Today in History: The 1962 Burma Coup

by Achala Gunasekara-Rockwell, PhD

Introduction

On 2 March 1962, General Ne Win led a military coup that toppled the democratic government of Burma and established a military regime that would rule the country for more than five decades. The coup d’état had a profound impact on Burmese society and politics, setting the stage for decades of authoritarian rule, economic mismanagement, and human rights abuses. The 1962 Burmese coup d’état is widely considered to be one of the most consequential events in Burmese history, with lasting implications for the country’s political and social development.

This article provides an overview of the events leading up to the coup, the details of the coup itself, and the aftermath of the establishment of military rule in Burma. It also examines the impact of the coup on Burmese politics, society, and economy, including changes to the country’s governance, international relations, and internal opposition. The article concludes with an analysis of the military regime’s legacy and ongoing influence in Burmese politics, and its potential implications for Burma’s future.

By examining the 1962 Burmese coup d’état in detail, this article seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of one of the defining events in Burmese history, and its broader significance for the region and the world.

Background

Burma's independence in 1948 marked the end of nearly 100 years of British colonial rule. The country's new government was established under the leadership of Aung San, a prominent Burmese independence leader, who was assassinated shortly before independence. Aung San's successor, U Nu, was elected as the first Prime Minister of Burma, and his government was one of the first democratically elected governments in Southeast Asia.

In the early years of independence, Burma's democratic government faced numerous challenges, including ethnic tensions and political instability. Burma was home to dozens of ethnic groups, each with its own culture and language, and many of these groups were seeking greater autonomy or independence. The government's attempts to address these issues were often met with resistance, and violent conflicts between different ethnic groups were common.

Additionally, the country faced significant economic difficulties, including a shortage of foreign currency, high inflation, and a struggling agricultural sector. The government attempted to address these issues through a series of economic policies, including nationalization of key industries, but these efforts were often unsuccessful.

U Nu's government also faced political challenges from a number of different groups, including communist insurgents and ethnic separatists. In 1958, these challenges came to a head when U Nu's government was unable to control political violence in the country, and the Prime Minister resigned. A caretaker government was established, but it was unable to resolve the country's problems, and the military stepped in to take control.

General Ne Win, a prominent figure in the Burmese military, was appointed as the head of the caretaker government. Ne Win had previously served as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and was well-respected within the military establishment.

Ne Win's primary goal was to restore order to the country, which had been plagued by political violence and instability. Under his leadership, the government cracked down on communist insurgents and other armed groups, and many political prisoners were released. Ne Win also implemented a number of economic policies designed to stabilize the country's finances, including the devaluation of the Burmese kyat and the introduction of new currency notes.

In 1960, elections were held to establish a new government, and U Nu's Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League (AFPFL) won a slim majority of seats in parliament. U Nu was once again appointed as Prime Minister, and his government was tasked with addressing the country's ongoing challenges, including ethnic tensions, economic difficulties, and political instability.

However, U Nu's second term as Prime Minister was marked by a series of crises, including a failed military uprising and an attempted assassination of the Prime Minister. The government struggled to address the country's economic problems, and political divisions within the ruling party led to a breakdown in governance.

The military had played a prominent role in Burmese politics since independence, and many military leaders believed that they had a duty to protect the country from internal and external threats. However, in the years following independence, the military's role in governance had been limited, and the government had been responsible for most of the country's affairs.

By the early 1960s, the military was becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the government's performance. Many military leaders, including Ne Win, believed that U Nu's government was weak and ineffective, and they were convinced that the military needed to take a more prominent role in governing the country.

One of the key issues driving this discontent was the ongoing challenge of ethnic tensions within the country. The military, which was seen as a unifying force in Burmese society, believed that it had a responsibility to address these tensions and prevent the country from descending into chaos. Additionally, the military was frustrated by the government's inability to address the country's economic problems and provide basic services to the population. This discontent within the military set the stage for the 1962 coup d'état.

The Coup

On 2 March 1962, General Ne Win and a group of military officers staged a coup d'état, overthrowing the democratically-elected government of U Nu and establishing a military junta. The coup took place in the early hours of the morning, with military forces seizing control of key government buildings and installations throughout the country.

The coup was initially carried out without any significant violence, with military forces taking control of key government buildings and installations without encountering any significant resistance. Prime Minister U Nu and other government officials were taken into custody without incident, and the military established a curfew throughout the country to prevent any potential outbreaks of violence.

The military justified its actions by claiming that it was necessary to restore order and stability to the country, which had been plagued by political violence and economic difficulties. In the years leading up to the coup, Burma had experienced a series of political crises, with multiple governments failing to address the country's ongoing economic problems, ethnic tensions, and political instability.

The military argued that it was better equipped to address these challenges than the civilian government, and that it was necessary to take decisive action to prevent the country from descending into chaos. The military also claimed that it was acting in the best interests of the Burmese people, and that its actions were necessary to protect the country from internal and external threats.

