October 30, 2005
Aung Sang Suu Kyi reaches ten years in detention
Image source: BBC News
Aung San Suu Kyi reached a total of ten years in detention last week. The regime keeps her in virtual solitary confinement, hoping the world will forget her, but campaigners around the world continue to call for her release, and demand United Nations Security Council intervention.
The Burma Campaign UK has recently published a new report, Too Many Years of Empty Words highlighting the failure of the United Nations to achieve democratic change in Burma. There are signs of change, the UK having shifted its position to support 'any action' by the Security Council to help restore democracy to Burma. Sadly, there appears to be no action of any shape or form on the immediate horizon; a state affairs decried by an Editorial in The Times newspaper last week (reproduced in full below if the link is broken).
Leading article
The Times, October 24, 2005
In Burma's agony
Freedom for Aung San Suu Kyi is a precondition for progress
In cruel solitude, denied visitors or even a telephone, a frail woman marks ten years as the political prisoner of a vicious and illegitimate military dictatorship. Since 1988, when she returned from Britain to her native Burma and, in response to a massacre of student demonstrators, formed the resolutely non-violent National League for democracy, the Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi has spent most of those 16 years in prison or under house arrest. It is 15 years since the League astounded the junta by winning 80 per cent of the vote in parliamentary elections that the generals believed they had rigged so as to ensure the League¹s political demise. The junta quashed the result, imprisoned her and many League colleagues and set out to crush every last shred of opposition; yet as became obvious from the throngs that crowded to her when she was briefly released in 2002 it cannot extinguish the loyalty which Daw Suu Kyi, known to Burmese simply as "The Lady", commands.
Her release is imperative and urgent, because that enduring loyalty is now this crushed society¹s only potential bulwark against the tragedies that have engulfed it, beginning in 1962 with General Ne Win¹s disastrous "Burmese way to socialism". These were intensified by the clique that has the gall to call itself the State Peace and Development Council. The country now officially known as Myanmar is a problem not just for its people but, increasingly, for the region.
On the pretext of crushing rebellions by persecuted minority peoples, the regime has committed every conceivable abuse. Nearly a million refugees have fled to neighbouring countries; as many are internally displaced. Military "enterprises" run rackets that, with the collusion of China and elements of the Thai military, are stripping gem mines and teak forests, as well as trafficking in opiates and amphetamines. In a fertile land, a third of children are malnourished, HIV/Aids and tuberculosis are rife and humanitarian agencies are systematically thwarted.
The international response has been a flabby mix of selective Western sanctions, and an abortive Asean policy of "engagement". While pretending to be preparing a new "democratic" constitution, the junta has blocked serious mediation, even by UN envoys. But Asean is no longer the shield that it was. In July it forced Burma to relinquish its turn at the body¹s rotating chairmanship, and a parliamentary caucus within Asean is pressing for its suspension.
Washington is pressing the Security Council to put Burma on its agenda with a resolution obliging it to free Daw Suu Kyi and her fellow political prisoners and acknowledge the League¹s legitimacy. A coruscating new report sponsored by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Vaclav Havel buttresses that case. China objects, but nine of the 16 Council votes would suffice. Burma differs from other abominably misruled states because a democratically elected alternative exists, something not even China can deny. United pressure is crucial if an intransigent regime is to change.
October 23, 2005
The Earth's lungs grow smaller
Image source: AP Photo/Dado Galdieri
A BBC report last week revealed that the rate of deforestation of the Amazon rainforest has been underestimated by around 60%. An article published in Science magazine documents how the NASA space agency has used an ultra-high-resolution technique to examine just how much selective logging has been going on. Although considered more environmentally-friendly than clear-felling, roads still have to be constructed and heavy machinery brought in. The Amazon rainforest is one of the world's great treasures of biodiversity and its function as a carbon sink means that its rapid diminution can only serve to speed up global warming and climate change. If one were to surgically remove a person's lungs bit by bit, that person becomes very unhealthy and they die. Cutting out the Earth's 'lungs', on the other hand, is considered 'progress'.
October 16, 2005
The Amazon basin drought
Brazilian fishermen stand among dead fish along an Amazon tributary
Image source: planetark.com
Just as deforestation has affected rainfall patterns in China, the dramatic images from the drought-stricken Amazon basin this week shows what happens when 6 football pitches of rainforest are cut down every minute. As this latest environmental catastrophe is one of a long line of such incidents around the world recently, it has barely registered with the world's media, yet it affects 61 municipalities and threatens the livelihoods of millions of people.
October 12, 2005
Religious fundamentalism
Image source: The Guardian
I've blogged about this before, and it's cropped up again recently. The religious fervosity of the Al Qaeda drives them to commit extreme acts. Thank goodness President Bush has a direct line to God to counter this extremism.
October 09, 2005
The precautionary principle
Source: BBC News
The amount of media coverage on global warming in recent years hasn't really extended beyond more than a trickle, but in the aftermath of the New Orleans disaster, the possibility that climate change could have an impact on national economies (even that of the most powerful nation of earth!) seems to have permeated the mainstream consciousness. A week or so ago, BBC World News even went as far as to lead with a story on global warming, and the dranatic impact it is having on the Arctic ice cap. The sceptics continue to spout their usual drivel that there is no conclusive evidence that the ice melting can be linked to global warming, and that it is all part of some natural cycle. Yes, it is true that 800,000 years ago there was no ice in the Arctic, and it is conceivable, therefore, that this may be the case again in the future. However, this is hardly sufficient reason to continue churning tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere willy-nilly. The fact is, there is no conclusive evidence that the melting ice caps are part of a natural cycle either. If in doubt, isn't it better to play safe? Application of the precautionary principle has to be the optimal solution because of the danger of irreversibility. There will be no gloating on the part of the envoronmental movement if they turn out to be right because, by then, there may be nothing any of us can do about it.