[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
AUNG SAN SUU KYI MONTH: TOOLKIT 2
- Subject: AUNG SAN SUU KYI MONTH: TOOLKIT 2
- From: darnott@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 00:18:00
FREE SUU KYI, FREE BURMA
AUNG SAN SUU KYI MONTH (JUNE 19-JULY 20)
CAMPAIGN TOOL-KIT
SECOND INSTALLMENT
SPEECHES AND STATEMENTS WRITTEN BY AUNG SAN SUU KYI
DURING HER DETENTION AND DELIVERED ON HER BEHALF
BY FAMILY MEMBERS AND OTHERS
CONTENTS
1) SPEECH BY AUNG SAN SUU KYI ACCEPTING THE AWARD OF THE
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW GROUP, delivered on her behalf by
her son Alexander (Myint San Myint)in Washington DC on 14 May
1992
2) SPEECH COMPOSED BY DAW AUNG SAN SUU KYI, PRISONER OF
CONSCIENCE IN BURMA AND NOBEL PEACE LAUREATE OF 1991, TO WELCOME
THE ARRIVAL OF THE OLYMPIC TORCH IN SPAIN ON 13 JUNE 1992, and
delivered on her behalf by her son, Alexander Aris.
3) "TOWARDS A TRUE REFUGE" - The Joyce Pearce Memorial Lecture,
Refugee Studies Programme, University of Oxford, 19 May 1993,
composed by Aung San Suu Kyi and delivered on her behalf by her
husband, Dr Michael Aris
4) "EMPOWERMENT FOR A CULTURE OF PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT" by Aung
San Suu Kyi -- Address to a meeting of the World Commission on
Culture and Development, Manila, 21 November 1994, presented on
behalf of the author at her request by Mrs Corazon Aquino.
5) STATEMENT by Aung San Suu Kyi dated 22 January 1995, and
released by her husband in Bangkok on 23 January 1995
.................................................................
SPEECH BY AUNG SAN SUU KYI ACCEPTING THE AWARD OF THE
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW GROUP, DELIVERED BY HER SON
ALEXANDER (MYINT SAN AUNG) IN WASHINGTON DC ON 14 MAY 1992
To receive the Award of the International Human Rights Law
Group on the same occasion as H.E. Patricio Aylwin is a great
honour. It will help to focus attention on issues crucial to
Burma at this point in time. The President of Chile is an
exceptional leader widely respected for his role in helping to
create a growing awareness of the strong link between truth and
reconciliation.
Fears and suspicions generated by deception, injustice and
lack of respect for human dignity cast long shadows across
societies fractured by the violation of human rights. Healing
the hurts of such societies is essentially a process of
reconciliation which requires a genuine desire to place the
happiness and well-being of the whole nation above the narrow
interests of individuals and groups. It also requires an
atmosphere of increasing trust.
The reestablishment of trust after a long period of bitter
antagonism depends on a willingness by all to face the truth
about deeds, emotions and attitudes which cause suffering and
discord. Facing the truth can be a painful task which calls not
only for courage but for faith -- faith that in the long run
sincerity and good will can overcome the lingering effects of
duplicity and hatred.
The acceptance of the need to work towards the truth will
open the door to true reconciliation which goes beyond token
gestures of appeasement to become a meeting of hearts and minds
united in efforts to find solutions to common problems.
Today the world is watching Burma (officially known as
Myanmar) to see whether the rights of citizens to participate
fully in the political process of their country will be conceded;
whether the will of the people as expressed through free and fair
elections will truly be respected; whether there will be serious
moves to protect human rights by promoting the rule of law and by
establishing an independent judiciary.
I have never doubted the ability of the people of my country
to bring about these and other desirable changes once national
reconciliation has been achieved. It is my sincere hope that
this can be brought about soon through a concerted effort to
place truth and understanding above manoeuvres aimed at
consolidating vested interests.
Whenever I learn that I am the recipient of an award
connected with human rights or democracy my thoughts immediately
turn to gallant colleagues who have sacrificed so much for their
beliefs. And of course I always have in mind all the people of
my country who have struggled so hard to establish their right to
shape their national destiny. It is in their name and in the name
of my colleagues that I accept this award with sincere thanks.
And let me end by saying how very much I admire the work of
the Group which has done signal honour to my country and to me in
this way.
Aung San Suu Kyi
Rangoon
12 May 1992
................................................................
SPEECH COMPOSED BY DAW AUNG SAN SUU KYI, PRISONER OF CONSCIENCE
IN BURMA AND NOBEL PEACE LAUREATE OF 1991, TO WELCOME THE ARRIVAL
OF THE OLYMPIC TORCH IN SPAIN ON 13 JUNE 1992, AND DELIVERED ON
HER BEHALF BY HER SON, ALEXANDER ARIS.
This fire of Olympus, brought here to Ampurius by land and
sea, signifies truce -- the cessation of hostilities so that men
and women from all parts of the world may gather together in
peace and amity to pursue common interests. The Olympic Games
themselves represent an aspect of the human striving for
excellence, a pursuit the ancient Greeks associated with
happiness. Thus it could be said that today's ceremony is
dedicated to peace and happiness, two of the greatest prizes
sought by civilized man since ages past.
The Hellenic ideal which stresses the wise cultivation of
physical as well as mental and spiritual qualities lies at the
root of the Olympic tradition. That body, mind and spirit working
in harmony can extend the boundaries of human endeavour is proved
time and again as old records are surpassed and new ones set.
Superior training techniques and improved health-care based on
modern scientific research of course play a large part in
producing fitter athletes of greater prowess. But ultimately it
is the indomitable quality of the human spirit that crowns the
Olympic hero with victory.
