurr, those of Affirmation
and Classification seemed to come closest to describing present-day British colonial
discourse as is reflected by The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail.
Affirmation is described as the authority of the Self over the Other which constantly needs
to be repeated to strengthen/affirm the existing order and position of the Self with regard to
power relations. It finds its main example in the idea behind the white man’s burden; he takes
responsibility to exercise his moral superiority over the lesser Other.194
Classification refers to the measuring of Third World countries along the lines of Western
norms or standards, in which they are assigned general characteristics that serve as an
explanation for failing to meet these norms/standards. Classification within Western
discourse takes on the character of assigning an order with a hierarchy. With regard to
politics this can translate itself as the Western (liberal-democratic) structure being highly
developed, political structures deviating from those in the West as being in development or
underdeveloped.195
Britain’s behaviour towards Burma as related by both the Dutch and British press
indicates that Britain seems increasingly eager to interact with Burma now that the country
has started to shed itself from the Junta. British representatives being among the first to visit
the country after Aung San Suu Kyi’s recent victory reflects a deeper than average
relationship between Burma and Britain, most likely, considering the chapter on AngloBurmese history, due to their shared past.
The results of this research can be seen as a contribution to further establishing the place
of colonial history in Britain; to what extent there exists a present-day awareness of this
period in the past. Furthermore, by having analysed the role of colonial discourse, this study’s
outcome could contribute to the debate on post-colonialism; power-relations between East
and West.
The limitations of this research express themselves in the amount of newspapers that were
compared. Due to time- and space restrictions, no more than four newspapers in total were
chosen to be considered. Because two popular newspapers do not represent the stance of an
entire nation, the outcome of this research can only be seen as an indication of the stance of a
segment of British society.
194 Ibidem, 109-111.
195 Ibidem, 68.
Page | 50
Additionally it should be remarked that despite having provided this study with a useful
tool to help define colonial discourse, criticism with regard to the reducing character of David
Spurr’s theory on colonial discourse should be taken into account. However; a certain degree
of reduction could not be avoided lest the defining or characterising of colonial discourse to
be kept vague and hollow.
Page | 51
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books and studies
Ashton, S.R., ‘Burma, Britain, and the Commonwealth’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth
History vol. 29, no. 1 (2001) pp. 65-91.
Aung, Maung Htin, The Stricken Peacock. Anglo-Burmese Relations 1752-1948 (The Hague: 1965).
Barker, Francis, Peter Hulme, Margaret Iversen (eds), Colonial Discourse/Post-Colonial Theory
(Manchester: 1996).
Biederman, W., ‘Damascus brengt zichzelf opnieuw schade toe’, De Volkskrant, 13 July 2005.
Charney, Michael, A History of Modern Burma (Cambridge: 2009).
The Commonwealth, ‘History’ http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/191086/191247/34493
/history/ (14 October 2012).
Cooper, Frederick, Colonialism in Question. Theory, Knowledge, History. (University of California:
2005).
Davies, Alan, Catherine Elder (eds), Discourse Analysis – The Handbook of Applied Linguistics
(Malden: 2008).
De L’Estoile, Benoit, ‘The Past as it Lives Now: An Anthropology of Colonial Legacies’, Social
Anthropology vol. 16, no.3 (2008) pp. 267-279.
Drooglever, Peter J., ‘Dekolonisatie in twintig delen. Een persoonlijke impressie.’ BMGN - Low
Countries Historical Review, vol. 111, no. 4 (1996) pp. 464-472.
Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus (ed), Discourse Communication: New Approaches to the Analysis of Mass
Media (Berlin: 1985).
Fletcher, E. Laurel, Harvey M. Weinstein, Jamie Rowen, ‘Context, Timing and the Dynamics of
Transitional Justice: A Historical Perspective’, Human Rights Quarterly vol. 31, no. 1(2009) pp. 163220.
Furnivall, John S., Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands
India (New York: 1956).
Gee, James Paul, How to do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit (New York: 2011).
Hardman, Dean, Political Ideologies and Identity in British Newspaper Discourse (University of
Nottingham: 2008).
Hoogendam, Ellen, Kwaliteitskrant Versus Populaire Krant (Rotterdam: 2009).
Page | 52
Howe, Stephen, ‘ Imperial and Colonial History’,
http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/articles/imperial_post_colonial_history.html. (15
October 2012).
