By Vaclav Havel, Desmond Tutu, Richard von Weizsacker, Karel Schwarzenberg, Andre Glucksmann, F.W. de Klerk, Mike Moore and Grigory Yavlinsky
The enormous suffering of the Burmese caused by the recent cyclone, which has caused tens of thousands of deaths, deserves the sympathy of the entire world. But more than sympathy is needed, because the Myanmar military junta’s incompetence and brutal oppression are further aggravating the tragic consequences of this natural disaster.
In the midst of the cyclone’s devastation, Myanmar’s ruling generals went ahead and held a referendum on a new constitution. But, according to Myanmar’s Constitutional Referendum Act, members of religious organizations, those subject to criminal prosecution and members of ethnic groups that have not agreed to a ceasefire with the government were barred from voting.
Thus, all current and former political prisoners, about 500,000 Buddhist monks, and more than twice as many members of ethnic minority groups living close to the borders were banned from the vote.
Moreover, according to the new constitution that was supposedly “approved” by the “referendum,” Aung San Suu Kyi, who has never been prosecuted and still remains under house arrest, is barred from standing in the 2010 general elections under the pretext that her deceased husband was British.
Is the world really willing to accept such an absurdity?
We strongly support the opposition’s campaign calling on Myanmar’s citizens to reject the constitution, which does not promote human rights, but only confirms the military’s political role. Many democracy activists have been arrested throughout the country.
The regime’s draconian “law” prohibits participants from criticizing the draft constitution; those who dare to challenge the regime face a 20-year prison sentence.
Given the violent suppression of last September’s mass demonstrations (the “Saffron Revolution”) led by Myanmar’s Buddhist monks and the constant repression in the country, it is not surprising that the military junta tries to shroud its despotic tendencies in pseudo-democratic measures such as the sham electoral process of the referendum.
Sadly, the international community did not respond to last autumn’s mass arrests of human rights defenders.
The 88 Generation leaders, including Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi, women activists like Su Su Nway, and others bravely expressed their grievances time and again in letters, statements and public demonstrations prior to the Saffron Revolution.
Their courageous calls fell on deaf ears; they now remain imprisoned.
It is time to strongly condemn the exclusion of a considerable number of people from voting and to insist on the release of Myanmar’s political prisoners. The UN and the EU should be ready to conclusively reject the result of the referendum and strengthen sanctions against the regime.
Myanmar’s neighbors in ASEAN should stop looking the other way as Myanmar’s rulers trample on the Burmese.
The UN Security Council should consider introducing a universal arms embargo and the EU should adopt banking sanctions that target the regime and its cronies.
Moreover, the UN should not only condemn, but without further delay put a stop to today’s greatest atrocity: the regime’s obstruction of foreign assistance to victims of the cyclone.
Their deaths are the sole responsibility of the military junta, which deliberately and with knowledge of the likely consequences has closed the door to humanitarian aid and workers from all over the world. Their actions represent an appalling crime against humanity.
The military-run referendum will not bring democracy to Myanmar, nor will it help the Burmese, who now are suffering not only from the authoritarian regime and poverty, but also from a grave natural disaster and its totally inept handling by the cynical generals. Myanmar’s rulers have failed in their duty to protect the Burmese, but active and decisive political action by the international community towards the regime may yet do so.
Vaclav Havel is a former president of the Czech Republic, Desmond Tutu is a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Richard von Weizsacker is a former president of Germany, Karel Schwarzenberg is foreign minister of the Czech Republic, Andre Glucksmann is a French philosopher, F.W. de Klerk is a former president of South Africa, Mike Moore is a former director of the WTO and Grigory Yavlinsky is leader of the Yabloko party in Russia.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS