Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi is free
andyrobyn
Veteran
Comments
It's still an emotional moment, though. I won't try to hold that joy back from you, Friend!
Forbearance.
She is a Theravadan Buddhist.
Today, Remembrance Sunday, I shall be at our local war memorial, freezing my boots off as every year. This year, I shall celebrate my late uncle who fought in Bill Slim's 'Forgotten Army' in Burma during WW2: the freedom they fought for may be very long in coming but I shall not ever give up hope, any more than he did.
What does that mean?
Technically so am I... Could I handle it better than a Mahayana or Vajrayana practitioner?
I don't think so.
I think her personal forbearance, patience, and resolute focus to endure was the deciding factor.
Are you suggesting that her meditation practice is somehow an irrelevance and that "personality" is what counts?
I could not agree less. My own practice has been decisive in my getting through life so far.
Are you suggesting that her personality is somehow an irrelevance and that "meditation practice" is all that counts?
I could not agree less. My own practice has been decisive in my getting through life so far. Her own practice is what has been decisive through hers, and she got through her own toils and troubles through her own actions. Or are you suggesting that the practices own her actions?
That is silly.
But, of course, I may be reading you wrong. If so, I apologise.
That's precisely what I was saying.
We don't know that. I'll say it again. Maybe what got her through the whole situation was the hope of being home relaxing drinking tea.
We cannot fathom what drives the thoughts of others.
Nor can we assume that they live by what we see and project on them. We shouldn't do that either. It takes away from who they really are. Just see them for who they are. Don't project yourself onto Aun San Sung Suu Kyi, rather see what she did as a profound statement of her individual forbearance, and also an outward expression of her devotion.
You're reading too much into things, but otherwise I see you.
I'm not acquainted with the expression. What do you mean? Alas, we cannot see each other and, as a result, much unnecessary disagreement may arise.
I understand in the best way that observation can reveal. Therefore I see you.
Try to ease up on the arrogant insistence.
Manners count for a lot round here, and I hate to say it, but you're being unnecessarily pushy in your posting.
Right, so it's okay for him to do that to me because he has been here longer? Note, I didn't "get aggressive" either times, I merely took back what he said and questioned it by bouncing back what he said to him, which is what I'm doing to you now too.
I see that your posting attitude borders on the aggressive, and frankly, it's a little rude to be so in-your-face with someone whose only been here 5 minutes, particularly when I've been trying to engage with a very long-time member who's also a senior gentleman and as such has, to put it colloquially, "been round the block a few times", I do not assume he has more or less wisdom than I do(from merely 5 minutes of interaction), but I wish to see if he's paying attention to what he is saying by taking what he says and saying it back to him in a different way.
The same way I am doing right now. Understand?
I just don't think it's an appropriate approach.
And now, I'm not talking about just on this thread.
You come over as having a pushy attitude in general, and I'm asking you nicely please, to moderate your approach, period.
I'm not going to elaborate further, I think I've been quite clear.
Thanks.
I appreciate your candor, but I respectfully disagree. If I come across as pushy it's because I say what someone else says to me back at them, which means it's not me being pushy, but them. As for the "appropriateness of the approach" I ask why you find it inappropriate?
I will moderate my approach if you can give me an honest reason, but if you refuse, I'm going to assume that there is none and that this attempt to moderate me was done with the idea of "seniority demands respect" because that is what I got out of your previous statement. I disagree with that as well, seniority does not demand respect, respect demands respect, and if someone isn't going to respect me when I voice a differing view as other people have done to me here in my first day on this site, then I will respond as I have because respect is not granted, respect is earned.
Thank you for your honesty however. I can see you're trying to be sincere.
Two things strike me:
1. We really value freedom of movement and expression. Perhaps we need to address the problem of those whom we deprive of them. Aung San Suu Kyi reminds us that the rule of law demands due process which she was notoriously denied. There are others, too, under our own 'aegis', including children. Surely it is time for us to address our prejudices: is it OK to rejoice at the freeing of a beautiful woman and ignore the pent up elsewhere over whom we have control? Or is it another sign of institutional sexism and cultural imperialism?
2. From her earliest interviews, she has stated that she is going to listen. A lesson for our own politicians?
Do you mean women who are not in a prison who were not jailed for their own free expression?
Oh, that. Well where I live it doesn't matter if you're a beautiful woman or not, you are free to express your views however unpopular. As for women's liberation, I would say that the Paycheck Fairness Act has given us a good chance, we have women's suffrage too. Then I'm hoping there will be women also equally enrolled in the draft and paid equally for being in combat. There's a glass ceiling because they refuse to allow women to go for higher military positions. There's also a lot of other glass ceilings, but we're doing a lot and I'm very lucky for that.
Oh out politicians never want to listen. It's part of their job. They are taught specifically to ignore other people's point of view and expound their own (however unwise it may be).
Actually, I was thinking of Guantanamo Bay and our own detention centres.
Of course, there are others in Burma under house arrest but they may not be quite so photogenic, nor were married to a Westerner and speak English so well.
