Throwing stones from the glasshouse

Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi follows in a long line of ‘freedom fighters’ who have suffered much for the sake of justice, fairness and democracy. Names like Mahatma Ghandi of India, Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Xanana Gusmao of East Timor (Timor-Leste) and Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia are just some of those that have either come before, or are contemporaries of Suu Kyi.

As I have written much of these past few weeks, things are tough for the Burmese, and now Suu Kyi is being refused release from house arrest for another year. That may not surprise any of you, and it probably would have been even more surprising if she was released.

However, what makes this even more weird, peculiar, and a downright abuse of human rights is that, according to Burmese law, it is now officially illegal to have her detained. Under Burmese law, a person can be detained without charge. But as each year passes, the extension of that detention can only be for one more year. This can only be extended up to 5 years, no longer. Yesterday saw Suu Kyi come to the end of the house arrest 5 year deadline. She now must be either brought to trial on the charges they wish to bring against her, or simply be released.

There are two very disturbingly interesting things to notice here. One is that the Junta are showing a complete lack of know how when it comes to saving lives after Cyclone Nargis. On the other hand they seem to be completely efficient in not only making sure Suu Kyi remains detained, but also being on the ball enough to arrest her supporters as they made their way to Suu Kyi’s house.

They also have no problem in breaking their own laws to suit themselves. Why can’t the Junta be bluntly honest and say that they don’t obey any of the laws they make, because that’s exactly what they are doing now.

If the Junta had any care for democracy, then Suu Kyi would have been President in 1990. Under her leadership, and the leadership of those who succeeded her, Burma would be a different place than it is now. Not only would the ‘new capital’ of Naypidaw still be part of the jungle oasis of Burma, without being destroyed to make a home for the fat cats of the Burmese military, but the response to the cyclone would have resulted in many more lives saved, not the other way around.

I say all this with an immense sense of hopelessness. My voice, like the Burmese people, is not powerful enough. Let’s hope that someone, just someone, can bring about a series of events that will dissolve this hedious regime.

Enjoy your day.

When someone wants to pick a fight with us, or provoke us in any way, we are always told that the best thing to do is diffuse the situation; don’t give the enemy an excuse to do anything. In political circles, we could call it ‘being diplomatic’. With events in the Middle East getting quickly out of control, surely it is time to diffuse the situation in the most diplomatic way possible. 

In the latest copy of TIME magazine, journalist Joe Klein made this very interesting point:

“…the last thing Iran’s leaders want is an American President who doesn’t play the role of the Great Satan. They need the mirage of an implacable, saber-rattling foe to distract their population from the utter incompetence of their government. An American President who says “Let’s Talk”, would lead an awful lot of Iranians to as their leader, “Why aren’t you talking?”

With McCain wanting to keep the status quo going, and Hillary poised to march on Tehran if it so much as looks at her the wrong way, Barack Obama could become the ultimate diffuser. The bully wants the victim to react. When there is no reaction, the bully doesn’t know what to do. We successfully put them on the back foot. They have to think of an alternate plan.

Iran, North Korea, and Syria are all but screaming for a war mongerer to replace the Texas cowboy. If they don’t get one, as Klein says, the leaders of these countries will be seen by their people as the uncooperative ones in the whole equation.

The same logic could have been used in dealing with Robert Mugabe, my favourite dictator from Zimbabwe. Listening to an interview recently with Heidi Holland, the author of ‘Dinner with Mugabe’, my eyes were opened to say the least. Mugabe has a Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of Laws, Master of Science and Master of Laws, all from the University of London External Programme, and his relationship with Britain is the same as a child’s relationship with an estranged parent. Mugabe loves Britain, but Britain has never appreciated him, so he outwardly says he hates the British. Holland stated:

“I am sure that if the Queen asked Robert Mugabe for tea, he would be on the next plane.”

I say ‘could have been used’, as I think the time for this has well and truly past, as does Holland. Mugabe is now totally dillusional, but things may have been different if the UK administration extended a more supportive hand to the fledgling country after independence in 1980.

Down and out aggression is obviously not working. Former President Jimmy Carter was heavily criticised for his efforts to talk through the issues at hand earlier this year, as has Barack Obama for suggesting it. Dealing with the enemy needs to contain as much strategy as playing a game of Chess. When we ‘keep our enemies closer’, we can learn to ‘read’ them, see what makes them ‘tick’ and find their Achilles Heel.

Throwing stones from over the back fence while poking out one’s tongue is childish and incredibly unproductive. Over the last 5 years, it has added at least 3,000 young men and women to the over 3,000 men and women who died at the Word Trade Centre in 2001. Continued loss of life, increased hate, further misery and suffering.

How can talk make anything worse?

Enjoy your day.