“There was an outcry when the trial started, now those fine words must now be turned into practical action,” said Zoya Phana a refugee from Burma now living in the UK.
“The soft diplomacy of the UN and Asian countries has failed. A global arms embargo is the most effective way of showing this military dictatorship that it can no longer defy the international community.”
And according to the blog ,Moses Onlus in English, a global arms embargo is how the world needs to respond to the sentencing of Aung San Suu Kyi.
A court in Burma has sentenced the pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi to an additional 18 months’ house arrest today. Ms Suu Kyi was convicted of violating state security laws by allowing a US national into her lakeside home after he swam there.
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he was “saddened and angry” by the verdict and described the trial as a “sham”.He said it was “a purely political sentence” designed to prevent her from taking part in next year’s planned elections.
But amid international condemnation and voiced support for democracy in Burma what is the world actually doing to free Aung San Suu Kyi? Does the world actively get involved in a country when it suits them?
When someone like the UK Prime Minister says that this is a political sentence and that the trial is a sham does that not warrant more than just world condemnation?
Last year The UN special envoy to Burma Mr Ibrahim Gambari has failed to meet Ms. Suu Kyi during his trip to Burma. This is a bit of the reaction the BBC’s Burmese Servicegot on its site when they asked if Ms. Suu Kyi made the right decision not to meet Mr. Gambari
Tha Han here in the UK said
“As long as Daw Suu Kyi is under detention and our democratic activists are in jail, Gambari’s visits are merely ‘zoo visits’. It is as good as waving hands to captive animals that will never be set free. Suu Kyi should not allow herself to be like a poodle to be transferred in a car/cage to shake hands with Gambari. It is pathetic and humiliating.”
And this from Khin Maung in Yangon Myanmar
“Yes, she made the right decision not to meet him. I think she want to let him know, especially to UN and then more emphasize to point out to the world that his trip is meaningless, useless and waste the money of people who live in this world. He cannot make any important improvement for the people of Myanmar.”
Yesterday we talked about how you’d feel having a US military base operate from your country, I’m not suggesting that it go as far as that for Burma but why is it that the World (and more specifically the US in yesterday’s discussion) chooses to have military presence in some countries, punish some countries via economic sanctions and just verbally condemn what goes on in other countries?
Also something that caught my attention this morning while listening to an interview on the World Today on the BBC World Service radio, Justin Wintle, Biographer of Ms.Suu Kyi was talking about how the world sees Burma from an Ang San Suu Kyi point of view, which got me thinking about pro-democracy leaders and while doing good to bring attention to political problems in their countries do they also hinder the world from getting a full picture of that country?