|
||
Ban Ki Moon in Burma: The Chance for a New Beginning
When UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon meets the military dictatorship in Burma today he will have the whole world with him.
His mission, to persuade the junta to release all political prisoners and engage with democracy, is critical to the future of the Burmese people.
But it is also a crucial moment for the international community.
In recent weeks, we have seen an extraordinary consensus around the world in support of all those forced to suffer under the Burmese regime.
The UN, the EU, and ASEAN have all made clear the need for urgent change. More than 45 Heads of State have added their voices to the call.
How we respond to the injustices in Burma will send a message about our resolution to tackle similar abuses across the globe.
Political and humanitarian conditions in the country continue to deteriorate.
When over 140,000 were killed and millions made destitute by Cyclone Nargis last year the world's efforts to help were resisted, a peaceful uprising by monks in 2007 was violently quashed, ethnic minorities are persecuted and under armed attack.
The media are muzzled, freedom of speech and assembly are non-existent and the number of political prisoners has doubled to more than 2000.
As Secretary-General Ban arrives, the most high profile of them -- Aung San Suu Kyi -- faces further persecution from the Generals as her sham trial resumes.
She has long been a symbol of hope and defiance during her 14 years as a prisoner of conscience.
She is a most courageous woman. In those long years, she has barely seen her two sons -- yet is resolute in her faith in democracy and the Burmese people.
Her refusal to buckle in the face of tyranny is an inspiration.
I call on the regime to mark Ban Ki Moon's arrival by immediately halting her trial, which makes a mockery of justice, and ending her detention which undermines their credibility in the eyes of the world.
But while hugely significant, this alone would not be the sole measure of progress.
Only agreement to release all political prisoners, start a genuine dialogue with the opposition and ethnic groups will give any credibility to the elections in 2010.
I hope that Ban Ki Moon can convince the Generals to take the first steps. A serious offer is on the table: the international community will work with Burma if the Generals are prepared to embark on a genuine transition to democracy.
But if the Burmese regime refuses to engage, the international community must be prepared to respond robustly.
We should not rest until Aung San Suu Kyi -- and all those who share her commitment to a better and brighter future for Burma -- are able to play their rightful role in it.
The Burmese people have been condemned to nearly half a century of conflict, poverty and isolation. It is time to give them the chance of a new beginning.
The regime can choose to ignore the clamour for change. Or it can choose the path of reform as the region, and the world, have urged.
Today can be the start.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Whats worse UK or US foreign policy and/or meddling.
CIA or M15 assasinations and funding of groups to cause terror.
Its hard to say whos worse or which leaders meddle to help ensure peace, or just meddle because they have agendas of their own.
e.g The corresponence to stage false flags to start a war, which is treason. It happened, and as time goes on will happen again. That is the sole function of the CIA and M15, with their leaders who are always kept in the loop.
Any leader involved in corruption, should be kicked out immediately, and not be allowed to tell others how they should perform.
Remind us which imperial power previously ran Burma to set up the mess? Most important, let's keep the Western imperialists out of the way. We could hold up models of Western intervention and/or sanctions to free the people, like: Iraq, Sudan, Cuba, Palestine, Rhodesia.......... It has worked so well, let's keep doing it.
I hope that the British people would appreciate you more, Gordon Brown.
Not, John Major or Margaret Thatcher or any Tories, have done anything of conscious courage, for the Tweny First Century. Nor laid the groundwork. It was more patriotic convictions - that lead to wars, wars and more wars. Oh yeah, and "acting" tough.
Thank You.
Do you not think judgment of our British Prime Minister is for the people of Britain to decide? We have, after all, had 12.5 years to make up our minds.
Thatcher and Major were 20th century Prime Ministers, DietrichMoody.
UK has not had any Conservative Prime Ministers during the 21st century - yet - so your comment is rather nonsensical.
As for wars, wars, wars being due to patriotism, in the case of World War 2 that is again untrue. We British were forced to go to war - under our greatest Prime Minister and greatest example of Prime Ministerial courage ever, the Conservative PM, Winston Churchill - after Hitler's Nazis invaded Europe, threatened to invade England, began their nightmare holocaust against the Jews and began a wicked and relentless bombing campaign of England which brutally murdered 60,000 British civilians.
I'm afraid there are times when war is regretfully unavoidable, defending your country against the invasion threat and brutal bombing campaign of and evil Nazi is one of them.
Until the international community are ready to confront China, nothing will change in Burma. China provides the weapons that the SPDC use in their ethnic genocides and the torture techniques they use on their political prisoners. Why should the SPDC change when they have plenty of trading partners?
Would you say the same about Cambodia and Vietnam? Did sanctions work? Instead, when the West quit trying to force their policies and simply opened trade and interchange, life improved for the people. When they really have plenty of trading partners, life will improve. Don't buy this "International community" bunk.