A gold medalist runner was once asked how he had trained to
diminish the pain that comes with the exertion of the final,
winning spurt. He answered that the pain never diminished -- he
had simply learnt to persevere in spite of it. On the athletic
track as in the arena of life it is against his own weakness that
man pits himself, testing his powers of endurance to the utmost
as he seeks to scale new heights of attainment.
Often it is hope of gain or fame that spurs men on to exert
themselves against high odds. But the most complete victory
comes when a challenge is met with that generosity that delights
in giving of one's best without thought of possible reward. A
true sportsman's spirit was shown by a child who gamely entered a
race with much bigger boys. He stayed the course, came in after
all the others and announced triumphantly: "I won last". In a
race well run there can be no defeat.
The modern Olympics were founded with the intention of
effecting reconciliation among nations which had been at war. It
is an abiding hope that the Games would contribute towards
peaceful internationalism by demonstrating that "There is neither
East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth" when the world's
best athletes meet in honourable and friendly, if intense,
competition.
Yet ours is still a world divided, chequered by walls of
fear, hate, ignorance and avarice. It is a world where men cause
suffering by striving against one another rather than against
forces which wound and crush humanity and threaten its very
survival. It is a world where there is a great need to reach out
beyond the narrow and stultifying to universal values which will
invigorate the spirit of peace and cooperation.
The surest foundation of a life in which men can develop
their potential for excellence is peace -- not the travesty of
peace which is the quiescence of people cowed by oppression; nor
that which is the stagnation of minds made rigid by a dogmatic
leadership; but peace that is based on justice, compassion and
harmony, on a healthy balance between individual liberty and
public order, between national duty and international awareness.
The Olympic flame is a symbol of enduring ideals and
aspirations, of renewal and regeneration. In a month's time a
great athletic festival instituted over two thousand years ago to
celebrate the glory of human endeavour will be re-enacted here in
modern form. As I send my warmest wishes that this Olympiad of
1992 may achieve the highest standards of international
sportsmanship and understanding, I would like to express a most
cherished hope that the wider struggle to win peace and happiness
may also be crowned with victory for all the peoples of the
world.
...............................................................
THE JOYCE PEARCE MEMORIAL LECTURE
REFUGEE STUDIES PROGRAMME
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
19 MAY 1993
TOWARDS A TRUE REFUGE
by
AUNG SAN SUU KYI
Honorary Fellow of St Hugh's College
Nobel Peace Laureate
When I was told that I had been invited to deliver the Joyce
Pearce Memorial Lecture for 1993, I felt very honoured. I also
felt warmed by all that I had heard about Miss Pearce's Ockenden
Venture, especially from Patricia Gore-Booth and her late husband
Paul, dearly-loved friends who taught me much about kindness and
caring. The thought that the lecture would be held under the
auspices of Queen Elizabeth House gave me particular pleasure.
It is a place where I have spent many fruitful hours attending
seminars and lectures and meeting people from different parts of
the world. Those hours now appear to me suffused in Oxford
tranquillity and reason and good fellowship. So I would like to
thank the Refugee Studies Programme and the Committee of the
Annual Joyce Pearce Memorial Lecture for more than just the
invitation. I would also like to thank them for the delightful
recollections conjured up by their invitation.
As Joyce Pearce put so much of her life and talents into her
work for refugees, I wondered whether the lecture should not be
related to refugee issues. But I felt very reluctant to take up a
topic with which the audience is probably well acquainted while I
am not.
Then it occurred to me that the Burmese expression for
refugee is dukkha-the, "one who has to bear dukkha, suffering".
In that sense, none of us can avoid knowing what it is to be a
refugee. The refuge we all seek is protection from forces which
wrench us away from the security and comfort, physical and
mental, which give dignity and meaning to human existence.
The answer as to how such protection might be provided can
be found only when the destructive forces have been identified.
Well-publicised catastrophes that rock the sensibilities of the
world have small beginnings, barely discernible from the private
and contained forms of distress which make up the normal quota of
everyday suffering. No man-made disaster suddenly bursts forth
from the earth like warring armies sprung from dragon's teeth.
After all, even in the myth the dragon's teeth were procured and
sown by a man for reasons quite unrelated to innocent zoological
or agricultural pursuits. Calamities which are not the result of
purely natural phenomena usually have their origins, distant and
obscure though they may be, in common human failings.
But how common need those failings be? In a world which no
longer accepts that "common" germs and diseases should be left
unchecked to take their toll of the weak and defenceless, it
would not be inappropriate to ask if more attention should be
paid to correcting "common" attitudes and values that pose a far
more lethal threat to humankind. It is my thoughts on some of
these attitudes and values, which seem to be regarded as
inevitable in an increasingly materialistic world, that I would
like to communicate to you on this occasion.
The end of the cold war has been represented as a signal for
shifting the emphasis of national and international concern from
ideology and politics to economics and trade. But it is open to
debate whether policies heavily, if not wholly, influenced by
economic considerations will make of the much bruited "New World
Order" an era of progress and harmony such as is longed for by
peoples and nations weary of conflict and suffering.
As the twentieth century draws to a close, it has become
obvious that material yardsticks alone cannot serve as an
adequate measure of human well-being. Even as basic an issue as
poverty has to be reexamined to take into account the
psychological sense of deprivation that makes people feel poor.
Such a "modern" concept of poverty is nothing new to the Burmese
who have always used the word hsinye to indicate not only an
insufficiency of material goods but also physical discomfort and
distress of mind -- to be poor is to suffer from a paucity of
those mental and spiritual as well as material resources that
make a human being feel fulfilled and give life a meaning beyond
mere existence. It follows as a matter of course that chantha,
the converse of hsinye, denotes not only material prosperity but
also bodily ease and general felicity. One speaks of chantha of
the mind and of the body and one would wish to be possessed of
both.
