Olympic musings: What's in a name?
LONDON — Remember the name David Nepomuceno? Or Teofilio Yldefonso? Nope? With the 2012 Olympic Games now underway, I got to some Olympic musing about names, from that of the Philippines on westward across the South China Sea (a.k.a. the West Philippines Sea) onward to Myanmar (a.k.a. Burma).
According to the official London 2012 website www.london2012.com, Neopumceno was the first Filipino to compete in an Olympics, running the 100-meter race at the 1924 Games in Paris. Teofilio Yldefonso is the name of the Philippines’ first Olympic medalist, swimming to a bronze win in 1928 in Amsterdam.
There’s also an interesting sentence on the website — or at least there was this past Sunday — that sports fans in the Philippines can hope is prophetic:
“Boxing has proved the most successful sport to date for the Philippines,” the website reads, reminding us of the names of Filipino Jose Luis Villanueva, who won a bronze in the Bantamweight division in the 1932 Los Angeles Games, and his son Anthony, who took silver in the men’s Featherweight in 1964 in Tokyo.
It continues: “All other gold medals won by the Philippines to date have come in boxing.”
Huh?
For not quite four years, I had the honor of serving in Manila as the US Ambassador to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), pushing for more effective efforts by that financial institution in the fight against poverty.
During that time, there was many a memorable match by Manny Pacquaio (incidentally, I think he won that last one). But, if I recall my sporting history correctly, the Philippines is still in the hunt for that first elusive Olympic Gold medal, whether in boxing, athletics, or some other sport.
So, while the official website might have gotten it wrong (for now), at least it got the name of the Philippines correct. Then again, ever since the Spanish in the 16th century named parts of the archipelago we know today as the Republic of the Philippines as “Las Islas Filipinas” in honor of Philip II of Spain, the Philippines has pretty much been the Philippines.
For Myanmar, and some of the news media that cover that nation, it is a little bit more complicated. Athletes from Burma — and I do mean Burma, not Myanmar — first competed at an Olympics in 1948, in London. It wasn’t until 1989 that the country’s military leaders changed their nation’s official name in English from the “Union of Burma” to the “Union of Myanmar.”
It would be changed yet again by the junta, to the “Republic of the Union of Myanmar.” Yet, members of the democratic opposition including Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi — much to the displeasure of Myanmar’s present leaders — continue to use the name Burma in English.
So, too, do the US and British governments.
The US State Department says the US government uses Burma “out of support for the democratic opposition and its victory in the 1990 election” — an election won overwhelmingly by Aung San Suu Kyi’s party and ignored by Myanmar’s military leaders.
This US policy about the use of Burma was underscored to me during my own tenure at the ADB.
In early May 2008, at the ADB annual meeting held that year in Madrid, the head of the US delegation began his official statement by acknowledging the tremendous loss of life due to Cyclone Nargis, the worst natural disaster in Myanmar’s recorded history. Making landfall on May 2, 2008, the tropical cyclone killed more than 135,000.
“Let me begin on a sad note,” my colleague from US Treasury said, “and say that our hearts go out to the victims of the cyclone that hit Burma over the weekend.”
Weeks afterward, a not-quite-Olympian war of words raged between my office and the bureaucrats of the ADB who produced a transcript changing the US official’s statement, replacing “Burma” with “Myanmar.” After protests and pushback, a “compromise” was ultimately reached in line with US and ADB policy. The solution: no ADB transcript of the US head of delegation’s remarks was included in the official records. Instead, anyone interested in reading the US statement is directed to the US Treasury website.
Having since stepped down from the ADB Board of Directors, I am no longer bound by official US policy on the use of Burma vs. Myanmar. Yet, I still cringe a little when editors change my use of Burma to Myanmar in my writings on Asia and economic development in the region.
When will the United Kingdom (competing as Great Britain at the Games) or the United States change its position on which name to use? Should the BBC, The Guardian or the Washington Post start using Myanmar, just as the Financial Times and CNN do in their reports, if a skilled Olympian from that nation wins a medal? (The Guardian’s style guide makes clear its present position. The entry under Burma reads simply, “not Myanmar.”)
For governments in Southeast Asia, the name change is a done deal. For US and UK policy makers though, acknowledging the new name is also about politics and a political statement — not just about the process by which the name change was done, but also about the pace of change on such critical issues as democracy, inclusiveness and human rights.
It may be months, or years, before Washington and London decide to “let Burma be Myanmar.” Important consultations must take place, and the continued pace and sustainability of reforms in Myanmar will need to be assessed.
In the meantime though, let’s not talk of word games and name changes. Instead, sit back and enjoy the Olympic games. Even as we root for athletes from the Philippines, the United States or elsewhere, here’s a thought: whether competing under the name Burma or Myanmar, no athlete from that nation has yet won an Olympic medal.
At the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Filipino athletes also won no medals. Let’s hope all that changes. But regardless, let’s celebrate the spirit of the Games and all the athletes — no matter what they call their home country.
* * *
Curtis S. Chin is a senior fellow and executive-in-residence at the Asian Institute of Technology, and a managing director with RiverPeak Group. He served as US Ambassador to the Asian Development Bank from 2007-2010.