While the initial stages of the coup were relatively bloodless, the military's subsequent actions would lead to widespread human rights abuses and political repression. The military regime would go on to imprison and execute political dissidents, suppress the media and civil society, and carry out a wide range of other human rights violations, leading to widespread condemnation both domestically and internationally.

Following the coup, the military established the Revolutionary Council as the new governing body of Burma, composed of military officers and civilians who were loyal to the junta and with Ne Win serving as the head of the council and assuming the role of Prime Minister. The council effectively replaced the previous civilian government, suspending the constitution and declaring a state of emergency that lasted for more than a decade.

The suspension of the constitution effectively put an end to democratic rule in Burma, with the military junta assuming complete control over the government and the country's institutions. The Revolutionary Council would go on to issue a series of decrees and laws that severely curtailed civil liberties and political freedoms. The military regime also suppressed opposition groups and political dissidents, using violence and intimidation to maintain its grip on power.

During the early years of the junta, the Revolutionary Council worked to establish a new political and economic order in Burma. The military regime nationalized many of the country's industries and implemented a range of economic policies designed to promote self-sufficiency and reduce reliance on foreign trade. However, these policies had little success, and the country's economy continued to deteriorate, leading to widespread poverty and economic hardship.

The establishment of the Revolutionary Council marked a significant turning point in Burma's history, as the military regime would go on to rule the country for over five decades, with the Burmese people facing widespread repression, human rights abuses, and political instability during this time. The military's grip on power would only begin to loosen in the 2010s, with the establishment of a nominally-civilian government and the beginning of a slow process of democratic reforms.

The 1962 coup was met with mixed reactions both domestically and internationally. Many Burmese citizens initially welcomed the coup, believing that the military would be better equipped to address the country's challenges than the previous civilian government. The military's initial justification of restoring order and stability to the country after years of political violence and economic difficulties resonated with many Burmese citizens who had grown tired of the instability and chaos under the previous government.

However, as the military regime consolidated its power and human rights abuses became more widespread, opposition to the junta began to grow. The military regime was characterized by widespread human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, forced labor, and the suppression of political opposition. The junta also restricted civil liberties and freedom of speech, severely limiting the ability of Burmese citizens to express dissent.

Internationally, the coup was met with widespread condemnation, with many countries imposing sanctions and other measures to pressure the junta to restore democratic rule. The United States, the United Kingdom, and other Western countries condemned the coup and imposed economic sanctions, arms embargoes, and other measures to isolate the military regime. However, these measures had little effect, and the military regime remained in power for over five decades.

It was not until 2011 that the military began to loosen its grip on power, allowing for the establishment of a nominally-civilian government and the beginning of a slow process of democratic reforms—reforms that would prove to be exceedingly short-lived.

Analysis

The coup was a pivotal event in the Burma’s history, marking the end of democratic rule and the beginning of a long period of military dictatorship. The coup had far-reaching consequences for Burma's political, economic, and social development, and its legacy is still being felt today, particularly in the aftermath of a second military coup in 2021 that negated all progress made toward a return to democracy. Here are some of the key factors that have shaped analysis of the coup:

1. Military rule and repression: The coup led to the establishment of military rule in Burma, which lasted for over five decades. During this time, the military government was notorious for its repression of political dissent and human rights abuses, including torture, extrajudicial killings, and forced labor. This legacy of repression has had a profound impact on Burma's political culture and the country's relationship with the international community.
2. Economic mismanagement and isolation: The military government's economic policies were marked by mismanagement, corruption, and isolationism. The country's economy stagnated during this time, with Burma becoming one of the world's poorest countries. The government's isolationist policies also led to the country's diplomatic and economic isolation, with Burma becoming increasingly dependent on China and other regional powers.
3. Ethnic tensions and civil war: Burma's ethnic diversity has been a major source of tension throughout the country's history, and the military government's repression of ethnic minority groups was a key factor in the outbreak of civil war. The country has been plagued by armed conflict for decades, with ongoing fighting in several regions.
4. Legacy of authoritarianism: The legacy of military rule continues to shape Burma's political culture, with the military retaining significant political power even after the establishment of a nominally-civilian government in 2011. The subsequent 2021 coup eliminated all vestiges of the country's transition to democracy, and the military's influence remains a major obstacle to democratic reform.

Conclusion

Overall, the 1962 coup d'état had a profound impact on Burma's history, and its legacy is still being felt today. The coup marked the beginning of a long period of military dictatorship, repression, and economic mismanagement, and its impact on the country's political culture and social fabric is still being felt.