It is widely accepted, if not too often articulated, that
governments and international agencies should limit their efforts
to the elimination of the more obvious forms of suffering rather
than take on a task so uncertain, so abstruse and so susceptible
to varying interpretations, as the promotion of happiness. Many
believe that policies and legislations aimed at establishing
minimum standards with regard to wages, health care, working
conditions, housing and education (in the formal, very limited
sense of the word) are the most that can reasonably be expected
from institutions as a contribution towards human well-being.
There seems to be an underlying assumption that an amelioration
in material conditions would eventually bring in its wake an
improvement in social attitudes, philosophical values and ethical
standards. The Burmese saying "Morality (sila) can be upheld
only when the stomach is full" is our version of a widely held
sentiment that cuts across cultural boundaries. Brecht's "Erst
kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral" (First comes fodder,
then come morals) also springs to mind.
But such axioms are hardly a faithful reflection of what
actually goes on in human society. While it is undeniable that
many have been driven to immorality and crime by the need to
survive, it is equally evident that the possession of a
significant surplus of material goods has never been a guarantee
against covetousness, rapacity and the infinite variety of vice
and pain that spring from such passions. Indeed it could be
argued that the unrelenting compulsion of those who already have
much to acquire even more has generated greater injustice,
immorality and wretchedness than the cumulative effect of the
struggle of the severely underprivileged to better their lot.
Given that man's greed can be a pit as bottomless as his stomach
and that a psychological sense of deprivation can persist beyond
the point where basic needs have been adequately met, it can
hardly be expected that an increase in material prosperity alone
would ensure even a decline in economic strife, let alone a
mitigation of those myriad other forces that spawn earthly
misery.
The teachings of Buddhism which delve into the various
causes of suffering identify greed as lust -- the passion for
indulging an intemperate appetite -- as the first of the Ten
Impurities that stand in the way of a tranquil, wholesome state
of mind. On the other hand much value is attached to liberality
or generosity which heads such lists as the Ten Perfections of
the Buddha, the Ten Virtues which should be practised, and the
Ten Duties of Kings. This emphasis on liberality should not be
regarded as a facile endorsement of alms-giving based on canny
calculation of possible benefits in the way of worldly prestige
or otherworldly rewards. It is a recognition of the crucial
importance of the liberal, generous spirit as an effective
antidote to greed as well as a fount of virtues which engender
happiness and harmony. The late Sayadaw Ashin Janaka Bivamsa of
the famous Mahagandhrun monastery at Amarapura taught that
liberality without morality cannot really be pure. An act of
charity committed for the sake of earning praise or prestige or a
place in a heavenly abode he held to be tantamount to an act of
greed.
Loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity
Buddhists see as "divine" states of mind which help to alleviate
suffering and to spread happiness among all beings. The greatest
obstacle to these noble emotions is not so much hatred, anger or
ill will as the rigid state that comes of a prolonged and
unwavering concentration on narrow self-interest. Hatred, anger
or ill-will which arises from wrongs suffered, from
misunderstanding or from fear and envy may yet be appeased if
there is sufficient generosity of spirit to permit forebearence,
forgiveness and reconciliation. But it would be impossible to
maintain ore restore harmony when contention is rooted in the
visceral inability of protagonists to concede that the other
party has an equal claim to justice, sympathy and consideration.
Hardness, selfishness and narrowness belong with greed, just as
kindness, understanding and vision belong with true generosity.
The act of willingly subtracting from one's own limited
store of the good and the agreeable for the sake of adding to
that of others reflects the understanding that individual
happiness needs a base broader than the mere satisfaction of
selfish passions. From there, it is not such a large step to the
realization that respecting the susceptibilities and rights of
others is as important as defending one's own susceptibilities
and rights if civilized society is to be safeguarded. But the
desirability of redressing imbalances which spoil the harmony of
human relationships -- the ultimate foundation for global peace
and security -- is not always appreciated. Buddhism and other
religious and ethical systems, however, have long recognised and
sought to correct this prejudice in favour of the self. A Jewish
scholar commenting on the Torah wrote: "In morals, holiness
negatively demanded resistance to every urge of nature which made
self-serving the essence of human life; and positively,
submission to an ethic which placed service to others at the
centre of its system" [1]
It would be naive to expect that all men could be expected
to place service to others before service to the self. But with
sufficient resolve on the part of governments and institutions
that influence public opinion and set international standards of
behaviour, a greater proportion of the world's population could
be made to realize that self-interest (whether as an individual,
a community or a nation) cannot be divorced entirely from the
interests of others. Instead of assuming that material progress
will bring an improvement in social, political and ethical
standards, should it not be considered that an active promotion
of appropriate social, political and ethical values might not
only aid material progress but also help to ensure that its
results are wisely and happily distributed? "Wealth enough to
keep misery away and a heart wise enough to use it" was described
as the "greatest good" by Aeschylus who lived in an age when,
after decades of war, revolution and tyrannies, Athenian
democracy in its morning freshness was beginning to prove itself
as a system wonderfully suited to free, thinking men. [2]
A narrowly focussed materialism that seeks to block out all
considerations apparently irrelevant to one's own well-being
finally blocks out what is in fact most relevant. Discussing the
"culture of contentment" which poses a challenge to the social
and economic future of the United States of America, Professor
John Kenneth Galbraith has pointed out that the fortunate and the
favoured are so preoccupied with immediate comfort and
contentment they have ceased to contemplate or respond to their
own longer-term well-being. "And this is not only in the
capitalist world, as it is still called: a deeper and more
general human instinct is here involved", he wrote [3] the
instinct to opt for narrow, short-term benefits can present a
significant threat to the continued prosperity of a rich,
industrialized state shored up by strongly established
institutions, how much more of a threat might it be to nations
which have but recently embarked, rather unsteadily, on the grand
adventure of free market economics and democratic politics? And
it would surely be of the utmost danger to those societies still
hovering on the edge of liberty and justice, still dominated by a
minority well content with its monopoly on economic and political
power.
