Burma- An Alternative View

Two months since my last post, and after considering all the consequences of having my name associated with writings about Burma, I have come to the conclusion that the benefits far out number the consequences. There is an urgent need to rebut or support the one-sided, poorly researched and exaggerated media reports about this failed military state and the claims by organizations that have been set up to help the people of this country as a whole or a selected few who in their eyes are more important than the scores of people who are facing the wrath of the government in camps, tucked away from the world view.

I was part of such an organization myself, and honestly it wasn’t until my visit to Burma and interaction with its people that I learnt that no matter how highly we regard human rights, ultimately we are forced to bow down to tainted bureaucracy and politics, and that the world was too wrapped up in the trial of a lady who was only one of millions being tormented each day. I respect Daw Suu Kyi, don’t get me wrong, but not enough to distance myself from her people and their suffering.

A number of my peers in the human rights field will probably disagree with me on this, but I have to pose a question that I frequently ask myself when I feel like I am being carried away by Daw Suu Kyi’s touching story, “are you willing to turn a deaf ear to the thousands of people who face murder, rape, separation, displacement and other forms of torture each passing moment?” Because, by narrowly focusing on her, we are doing exactly this.

Members of organizations that have been striving to secure her release argue that they believe that she is the country’s only hope to cease the oppression. Only hope? Have these claimants made the effort to visit the country recently to speak to the youth and all the things they have been doing as part of their plan to help the people of their country? Do these activists have even the slightest idea of the real problems in this country where majority of the people live in poverty? The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate while well respected and influential, is not the only hope this country has, in fact it is best if she be regarded as a hero and left at that. She has been out of the loop for more than 14 years. How can we expect her to be the answer to this complicated problem called the military junta?

This is why I have no reservations in saying that the answer to the problems of Burma, is not Aung San Suu Kyi but the new generation of politically conscious youth who are working on their plans to create a sustainable society. I am not afraid to make this controversial declaration, but it is not until you visit the country and speak to her people that you will understand this.

Then there are organizations that lobby Congress to impose sanctions on Burma. I have been inside the country and would like to challenge these sanctions, because unless sanctions are targeted, the effects are felt by civilian population who are sinking deeper and deeper into poverty. In the defense of my claim, I would like to invite you to take a tour of Shan State where villagers including the village heads are unaware of the sanctions and claim that their situation has remained unchanged. This goes to show that sanctions are ineffective and unless India and China do more than just utter words, unless we target the hidden bank accounts of all the generals, impose blocks on their lucrative money, including imposing sanctions on India China, and Singapore we will be fighting a lost battle. As you can tell, I am with Sen. John Webb on this (mind you, I am bewildered at his decision to secure the release of John Yettaw, an American who was clearly bought out by the junta to keep Suu Kyi from participating in the upcoming election.

But, I do realize that this is easier said than done. The U.S. government cannot afford to and will not jeopardize their relation with either of the countries and we have to comprehend, and history should be a lesson, that governments are concerned mainly with a re-election, increasing their country’s GDP and also to attain the trust of rich and powerful states.

We would be lucky if “ensuring that the rights of every human being are protected,” does make it to their priority list during their term in office. We have some hope with Obama, but he too has limitations on how he can use his power. He cannot, and Republicans will ensure that they keep him from, meeting all our demands. One, he is accountable to his constituents, many of them concerned with his domestic policy and second, he cannot risk being seen to favor foreign policy over domestic issues especially towards a country that has very little to offer the U.S.

So does this mean that we opt for a concessional option and take whatever we can get? I leave this open for discussion. Be sure to support your arguments with viable explanations.

World leader demonstrates hypocrisy on Iran Issue

"Obviously, you see a regime that represses its own people and spreads terror far and wide. It is a regime whose real nature has been unmasked, and it's been unmasked by incredible acts of courage by Iran citizens. They go into the streets, they face bullets and, I tell you, as somebody who believes deeply in democracy, that you see the Iranian lack of democracy at work, and I think this better explains and best explains to the entire world what this regime is truly about." These were Netanyahu's words on Sunday's Meet the Press. I can't help but scorn at his belief in democracy because we all know that this is not true. How can someone who "believes deeply in democracy" kill others over religion and land. Isn’t democracy supposed to guarantee universal rights to all human beings? I think it is ironic that someone who has stolen this right from people, is being given the platform to condemn another country’s actions.

Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. Furthermore, no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Clearly, Mr. Netanyahu has yet to be informed of this right and perhaps I could do him a favor and send him a copy of the document. Until he gets his shipment and for starters, here’s what he could do: before pointing fingers at Iran, he should take a quick look and examine his own actions, because it is embarrassing for anyone to speak on an issue over which they’ve lost credibility. He doesn’t want Iran to develop nuclear weapons, but what about the development of nukes in Israel? He comments on the Iranian crackdown of the protesters, but what does his government do to the Palestinians? I am a strong critic of religion, but from my understanding of the Quran and Old Testament, I feel Iran is governing its people as per Islamic teachings. Israel too justifies snatching land from the Palestinians and attributing it as a land that was promised to Jews in the Old Testament. So I see both regimes as akin. They both have violated the rights guaranteed by UDHR and they are both hypocrites; they both disgust me.

“I'll tell you what I did -- I called in these demonstrators. They happen to be representatives of a non-Jewish minority in Israel, the Druze community. They have certain protests about the financing of their municipalities. I call their leaders in, I talk to them. I said, "How can I help you?" That's what democratic leaders do, that's what democratic countries do.” I don’t think this is how Netanyahu treated the Palestinian cause.

Maybe if he had, he would have more credibility to speak on the Iran issue. But for now I see this nothing more that a hypocrite condemning what he stands for, and ridiculing himself.


*Political cartoon obtained from google search

Mainstream media biased on Iran elections

If you are switching between channels to find reports about the Iranian riots in other cities in the country hope you are ready to get disappointed. I have been monitoring news stations since the days leading to the elections, to perhaps hear something about riots in places other than Tehran, to hear of and from supporters of incumbent Ahmadinejad; I found nothing. So why do we act surprised when the Iranian government cracks down on international media in the country as also social networking sites?

As a journalist and as someone who has family scattered all over Iran, I feel that western media has let me down. I have no issues declaring publicly that I am not a Ahmadinejad supporter, and that I would would not vote for him if I could even cast my ballot, but I would also like to clarify my reasons for supporting Mousavi. He does not have my support because of his alleged western values, as several news analysts claim he does, but because he is someone who will uphold the rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is a wide difference between labeling him a pro-western candidate and calling him a reformist. He is not a confirmed democracy torch-bearer and all speculations that he is,are not backed by evidence. Their reliance on Iranians in the United States and in Iran who are Mousavi supporters is an insult to the field of journalism.

Journalists today need to be reminded that journalism requires that reports be unbiased and that all sides of an issue should be reported, a lesson that is learnt in journalism 101. How can a report that is slanted be believable? The western media has chosen to elevate their favourite candidate Mousavi on a pedestal but chose to ignore the hardliner Ahmadinejad, who in fact does have a large fan following. But, you cannot know this from watching the news and probably won’t know this at all unless you are one of his supporters. The closest report to coverage about Ahmadinejad’s influence was Christaine Amanpour’s special “From the Streets of Iran”, where she fairly claims that the president does in fact have strong support in the country.

Having said this, I am not surprised that the supreme leader Ayatullah Khamenei has blocked western news media from having access to the situation. I would too, if I were him. Networks could have had a better shot at uncontrolled access if they chose to strike a balance between interviewing and broadcasting tweets from supporters of both candidates and bringing in analysts who evaluate both candidates.

Anyone watching the coverage of post-elections and who knows very little about Iran, would perhaps believe that Tehran is the only city in the country. This is due to the lack of coverage of riots, protests or support rallies in other parts of the country. Since I haven’t been fed with that information, it wouldn’t be outrageous if I declared that Ahmadinejad has immense support in these cities, right? Kerman, Yazd, Mashad, Esfahan, and Tabriz house large populations, as does Tehran, where only about 11 percent of the population lives. So it is quite possible that Ahmadinejad won a sweeping majority in these other cities. However, news media has become a puppet of the governments that they serve and have chosen to rely on unconfirmed tips. They will not disclose that millions showed up at Ahmadinejad’s victory rally neither will they speak positively about the candidate. Most of their energy is focused on their own ethnocentric belief that Mousavi is a pro-democracy leader, but they haven’t yet understood that he isn’t much different from Ahmadinejad in terms of his foreign policy.

This is a revolution of the Iranian people,for certain freedoms, not for democracy. To comprehend this, America needs to first realize that their ways will not work for everyone. And Iranians who think that the west really cares about their plight need to realize that they are only getting the attention of the international media because they want Ahmadinejad out,so that they can begin negotiations over the nuclear weapon issue,not because they are sympathetic towards Iran’s domestic causes.

I was at first skeptical, but am now convinced that media has the power to shape and manipulate public opinion as well as political causes.