For more information on Burma (Myanmar), see the following JIPA publications:

"Myanmar Probably Needs a Military . . . Just Not the One It Has," by Ambassador Scot Marciel

For the international community to play a constructive role in resolving the chaos in Myanmar, it must adopt strategies that recognize there is no sustainable solution to Myanmar’s woes without substantial reform of the Tatmadaw and that reasoning with the current leadership in the hope it will change its behavior is fruitless. Compelling change within the military might seem unthinkable right now—and efforts might well fail—but the alternative is to accept that Myanmar will remain a source of instability, conflict, refugees, narcotics, and distress for the foreseeable future.

---

"Myanmar’s U-turn: Implications of the Military Coup on Strategic Competition in the Indo-Pacific," by Dr. Miemie Winn Byrd, Ed.D.

This article discusses the political crisis in Myanmar, which began on 1 February 2021, when the military seized power and arrested civilian leaders, including democratically elected leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The people of Myanmar rose up in mass demonstrations to demand democracy, but the military responded with brutality, resulting in the deaths of more than 1,300 civilians. The article argues that China has used this crisis to further its economic, foreign policy, and military interests by supporting the military junta, which it views as more reliable than the civilian government. The article also examines China's strategic interests in Myanmar, including its desire to establish a land bridge to the Indian Ocean and a strategic alternative to the Malacca dilemma. The article concludes that Myanmar has been lost to China, and that the West's criticism and condemnation of the Tatmadaw's atrocities have only served to strengthen China's influence in the region.

---

"Myanmar in the US Indo-Pacific Strategy: Why Is China Winning and What to Do about It?," by Pawan Amin (艾建宇) & Dr. Monish Tourangbam

The Biden administration must make an honest assessment of whether it wants to expend political capital in the Congress to pursue a strategy that promotes democracy in Myanmar. The administration must also be prepared to expend economic resources to provide a viable alternative to Naypyidaw. There is a high chance that the pace of democratic transition will be slower than before or might not succeed. Considering the myriad of other foreign policy issues that require the Biden administration’s attention, including its recent blunders in Afghanistan, the government must decide if Myanmar deserves the requisite attention. The primary objective of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy is to reduce China’s influence in the region. If the Tatmadaw, as seen during Myanmar’s phase of reform and opening, intends to reduce the nations overdependence on neighboring China, US policy toward Myanmar in itself and as a component of its broader Indo-Pacific Strategy requires a more realist turn. Such a strategy must be premised on effectively engaging multiple players of Myanmar’s quagmire and doing so in concert with other like-minded partners of the Indo-Pacific region.

---

"The Myanmar Coup as an ASEAN Inflection Point," by Charles Dunst

Myanmar’s incomplete coup therefore poses a serious threat not only to regional security but also to Southeast Asia’s geopolitical influence at large. If ASEAN, because of its promised noninterference, cannot handle the Tatmadaw and bring the president of the United States to the proverbial (and literal) table, how can it effectively be central to regional affairs, as it has long claimed to be? How can ASEAN hope to craft any alternative to Beijing’s Sinocentric plans for the region if the bloc cannot get the president of United States, the man in charge of the only other great power, to even show up?

---

"Between Political Violence and COVID-19: Many Citizens in Myanmar Pushed to Armed Resistance," by Tom Connolly

This article discusses the aftermath of the Myanmar military coup led by General Min Aung Hlaing on 1 February 2021, and its impact on the citizens of Myanmar. The article highlights the violent tactics used by the regime, including killing protesters and imposing restrictions on the transportation of food, fuel, and other critical commodities to certain regions, leading to starvation. It also highlights the creation of civilian-led militias and joining of established ethnic armed organizations (EAO) as a form of resistance against the regime, with urban and rural areas evolving differently in their approach to the resistance. The article concludes by emphasizing the diverse mix of Myanmar's citizens involved in the antiregime movement, including preexisting civil society networks, professional groups, and labor unions.

---

"Women on the Front Lines in Myanmar’s Fight for Democracy," Dr. Miemie Winn Byrd, EdD

As the battle for democracy in Myanmar rages on at the doorstep of China, Myanmar’s women will continue to stand on the front lines to prevent the triumph of authoritarianism. It is a tall order for them to reach a tipping point against the heavily armed military—which enjoys the support from authoritarian regimes such as China and Russia—without some substantive international assistance beyond encouragements and statements. The battle for democracy in Myanmar has become a symbolic contest between democracy and authoritarianism at the heart of the Indo-Pacific region. It will be in the best interest of the most prominent exemplars of democracy to assist Myanmar’s women achieve the tipping point to defeat the military regime. The failure to restore democracy in Myanmar will have reverberations throughout the Indo-Pacific. “The international community must recognize the courage of the women of Myanmar and stand with them in their fight for democracy.”

#IndoPacific #Myanmar #Burma #coup #todayinhistory #foreignpolicy #ASEAN Air University Press Pacific Air Forces U.S. Indo-Pacific Command Daniel K. Inouye Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies Air Force Culture and Language Center (AFCLC)