In newly emergent democracies many who have been
disappointed in their expectations of immediate material
betterment have sought to work out their frustrations by
subscribing to outmoded and obscure conspiracy theories that
foster prejudice, paranoia and violence. The search for
scapegoats is essentially an abnegation of responsibility: it
indicates an inability to assess honestly and intelligently the
true nature of the problems which lie at the root of social and
economic difficulties and a lack of resolve in grappling with
them. The valuation of achievement in predominantly material
terms implies a limited and limiting view of human society,
denying it many of the qualities that make it more than a
conglomerate of egoistic consumer-gatherers who have advanced
little beyond the prehistoric instinct for survival.
It is perfectly natural that all people should wish for a
secure refuge. It is unfortunate that in spite of strong
evidence to the contrary, so many still act as though security
would be guaranteed if they fortified themselves with an
abundance of material possessions. The greatest threats to
global security today come not from the economic deficiencies of
the poorest nations but from religious, racial (or tribal) and
political dissensions raging in those regions where principles
and practices which could reconcile the diverse instincts and
aspirations of mankind have been ignored, repressed or distorted.
Man-made disasters are made by dominant individuals and cliques
which refuse to move beyond the autistic confines of partisan
interest. An eminent development economist has observed that the
best defence against famine is an accountable government. It
makes little political or economic sense to give aid without
trying to address the circumstances that render aid ineffectual.
No amount of material goods and technological know-how will
compensate for human irresponsibility and viciousness.
Developed and developing nations alike suffer as a result of
policies removed from a framework of values which uphold minimum
standards of justice and tolerance. The rapidity with which the
old Soviet Union splintered into new states, many of them stamped
with a fierce racial assertiveness, illustrates that decades of
authoritarian rule may have achieved uniformity and obedience but
could not achieve long-term harmony or stability. Nor did the
material benefits enjoyed under the relatively successful post-
totalitarian state [4] Yugoslavia succeed in dissipating the
psychological impress of brooding historical experiences which
have now led to some of the worst religious and ethnic violence
the Balkans has ever witnessed. Peace, stability and unity
cannot be bought or coerced: they have to be nurtured by
promoting a sensitivity to human needs and respect for the rights
and opinions of others. Diversity and dissent need not inhibit
the emergence of strong, stable societies, but inflexibility,
narrowness and unadulterated materialism can prevent healthy
growth. And when attitudes have been allowed to harden to the
point that otherness becomes a sufficient reason for nullifying a
person's claim to be treated as a fellow human being, the
trappings of modern civilization crumble with frightening speed.
In the most troubled areas of the world, reserves of
tolerance and compassion disappear, security becomes non-existent
and creature comforts are reduced to a minimum -- but stockpiles
of weapons abound. As a system of values this is totally mad.
By the time it is accepted that the only way out of an impasse of
hats, bloodshed and social and economic chaos created by men is
for those men to get together to find a peaceful solution through
dialogue and compromise, it is usually no longer easy to restore
sanity. Those who have been conditioned by systems which make a
mockery of the law by legalizing injustices and which attack the
very foundations of harmony by perpetuating social, political and
economic imbalances cannot adjust quickly -- if at all -- to the
concept of a fair settlement which places general well-being and
justice above partisan advantage.
During the cold war the iniquities of ruthless governments
and armed groups were condoned for ideological reasons. The
results have been far from happy. Although there is greater
emphasis in justice and human rights today, there are still
ardent advocates in favour of giving priority to political and
economic expediency -- increasingly the latter. It is the cold
argument: achieve economic success and all else will follow. But
even long-affluent societies are plagued by formidable social
ills which have provided deep anxieties about the future. And
newly-rich nations appear to be spending a significant portion of
their wealth on arms and armies. Clearly there is no inherent
link between greater prosperity and greater security and peace.
Both prosperity and peace -- or even the expectation of greater
peace. Both prosperity and peace are necessary for the happiness
of mankind, the one to alleviate suffering, the other to promote
tranquility. Only policies which place equal importance on both
will make a truly richer world, one in which men can enjoy
"chantha" of the body and of the mind. The drive for economic
progress needs to be tempered by an awareness of the dangers of
greed and selfishness which so easily lead to narrowness and
inhumanity. If peoples and nations cultivate a generous spirit
that welcomes the happiness of others as an enhancement of the
self, many seemingly insoluble problems would prove less
intractable.
Those who have worked with refugees are in the best position
to know that when people have been stripped of all their material
supports there only remain to sustain them the values of their
cultural and spiritual inheritance. A tradition of sharing
instilled by age-old beliefs in the joy of giving and the
sanctity of compassion will move a homeless destitute to press a
portion of his meagre rations on strangers with all the grace and
delight of one who has ample riches to dispense. On the other
hand, predatory traits honed by a long-established habit of
yielding to "every urge of nature which made self-serving the
essence of human life" will lead men to plunder fellow-sufferers
of their last pathetic possessions. And of course the great
majority of the world's refugees are seeking sanctuary from
situations rendered untenable by a dearth of humanity and wisdom.
The dream of a society ruled by loving kindness, reason and
justice is a dream as old as civilized man. Does it have to be
an impossible dream? Karl Popper, explaining his abiding
optimism in so troubled a world as ours, said that the darkness
had always been there but the light was new. Because it is new
it has to be tended with care and diligence. It is true that
even the smallest light cannot he extinguished by all the
darkness in the world, because darkness is wholly negative. It
is merely an absence of light. But a small light cannot dispel
acres of encircling gloom. It needs to grow stronger, to shed
its brightness further and further. And people need to accustom
their eyes to the light to see it as an benediction rather than a
pain, to learn to love it. We are so much in need of a brighter
world which will offer adequate refuge to all its inhabitants.