This is not to diminish my admiration for Aung San Suu Kyi: she is a shining example of ahimsa; simply that we cannot rest from the struggle for universal human rights.
Oh those are horrific. Have you joined Amnesty International? I actually worked with a letter writing campaign and we got some falsely imprisoned people out of Guantanamo Bay. We've got more to do though.
Oh yeah, she's a very sympathetic figure. Admirable too.
NEVER REST! We've always need to be aware of it.
Nevertheless I just cannot keep myself from commenting on a certain tone of voice expressed on this thread by a newcomer here. I will not characterize that tone with a word, lest more rubber bullets be fired, especially as it seems that a reconciliatory motion is under way here. But the tone has indeed been of an "in-your-face" character, as Fede rightly points out. To call SimonthePilgrim a gentleman is a gross understatement, for the humane poise with which his every word is underpinned is attended by an alacrity all his own.
To impugn the sense of awe he has for the ground of somebody's strength is needless and really pointless —especially when we're trying to celebrate a particular victory of justice. Aung San Suu Kyi has been freed! Aung San Suu Kyi is no longer under house arrest!
People's minds do tend to probe what motivates people to do great things. That's not unusual. However, there's no need to parse every little syllable exactly right before the party even gets under way. Insisting on having one's way in everything is neither nice nor profitable:
"I understand in the best way that observation can reveal" ???
O yeah, you see his facial expressions, his tone of voice and any inflections in it, etc.?
If you saw the man, if you knew the man —you would not be picking at his every little word. Picking at others simply narrows the channels of communication —in a world where optimal communication is becoming more essential every day.
I think I observe arrogance. But it is possible that I could be wrong.
Thank the gods for the DELETE button. I delete one in five of my posts, and if Fede doesn't delete this unconscionable post, I may!
I see his words, and that's what I'm observing. What are you observing?
But I do not see the man, I see his words. Therefore I observe his words and respond to them.
That it does. Now would be a good time to reflect on the medium of words alone. Without having any expression, no tone of voice, but only words, how do you determine what a person means? Obviously from observing the words and choice of words. I see them, and understand them in the best way that I can from observing them.
I think you're not looking at the words for what they say. What kind of words have I chosen that indicate arrogance?
I would be enthusiastic to address what they might be if they are there, but I think maybe you're projecting because I have respectfully disagreed.:rolleyes:
I also have taken the words of people and reflected them back at them. If they think it is disrespectful, it is because they're looking into a mirror.
Ah, the censorship card. So if a person disagrees rather than addressing their claims you're going to silence them?
That's interesting that you think I am arrogant for speaking.
How was I arrogant?
What can I do alone, without any past or present help of others?
I can do nothing.
What did I learn by myself that did not depend on others: reading, enjoying music or a movie, driving a car, anything beyond what an animal can do?
Nothing.
Could I eat, wear clothes, sleep under a roof, go on holiday without the help of others?
No I could not.
Where did my body come from?
Someone else.
Who paid for my education, and who taught me the things I know?
Taxpayers of my good country, my parents, and my teachers.
Have I exaggerated my own good qualities?
I have done no such thing.
Am I trying to be more than I actually am?
I am not. I don't even pretend to understand anymore than what I can observe.
Have I been foolish and said I am better than others or disagreed?
If a person cannot handle disagreement or criticism, and the response is anger it's impatience and unwillingness to listen to the ideas others. If I am mistaken, I will openly admit so, but I haven't been mistaken or arrogant or prideful. So don't accuse me of something I have not done. That's slanderous.
Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been held under house arrest for nearly 15 years of the past 20 years for the crime of running for office of the National League for Democracy in the time of a dictatorship.
So I have a question: Do you think further sanctions are needed for the Burmese government, and if so how harsh should it be from this point on?
The graffiti you are dumping on us would not be graffiti if you were sensible enough to erase it.
Why can't we just celebrate life and the setting free of Aung San Suu Kyi?
Whence comes all this?
__________________________
Staying on message means listening deeply to the feelings of others and putting one's hang-ups aside as much as possible.
You're grasping. Subject has been changed back as you requested
Ah, graffiti. To some, it is an art form worthy of display in galleries and exhibitions; to others it is merely vandalism. I do not think speaking is graffiti
Her work is not done. It has only begun. She should be president, but she is not. She could call for the lifting of Burmese sanctions if the Burmese Junta recognize her as their rightful leader. They still have not taken responsibility. So should the sanctions be removed or lessened anyway for releasing her?
An understanding of the history of her imprisonment. I remember she's been released several times. Until she is put as president, I don't think she's safe.
There is also the view that as little has been achieved in the past 20 years Aung San Suu Kyi could achieve more by following the example of Tibet's spiritual leader HH the Dalai Lama in working for change whilst in exile, by leaving the country and working with the international community.
That's why I am asking. It seems like there should me addressing of the sanctions. How then do we address the problem of helping Burmese Civilians and also sanction the government? It's more than just Aung San Suu Kyi. They have a dictatorship of a military junta with enough power to arrest their democratically elected president. There's got to be some discussion.