It's interesting that the UN is trying a new tack, but there isn't any good reason to believe that there will be a change of heart here unless Moon has some new bargaining chip like, say, the the force of the PRC behind him. The international community has been calling for change for years now; I don't see how doing it in person is going to make any difference. Thus, I hardly see why this "chance for a new beginning" is being touted when that chance is almost certainly insignificant.
When it's poppy time in Burma
And the cherry tree's in bloom
The Chance for a New Beginning
Meets the rising Ban Ki Moon
For all you conservative haters of Huffington Post, how often does the leader of a major country blog on Newsmax or Drudge Report?
Your remarks are absurd. Many Conservatives blog here because they love Huffpo. I'm a Liberal Conservative and I love Huffington Post, I've been blogging here for some time.
"UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown says new sanctions may be imposed on Burma's regime after it snubbed visiting UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon."
That's a mighty quick turnaround even for a weathervane. Did you really think they would let Mr. Ban in to talk to Aung San Suu Kyi? Did he go to Burma to negotiate with HER? Your faith in the UN is entirely unwarranted. Oh well. Let's shift our focus to North Korea or Sudan. How about giving THEM 48 hours to reverse years and years of bad behaviors. THAT should rattle 'em!
As an appointed bunch of civil servants, the UN has little credibility, and less claim to power than it needs to get the job done.
What we need is an ELECTED international body to deal with world affairs and international issues, and regressive regimes.
Such an "international government" is possible, and very necessary. We all need to push for it.
Let's put your ahistorical remarks in a historic context. My country'a small group of islands has been subjected to more invasions, colonisations and invasion attempts from the other countries of the world than we can ever count, here are just a few of them:
Indo European speakers around the river Volga in southern Russia invaded what was later to be called the British Isles
circa 40 BC Celts invaded southern England and Ireland
circa 43 AD to 410 AD Romans invaded Celtic speaking England
circa 449 AD Teutonic Conquest. Jutes, Angles, Saxons and Frisians invaded England circa
850 - 1042 Vikings invade England from Denmark and Norway circa
1066-1400 Normans invade England
1939 -1945 Nazi Germany invaded Europe and the Channel islands and Hitler bombed Britain for
During parts of the 19th century, over 1000 Irish settlers per day landed in Endland and from the earliest times we have had the large scale settlement here of Eastern Europeans (many Jewish), Middle Eastern Muslims, Africans, HIndus and Caribean nationals.
The people of Myanmar call their country by that name. Why can't you extend them the courtesy to using the name they chose for themselves?
This is the problem with the arrogance of the US and the rest of the west. How if we in Britain took to calling your country the United States of Israel and the former British American Colonies?
When you don't accord people respect your perspective is always going to be a biased one, and it's this kind of bias that gratuitously causes untold misery across the globe.
Think on that!
Professor Dr. Stanley Collymore.
Wait. The article was written by Gordon Brown and yet to hate on the U.S.?
The people of Myanmar? When was the last time the people there had a say on anything? Myanmar is the SPDC name for Burma, which is why people who reject the SPDC reject their terminology.
I agree with your criticism as it applies to Gordon Brown, but I have not seen or heard any one in the United States refer to Myanmar as Burma. I must admit that I do not know enough of the history ot that part of the world to understand the significance of the name, Myanmar, to the people of that country. Perhaps you could help enlighten some of us. I would also like to know if you would agree with the comments that say nothing will change without China joining in any U.N. action.
The Burmese junta releasing their stranglehold?
It ain't gonna happen, Gordo. Not without armed intervention, which the Chinese won't permit.
Moon mission, to persuade the junta to release all political prisoners and engage with democracy, is critical to the future of the Burmese people but whwn he went to sri lanka he didn't do a dam thing .
kept his silent
WHY MOON WHY?
Well, of course most of us agree with all that, but what do you, Gordon Brown, think the Generals care about your opinion when they don't give flying **** what important people and countries in the world think?
You may have almost single-handedly destroyed the UK and the Labour Party, but that only demonstrates how inept you are and how outdated and inappropriate your idiological ideas of social engineering are, not by any power you might have once had at your disposal.
Anyway, it's debatable at present whether we Brits any longer really have significantly more personal freedom under your regime than the Burmese do under the Generals.
The international community treats each dictator in an ad hoc way. As consciousness rises of the dictators' brutality, political pressure slowly rises, discussion ensues, and appeals to his (it is usually a him) better nature give way to calls for some kind of sanction. It doesn't have to be like this. There are identifiable steps to dictatorship, such as closing down the free press, arrest of political opponents, and setting aside the results of elections. The UN needs to set up a tariff of sanctions targeted at the regime, applied when each step is taken, and lifted when the repressive step is repealed. The stick of action in the International Court of Justice can be balanced with a carrot, guaranteeing the dictator a comfortable life in exile if he leaves office voluntarily. More here: http://bit.ly/173gGZ
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