_________________________________________________________________
NOTES
[1] Isidore Epstein, "Judaism: A Historical Presentation"
(Harmondsworth, 1959), p.23.
[2] The quotation is from Agammemnon, 378-9, translated in Edith
Hamilton, "The Greek" Way (New York, 3rd edn. 1964), p. 51
[3] John Kenneth Galbraith, "The Culture of Contentment"
(London, 1992), pp. 6-7.
[4] I use "post-totalitarian state" in the sense given to it by
Vaclav Havel in his essay on "The Power of the Powerless:(1979),
when he applies the term to the neo-totalitarianism os the now-
dissolved Soviet bloc and the forms of state repression found
there which are markedly different from those obtaining in
classical dictatorships. See Vaclav Havel et al., "The Power of
the Powerless.......against the State in Central-Eastern
Europe", ed. John Keane (New York)....
................................................................
EMPOWERMENT FOR A CULTURE OF PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT
by Aung San Suu Kyi
[Address to a meeting of the World Commission on Culture and
Development, Manila, 21 November 1994, to be presented on behalf
of the author at her request by Mrs Corazon Aquino.]
At its third meeting held at San Jose, Costa Rica, 22-26 February
1994, the World Commission on Culture and Development set itself
three goals, the third of which was "to promote a new cultural
dynamic: the culture of peace and culture of development". The
Commission undertook to "endeavour to recommend the concrete
measures that could promote, on a national and international
scale, a culture of peace" and went on to state that:
"a culture of peace, culture of democracy and culture
of human rights are indivisible. Their effective
implementation must result in a democratic management
and ... the prevention of intercultural conflicts."[1]
Peace as a goal is an ideal which will not be contested by any
government or nation, not even the most belligerent. And the
close interdependence of the culture of peace and the culture of
development also finds ready acceptance. But it remains a matter
of uncertainty how far governments are prepared to concede that
democracy and human rights are indivisible from the culture of
peace and therefore essential to sustained development. There is
ample evidence that culture and development can actually be made
to serve as pretexts for resisting calls for democracy and human
rights. It is widely known that some governments argue that
democracy is a western concept alien to indigenous values; it has
also been asserted that economic development often conflicts
with political (i.e. democratic) rights and that the second
should necessarily give way to the first. In the light of such
arguments culture and development need to be carefully examined
and defined that they may not be used, or rather, misused, to
block the aspirations of peoples for democratic institutions and
human rights.
The unsatisfactory record of development in many parts of the
world and the ensuing need for a definition of development which
means more than mere economic growth became a matter of vita
concern to economists and international agencies more than a
decade ago.[2] In A New Concept of Development, published in
1983, Francois Perroux stated that:
"Development has not taken place: it represents a
dramatic growth of awareness, a promise, a matter of
survival indeed; intellectually, however, it is still
only dimly perceived."[3]
Later, in the same book, he asserted that:
"... personal development, the freedom of persons
fulfilling their potential in the context of the values
to which they subscribe and which they experience in
their actions, is one of the mainsprings of all forms
of development." [4]
His concept of development therefore gives a firm place to human
and cultural values within any scheme for progress, economic or
otherwise. The United Nations Development Programme too began to
spell out the difference between growth and development in the
1980s.[5] With the beginning of the 1990s the primacy of the
human aspect of development was acknowledged by the UNDP with
the publication of its first Human Development Report. And the
special focus of the 1993 Report was people's participation,
seen as "the central issue of our time".[6]
While the concept of human development is beginning to assume a
dominant position in the thinking of international economists and
administrators, the Market Economy, not merely adorned with
capital letters but seen in an almost mystic haze, is
increasingly regarded by many governments as the quick and
certain way to material prosperity. It is assumed that economic
measures can resolve all the problems facing their countries.
Economics is described as the "deus ex machina, the most
important key to every lock of every door to the new Asia we wish
to see"; and "healthy economic development" is seen as
"... essential to successfully meeting the challenge of
peace security, the challenge of human rights and
responsibilities, the challenge of democracy and the
rule of law, the challenge of social justice and reform
and the challenge of cultural renaissance and
pluralism."[7]
The view that economic development is essential to peace, human
rights, democracy and cultural pluralism, and the view that a
culture of peace, democracy and human rights is essential to
sustained human development, many seem on the surface to differ
only in the matter of approach. But a closer investigation
reveals that the difference in approach itself implies
differences of a more fundamental order. When economics is
regarded as "the most important key to every lock of every door"
it is only natural that the worth of man should come to be
decided largely, even wholly, by his effectiveness as an
economic tool.[8]
This is at variance with the vision of a world where economic,
political and social institutions work to serve man instead of
the other way round; where culture and development coalesce to
create an environment in which human potential can be realized
to the full. The differing views ultimately reflect differences
in how the valuation of the various components of the social
and national entity are made; how such basic concepts as
poverty, progress, culture, freedom, democracy and human rights
are defined and, of crucial importance, who has the power to
determine such values and definitions.