Judis, John B., ‘History Lesson’ New Republic vol. 228, no. 22 (2003).
Kennedy, Dane, ‘Imperial History and Post-Colonial Theory’ The Journal of Imperial and
Commonwealth History vol. 24, no. 3 (1996) pp. 345-363.
Kwarteng, Kwasi, Ghosts of Empire (Bloomsbury: 2011).
MacIntyre, William David, British Decolonization, 1946-1997: When, Why and How did the British
Empire Fall? (Basingstoke: 1998).
Mayall, James, ‘Democractizing the Commonwealth’ International Affairs vol. 74, no. 2 (1998) pp.
379–392.
Media UK ‘Newspapers in the UK: An Introduction’ (29 September 2009)
http://www.mediauk.com/article/4/newspapers-in-the-uk-an-introduction. (12 October 2012).
Pomerantsev, Peter, ‘BBC Series Empire Confronts British with Colonial Past’ (12 March 2012)
Newsweek Magazine, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/03/11/bbc-series-empireconfronts-british-with-colonial-past.html. 15 October 2012.
Popham, Peter, ‘Her Nation’s Best Hope’, New Statesman vol. 139, no. 5007 (2010) p.22.
Richardson, John E., Analysing Newspapers. An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis (London:
2007).
Said, Edward W., Orientalism (New York: 1979).
Sanders, David, Losing an Empire, Finding a Role. British Foreign Policy Since 1945 (New York:
1989).
Schaper, B., ‘Nieuwe opvattingen over het moderne imperialisme’ BMGN - Low Countries Historical
Review, vol. 86, no.1 (1971) pp. 4-20.
Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds) The Handbook of Discourse
Analysis (Malden: 2001).
Schouten, Elske, ‘Birma is veel meer dan de gevangen oppositieleider; Ligging maakt Birma
belangrijk voor China en India’, NRC Handelsblad, 13 November 2010.
Schraeder, Peter J. (ed), Exporting Democracy: Rhetoric vs Reality (Boulder: 2002).
Seuer, Le, James D. (ed), The Decolonization Reader (New York: 2003).
Page | 53
Sharpe, Gillian ‘As Indonesia Celebrates 50 Years of Freedom, Its Former Colonial Master Confronts
Its Past.’ Christian Science Monitor vol. 87, no. 184 (1995) p. 8.
Shaw, Timothy M. and Lucian M. Ashworth, ‘Commonwealth Perspectives on International
Relations’ International Affairs vol. 86, no. 5 (2010) pp. 1149–1165.
Smith, Michael, Steve Smith and Brian White (eds), British Foreign Policy: Tradition, Change and
Transformation (London: 1988).
Spurr, David, The Rhetoric of Empire: Colonial Discourse in Journalism, Travel Writing and
Imperial Administration (Post-Contemporary Interventions) (Durham: 1993).
Le Sueur, James D. (ed), The Decolonization Reader (New York: 2003).
Taylor, Robert H., ‘Politics in Late Colonial Burma: The Case of U Saw’ Modern Asian Studies vol.
10, no. 2 (1976) pp. 161-193.
Tinker, Hugh, ‘Burma’s Struggle for Independence: The Transfer of Power Thesis Re-examined’
Modern Asia Studies vol.20, no. 3 (1986) pp. 461-481.
University of Winchester, ‘Journalism’ http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=387.
Vale, Richard E., ‘What Impact did Decolonization have on Britain’ (version: 22 May 2012)
http://www.e-ir.info/2012/05/22/what-impact-did-decolonisation-have-on-britain/ (5 October 2012).
Ward, Stuart (ed), British Culture and the End of Empire (Manchester: 2001).
Wesseling, Hendrik Lodewijk, Europa’s Koloniale Eeuw: De Koloniale Rijken in de Negentiende
Eeuw, 1815-1919 (Amsterdam: 2003).
Williams, Patrick and Laura Chrisman (eds), Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader
(New York: 1994).
Primary Sources
The Daily Telegraph
The Daily Mail
NRC Handelsblad
De Telegraaf
All articles in the above newspapers containing key word ‘Aung San Suu Kyi’ in between the
following dates:
April 6, 2002 to June 6, 2002,
Page | 54
April 30, 2003 to June 30, 2003,
July 11, 2009 to September 11, 2009,
October 13, 2010 to December 13, 2010,
December 18, 2011 to February 18, 2012,
March 1, 2012 to May 1, 2012.
Page | 55