I don't think so. She's their president. Popularly elected by fair democratic elections. She belongs in Burma, and the Burmese people want her to rule. They have wanted her to rule for over 20 years.
Given that she was elected in the 1990's and has never been able to form a government and has been re -placed under house arrest several times I am not sure what her release will be able to mean. Her inspiring leadership will possible help to unite the different ethnic Burmese groups as a National leadership figure.
From what I have been told the Burmese government requires citizens to apply for exit permits and it seems unlikely to me that they would allow her to leave to have discussions with other international political leaders.
You raise an interesting question, TFPW. Raising someone to the presidency may not be the best solution: it depends entirely on the Burmese constitution, on which I have very little information. Very few countries have 'imperial' presidencies on the Franco-American model. Most presidents are nothing more than figure-heads.
Personally, I find this a vital safeguard of the democratic will, keeping supreme power out of the hands of a single individual and their cabal.
It is my hope that Aung San Suu Kyi does not fall into the trap of becoming no more than a symbol or of transforming into a new dictator.
The matter of sanctions is a tricky one. Nelson Mandela has stated that the long years of sanctions against apartheid South Africa - and, in particular, the sports sanctions (!!!) - were vital in bringing that horror to an end. Sanctions against Mugabe's regime do not appear to have destabilised his dictatorship whilst crippling the economy. Sanctions against Iraq were regularly broken in the name of strategic need for oil.
The two neighbouring giants, India and China, hold the key. Were they to withdraw their tacit support for the junta, things could change. Perhaps we should sanction them - oh no, we can't, they're bigger, stronger and richer than we are!
The following is a list of the current sanctions - sent to me by a friend ... from a news site at my request, told him I wanted to know about what the rest of the world has done so far -
EU SANCTIONS:
-- The European Union adopted a Common Position on Myanmar in 1996, including a ban on the sale or transfer from the EU of arms or weapons expertise to Burma, or of any equipment that might be used for internal repression.
-- EU governments tightened sanctions after a crackdown on pro-democracy protests led by Buddhist monks in September 2007, targeting 1,207 firms with measures including visa bans and asset freezes.
-- In April 2009 the EU extended for another year a visa ban and asset freezes on members of the Burmese military government and its backers. It has long called for the release of Suu Kyi and other political prisoners.
-- France said on August 11 there should be a global embargo on arms sales to Burma and economic sanctions focussed on its key exports, timber and rubies. Britain called for the U.N. Security Council to impose a global arms embargo.
-- On Thursday the EU said members of the judiciary responsible for Suu Kyi's sentencing had been added to the list of officials of the military government subject to asset freezes and bans on travel to the European Union.
U.S. SANCTIONS:
-- The United States first imposed broad sanctions in 1988 after the junta's crackdown on student-led protests. It banned new investment in Burma by U.S. persons or entities in 1997.
-- Washington has gradually tightened sanctions to try to force Burma's generals into political rapprochement with Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, which won a landslide election victory in 1990 but was kept out of power by the junta.
-- President Barack Obama renewed the U.S. sanctions in May. Suu Kyi's latest trial has dashed the already slim chances that these will be eased.
-- In July 2008, the Treasury moved to block the assets and transactions of Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Ltd and the Myanmar Economic Corp and their subsidiaries.
-- The moves banned American individuals and businesses from transactions with the firms and froze any assets they had under U.S. jurisdiction.
-- The Burma Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 banned all imports from Myanmar, restricted financial transactions, froze the assets of certain Burma's financial institutions and extended visa restrictions on junta officials.
OTHER SANCTIONS:
AUSTRALIA -- Has maintained visa restrictions on senior junta figures and a ban on defence exports since 1988.
Announced financial sanctions in October 2007 against Burma's ruling generals and their families -- over 400 individuals in all.
CANADA -- Imposed sanctions in November 2007 banning exports to Burma, except for humanitarian goods, and barring imports. It froze the Canadian assets of the Burmese citizens connected with the junta. Canada also prohibited the provision of financial services and the export of technical data to Burma, and banned new investment by Canadians.
NEW ZEALAND -- Has a long-standing ban on visas for military leaders and their families.
JAPAN -- Japan cut aid to Burma in October 2007.
ASIA -- Most Asian governments have favoured a policy of engagement towards Burma.
China and India have been silent on the detention of Suu Kyi but the Philippines said it was "deeply troubled and outraged over the filing of trumped-up charges."
Many experts say the sanctions also benefit the junta, allowing generals and their cronies to dominate industry in the country of 50 million, rich in natural gas, timber and minerals with a strategic port in the Bay of Bengal.
Trade with the West has been replaced by strengthening ties with China, Thailand and Singapore, whose objections to the regime's human rights record are relatively muted.
"There are a lot of people with a lot at stake in maintaining the status quo," said Sean Turnell, an expert on Burma's economy at Sydney's Macquarie University.
Reuters
I don't know if they'll do elections. That didn't work out last time. Aung San Suu Kyi was elected that way, and the Junta can't afford any more bad PR.
That's the problem, the people who suffer from the sanctions are not the juntas or the bigwigs, but the common people.
Exactly why we don't piss of China. :eek: Scary.