The value systems of those with access to power and of those far
removed from such access cannot be the same. The viewpoint of
the privileged is unlike that of the underprivileged. In the
matter of power and privilege the difference between the haves
and the have-nots is not merely quantitative, for it has
far-reaching psychological and ideological implications. And
many "economic" concerns are seldom just that, since they are
tied up with questions of power and privilege. The problem of
poverty provides an example of the inadequacy of a purely
economic approach to a human situation. Even those who take a
down-to-earth view of basic human needs agree that:
"... whatever doctors, nutritionists, and other
scientists may say about the objective conditions of
deprivation, how the poor themselves perceive their
deprivation is also relevant."[9]
The alleviation of poverty thus entails setting in motion
processes which can change the perceptions of all those
concerned. Here power and privilege come into play:
"The poor are powerless and have no voice. Power is the
responsibility of expressing and imposing one's will in
a given social relationship, in the face of any
resistance. The poor are incapable of either imposing,
coercing or, in many cases, having any influence at
all."[10]
It is not enough merely to provide the poor with material
assistance. They have to be sufficiently empowered to change
their perception of themselves as helpless and ineffectual in
an uncaring world.
The question of empowerment is central to both culture and
development. It decides who has the means of imposing on a
nation or society their view of what constitutes culture and
development and who determines what practical measures can be
taken in the name of culture and development. The more
totalitarian a system the more power will be concentrated in
the hands of the ruling elite and the more culture and
development will be used to serve narrow interests. Culture has
been defined as "the most recent, the most highly developed
means of promoting the security and continuity of life".[11]
Culture thus defined is dynamic and broad, the emphasis is on
its flexible, non-compelling qualities. But when it is bent to
serve narrow interests it becomes static and rigid, its
exclusive aspects come to the fore and it assumes coercive
overtones. The "national culture" can become a bizarre graft of
carefully selected historical incidents and distorted social
values intended to justify the policies and actions of those in
power.[12] At the same time development is likely to be seen in
the now outmoded sense of economic growth. Statistics, often
unverifiable, are reeled off to prove the success of official
measures.
Many authoritarian governments wish to appear in the forefront
of modern progress but are reluctant to institute genuine
change. Such governments tend to claim that they are taking a
uniquely national or indigenous path towards a political system
in keeping with the times. In the decades immediately after the
Second World War socialism was the popular option. But
increasingly since the 1980s democracy has gained ground. The
focus on a national or indigenous way to socialism or democracy
has:
"... the effect of stressing cultural continuity as
both process and goals; this in turn obviates the
necessity of defining either democracy or socialism in
institutionally or procedurally specific terms; and
finally, it elevates the existing political elite to
the indispensable position of final arbiter and
interpreter of what does or does not contribute to the
preservation of cultural integrity".[13]
It is often in the name of cultural integrity as well as social
stability and national security that democratic reforms based
on human rights are resisted by authoritarian governments. It
is insinuated that some of the worst ills of western society are
the result of democracy, which is seen as the progenitor of
unbridled freedom and selfish individualism. It is claimed,
usually without adequate evidence, that democratic values and
human rights run counter to the national culture, and therefore
to be beneficial they need to be modified -- perhaps to the
extent that they are barely recognizable. The people are said to
be as yet unfit for democracy, therefore an indefinite length of
time has to pass before democratic reforms can be instituted.
The first form of attack is often based on the premise, so
universally accepted that it is seldom challenged or even
noticed, that the United States of America is the supreme
example of democratic culture. What tends to be overlooked is
that although the USA is certainly the most important
representative of democratic culture, it also represents many
other cultures, often intricately enmeshed. Among these are the
"I-want- it-all" consumer culture, megacity culture, superpower
culture, frontier culture, immigrant culture. There is also a
strong media culture which constantly exposes the myriad
problems of American society, from large issues such as street
violence and drug abuse to the matrimonial difficulties of minor
celebrities. Many of the worst ills of American society,
increasingly to be found in varying degrees in other developed
countries, can be traced not to the democratic legacy but to the
demands of modern materialism. Gross individualism and cut-
throat morality arise when political and intellectual freedoms
are curbed on the one hand, while on the other, fierce economic
competitiveness is encouraged by making material success the
measure of prestige and progress. The result is a society where
cultural and human values are set aside and money value reigns
supreme. No political or social system is perfect. But could
such a powerful and powerfully diverse nation as the United
States have been prevented from disintegrating if it had not
been sustained by democratic institutions guaranteed by a
constitution based on the assumption that man's capacity for
reason and justice makes free government possible and that his
capacity for passion and injustices makes it necessary?[14]
It is precisely because of the cultural diversity of the world
that it is necessary for different nations and peoples to agree
on those basic human values which will act as a unifying factor.
When democracy and human rights are said to run counter to non-
western culture, such culture is usually defined narrowly and
presented as monolithic. In fact the values that democracy and
human rights seek to promote can be found in many cultures.
Human beings the world over need freedom and security that they
may be able to realize their full potential. The longing for a
form of governance that provides security without destroying
freedom goes back a long way.[15] Support for the desirability
of strong government and dictatorship can also be found in all
cultures, both eastern and western: the desire to dominate and
the tendency to adulate the powerful are also common human
traits arising out of a desire for security. A nation may
choose a system that leaves the protection of the freedom and
security of the many dependent on the inclinations of the
empowered few; or it may choose institutions and practices that
will sufficiently empower individuals and organizations to
protect their own freedom and security. The choice will decide
how far a nation will progress along the road to peace and
human development.[16]
Many of the countries in the third world now striving for
meaningful development are multiracial societies where there is
one dominant racial group and a number -- sometimes a large
number -- of smaller groups: foreign, religious or ethnic
minorities. As poverty can no longer be defined satisfactorily
in terms of basic economic needs, "minority" can no longer be
defined merely in terms of numbers. For example, it has been
noted in a study of minorities in Burmese history that:
"In the process of nation-building ... the notion of
minority in Burma changed, as one group defines itself
as a nation those outside the group become minorities
... There were, of course, minorities in traditional
Burma -- people close to the power elite who considered
themselves superior and people estranged from the power
elite who were considered inferior. These criteria for
establishing majorities (who might in fact be a small
portion of the population as, say, white people in
South Africa today) were not based on race or even
ethnic group, but on access to power. Minorities, thus,
are those people with poor access to power."[17]
Once again, as in the case of poverty, it is ultimately a
question of empowerment. The provision of basic material needs
is not sufficient to make minority groups and indigenous
peoples feel they are truly part of the greater national
entity. For that they have to be confident that they too have
an active role to play in shaping the destiny of the state that
demands their allegiance. Poverty degrades a whole society and
threatens its stability while ethnic conflict and minority
discontent are two of the greatest threats to both internal and
regional peace. And when the dispossessed "minority" is in fact
an overwhelming majority, as happens in countries where power
is concentrated in the hands of the few, the threat to peace
and stability is ever present even if unperceived.
