The Irrawaddy published an article yesterday on a new website, entitled 64 for Aung San Suu Kyi, which was created this Wednesday. The aim of the website is to gather messages of support for Burmese opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, whose 64th birthday is coming up on 19 June.
According to The Irrawaddy, “[t]he organizers of the site, the Global Campaign to Free Aung San Suu Kyi, said it is intended to become the global hub of the international campaign to release Suu Kyi”. Among those having contributed a message of support for the Lady, who is currently being tried in connection with the absurd case of the Inya Lake swimmer, are such oddly grouped figures as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, footballer David Beckham, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, actor George Clooney, etc.
It is difficult if not impossible to disagree with the sentiments behind most of the messages posted on this website. For example, I doubt that many New Mandala readers would disagree with Salman Rushdie when he writes to Aung San Suu Kyi:
It is not any action of yours, but your house arrest, which symbolizes the suppression of Burmese democracy, that is criminal. It is your trial, not your struggle, that is unjust.
However, while websites such as this – and the public statements of world leaders since the beginning of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s farcical trial – do remind us that people are speaking out in international circles against the military regime in Burma, how effective are their words?
Recently, Thai satirical website Not the Nation published an article about an online petition overthrowing the Burmese junta. According to this spoof article, the “unstoppable potency of online petitions to enact political change” led the SPDC to immediately release all political prisoners and allow free and fair democratic elections.
Many have claimed that the Internet is an increasingly powerful tool for advocacy and political activism. According to this view, the public space of the Internet stimulates debate and provides a forum for us common mortals to have our voices heard and (supposedly) make an impact on the world. But it is also easy to be cynical about the debasement of political activism, when the latter comes to be reduced to a blog post or joining a Facebook group. When, out of curiosity, I searched ‘Aung San Suu Kyi’ on Facebook, I found 284 groups dedicated to variations of the theme ‘free Aung San Suu Kyi’. Have we really come to an age where we think that by joining a Facebook group, we have done our bit for justice in the world?
Who should we follow: the idealists or the cynics? Either way, the Internet has certainly contributed to the sport of ‘Burma Watching’. Perhaps then it is our responsibility to make sure that we don’t debase the real heroes of resistance against oppressive regimes by calling ourselves activists when we click on a link from the safety of our living rooms.
6 responses so far ↓
1 jud // May 29, 2009 at 12:12 am
you,r rite, please support our worldwide protest on 30.may in front of every Burmese embassy.LONDON;BERLIN,NEW YORK ect…
http://picasaweb.google.com/lunswe/27509#5340843552674242818
2 flashman // May 29, 2009 at 12:57 am
Nang Gor makes a good point, and one that should be oft pointed out to the self-crowned e-crusaders of social or political change.
And particularly in regards to Burma where 50yrs of brutal military rule is hardly going to be influenced by anything.
Lets face it, Cyclone Nargis made no difference, so I daresay a petition signed by thousands of chest-(or is that mouse) beaters promising to throw them in jail if the Generals ever give up power isn’t really going to make a difference or send the right signals now is it?
3 Charles F. // May 29, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I’m not an idealist or a cynic. I’m a realist. As such, I don’t think that this online petition will have any effect one way or the other with the SPDC. In the past they haven’t cared one whit what anyone thinks; why would they care now?
I have bad news for George Clooney. Other than his family, a few close friends, and women who think he’s sexy, no one cares what he thinks about anything, on any subject.
4 blogskeptik // May 29, 2009 at 3:15 pm
To take Charles F’s post (and others) a step further – much the same thing could be said about New Mandala and Bangkok Pundit (amongst others). The earnest discussions that take place on these sites are almost completely irrelevant (perhaps even a waste of space) – since the vast majority of the people who contribute have absolutely no input in the region’s governance. About the only thing that the ‘concerned’ contribute to this region is paying the salaries of the local staff of civil society organizations. To local powermongers, such organizations are little more than a joke or a minor irritation as they suck their respective countries dry. (The sort of) Blogging (we see here) will change nothing, since you can’t fight violently-enforced injustice with a dialogue that never touches those who hold all the levers of power. It is, also, highly unlikely that the Junta would ever want to engage in any dialogue that wouldn’t automatically lead to a quick buck.
5 Stephen // May 29, 2009 at 9:25 pm
This goes beyond online petitions and blogging. That the internationalisation of Burma’s politics, “international awareness” and international “pressure” will lead to positive State-level change in Burma is little supported by the evidence of the last twenty years. However, it remains a central tenet of most mainstream Burma activists that such an approach not only works but is the most plausible (for some, only) way that the human rights situation in Burma will improve.
There was (and remains) a debate about whether the reason the the SPDC opened up some humanitarian space in the Irrawaddy Delta after Cyclone Nargis was because of international censure or because it realised for itself that to do so was in its best (domestic) interest.
Likewise, to what extent can the SPDC’s allowance of former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burma Sergio Pinheiro into the country following the September/October 2007 crackdown (after having been barred from entering for four years) be seen as “evidence” that international condemnation and pressure can lead to positive reform?
Interestingly, Jonathan Head wrote in a BBC article yesterday that
How can we know that these “small concessions” were a result of “a barrage of [international] criticism” and not done for domestic reasons?
6 sam-deedes // May 30, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Bangkok Pundit has a relevant post on this issue:
http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/atiya-on-burma-part-ii.html#comments
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.