The Commission for a New Asia notes that:
" ... the most rapid economic transformation is most
likely to succeed within the context of international
peace and internal political stability, in the presence
of social tranquillity, public order and an enlightened
and strong government; and in the absence of societal
turbulence and disorder."[18]
This comment highlights the link between economic, political and
social concerns. But there is a danger that it could be
interpreted to imply that peace, stability and public order are
desirable only as conditions for facilitating economic
transformation rather than as ends in themselves. Such an
interpretation would distort the very meaning of peace and
security. It could also be used to justify strong, even if
unenlightened, government and any authoritarian measures such
as a government may take in the name of public order.[19]
If material betterment, which is but a means to human happiness,
is sought in ways that wound the human spirit, it can in the
long run only lead to greater human suffering. The vast
possibilities that a market economy can open to developing
countries can be realized only if economic reforms are
undertaken within a framework that recognizes human needs. The
Human Development Report makes the point that markets should
serve people instead of people serving markets. Further:
"... both state and market should be guided by the
people. The two should work in tandem, and people
should be sufficiently empowered to exert effective
control over both."[20]
Again we come back to empowerment. It decides how widespread
will be the benefit of actions taken in the name of culture and
development. And this in turn will decide the extent of the
contribution such actions can make to genuine peace and
stability. Democracy as a political system which aims at
empowering the people is essential if sustained human
development, which is "development of the people for the people
by the people", is to be achieved. Thus it has been rightly
said that:
"National governments must find new ways of enabling
their people to participate more in government and to
allow them much greater influence on the decisions that
affect their lives. Unless this is done, and done in
time, the irresistible tide of people's rising
aspirations will inevitably clash with inflexible
systems, leading to anarchy and chaos. A rapid
democratic transition and a strengthening of the
institutions of civil society are the only appropriate
responses".[21]
The argument that it took long years for the first democratic
governments to develop in the west is not a valid excuse for
African and Asian countries to drag their feet over democratic
reform. The history of the world shows that peoples and
societies do not have to pass through a fixed series of stages
in the course of development. Moreover, latecomers should be
able to capitalize on the experiences of the pioneers and avoid
the mistakes and obstacles that impeded early progress. The idea
of "making haste slowly" is sometimes used to give backwardness
the appearance of measured progress. But in a fast developing
world too much emphasis on "slowly" can be a recipe for
disaster.
There will be as many kinds of democracies as there are nations
which accept it as a form of government. No single type of
"western democracy" exists; nor is democracy limited to a mere
handful of forms such as the American, British, French or Swiss.
Each democratic country will have its own individual
characteristics. With the spread of democracy to Eastern Europe
the variety in the democratic style of government will increase.
Similarly there cannot be one form of Asian democracy; in each
country the democracy system will develop a character that
accords with its social, cultural and economic needs. But the
basic requirement of a genuine democracy is that the people
should be sufficiently empowered to be able to participate
significantly in the governance of their country. The thirty
articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are aimed
at such empowerment. Without these rights democratic
institutions will be but empty shells incapable of reflecting
the aspirations of the people and unable to withstand the
encroachment of authoritarianism.
The democracy process provides for political and social change
without violence. The democracy tradition of free discussion and
debate allows for the settlement of differences without resort
to armed conflict. The culture of democracy and human rights
promotes diversity and dynamism without disintegration; it is
indivisible from the culture of development and the culture of
peace. It is only by giving firm support to movements that seek
to empower the people through democratic means that the United
Nations and its agencies will truly be able to promote the
culture of peace and the culture of development.
***
Let me in conclusion summarize my argument. The true development
of human beings involves much more than mere economic growth.
At its heart there must be a sense of empowerment and inner
fulfillment. This alone will ensure that human and cultural
values remain paramount in a world where political leadership is
often synonymous with tyranny and the rule of a narrow elite.
People's participation in social and political transformation is
the central issue of our time. This can only be achieved through
the establishment of societies which place human worth above
power, and liberation above control. In this paradigm,
development requires democracy, the genuine empowerment of the
people. When this is achieved, culture and development will
naturally coalesce to create an environment in which all are
valued, and every kind of human potential can be realised. The
alleviation of poverty involves processes which change the way
in which the poor perceive themselves and the world. Mere
material assistance is not enough; the poor must have the sense
that they themselves can shape their own future. Most
totalitarian regimes fear change, but the longer they put off
genuine democratic reform the more likely it is that even their
positive contributions will be vitiated: the success of
national policies depends on the willing participation of the
people. Democratic values and human rights, it is sometimes
claimed, run counter to "national" culture, and all too often
the people at large are seen as "unfit" for government. Nothing
can be further from the truth. The challenge we now face is for
the different nations and peoples of the world to agree on a
basic set of human values, which will serve as a unifying force
in the development of a genuine global community. True economic
transformation can then take place in the context of
international peace and internal political stability. A rapid
democratic transition and strengthening of the institutions of
civil society are the sine qua non for this development. Only
then will we be able to look to a future where human beings are
valued for what they are rather than for what they produce. If
the UN and its agencies wish to assist this development they
must support these movements which seek to empower the people,
movements which are founded on democracy, and which will one
day ensure a culture of peace and of development.
_________________________________________________________________
NOTES
[1] "Draft Preliminary Outline of the World Report on Culture
and Development". UNESCO, CCD-III/94/Doc. 2, Paris, 7 Feb. 1994,
p.16.
[2] It has been pointed out that the idea of growth not as an
end in itself but as a performance test of development was put
forward by economists as early as the 1950s; Paul Streeten et
al., "First Things First: Meeting Basic Human Needs in the
Developing Countries", Oxford, 1982 edn.
[3] Francois Perroux, "A New Concept of Development", UNESCO,
Paris, 1983, p. 2.
[4] Ibid., p. 180.
[5] "Growth normally means quantifiable measure of a society's
overall level of production or incomes such as GNP or GDP per
capita, while development involves qualitative aspects of a
society's advancement such as under- and un-employment, income
distribution pattern, housing situation, nutritional level,
sanitary condition, etc." UNDP Selected Sectoral Reviews:
[Burma] December 1988, p. 333.
[6] Human Development Report 1993, UNDP, Oxford, 1993, p. 1. [7]
"Towards A New Asia", A Report of the Commission for A New Asia,
1994, p. 39.
[8] "The logic of an economy governed by solvency and by profit,
subject to the increasing value attached to capital and to the
power of those who command it is to reject as 'non-economic'
everything which cannot be immediately translated into
quantities and prices in market terms": Paul- Marc Henry (ed.),
"Poverty, Progress and Development", London, 1991, p. 30.
[9] Streeten et al., "First Things First", p.19.
[10] Henry (ed.), "Poverty, Progress and Development". p. 34.
[11] The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, 1993 edn., vol.
16, p. 874.
[12] Edward Said comments that governments in general use
culture as a means of promoting nationalism: "To launder the
cultural past and repaint it in garish nationalist colors that
irradiate the whole society is now so much a fact of
contemporary life as to be considered natural". See Edward
Said, "Nationalism, Human Rights, and Interpretation", in
Barbara Johnson (ed.), "Freedom and Interpretation": The Oxford
Amnesty Lectures, 1992, New York, 1993, p. 191.
[13] Harry M. Scoble and Laurie S. Wiseberg (eds.), "Access to
Justice: Human Rights Struggles in South East Asia", London,
1985, p. 57.
[14] See Clinton Rossiter's introduction to Hamilton, Madison
and Jay, "The Federalist Papers", Chicago, 1961. I owe thanks to
Lady Patricia Gore-Booth for the original quotation on which
Rossiter presumably based his words: "Man's capacity for justice
makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice
makes democracy necessary", from Reinhold Niebuhr's foreword to
his "Children of Light and Children of Darkness: A Vindication
of Democracy and a Critique of its Traditional Defence", London,
1945.
[15] "The best government is that which governs least" are the
words of a westerner, John L. O'Sullivan, but more than a
thousand years before O'Sullivan was born it was already written
in the Lao Tzu, A Chinese classic, that "the best of all rulers
is but a shadowy presence to his subjects". The notion that "In
a nation the people are the most important, the State is next
and the rulers the least important" is to be found not in the
works of a modern western political theorist but in that of
Mencius.
[16]Ehran Naraghi has shown in his memoirs, "From Palace to
Prison: Inside the Iranian Revolution", London, 1994, that a
critical attitude towards the monarch, decentralization of power
and divisions of responsibilities were part of oriental
tradition. His fascinating conversations with Shah Mohammed Reza
Pahlavi throw into relief the dangers of cultural and
development policies divorced from the aspirations of the
people.
[17] Ronald D. Renard, "Minorities in Burmese History", in K.M.
de Silva et al. (eds.), "Ethnic Conflict in Buddhist Societies:
Sri Lanka, Thailand and Burma", London, 1988, p. 79.
[18] "Towards New Asia", p. 40.
[19] "Practically any human behaviour can be, and historically
has been, rationalized as threatening to damage the security of
the nation": Scoble and Wiseberg (eds.), "Access to Justice",
p. 58.
[20] Human Development Report 1993, p. 53.
[21] Ibid., p. 5. Scoble and Wiseberg (eds.), "Access to
Justice",p. 5, point out the difference between fundamental
reform that "involves a redistribution of power, a broadening
of participation and influence in the making of authoritative
decisions" and contingent reform that "involves a sharing of
the benefits of power holding, or the uses of power, in order
to avoid the sharing of power itself".
..............................................................
STATEMENT
It has always been the firm conviction of those working for
democracy in Burma that it is only through meaningful dialogue
between diverse political forces that we can achieve national
reconciliation, which is the first and most vital requirement for
a united and prosperous country. That the international
community shares this view is evident from clause 5 of the
General Assembly resolution of December 1994 which encourages the
government of Burma to engage in "a substantive political
dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and other political leaders,
including representatives from ethnic groups, as the best means
of promoting national reconciliation and the full and early
restoration of democracy".
It was in full acceptance of this view and with genuine good will
that I approached the meetings with members of the State Law and
Order Restoration Council on 20 September and 28 October 1994.
There has not been and there will not be any secret deals with
regard either to my release or to any other issue. I adhere to
the principle of accountability and consider myself at all times
bound by the democratic duty to act in consultation with
colleagues and to be guided by the aspirations of those engaged
in the movement to establish a truly democratic political system
in Burma. I remain dedicated to an active participation in this
movement.
Aung San Suu Kyi
22 January 1995
Rangoon
Burma
.................................................................
HERE ENDETH THE SECOND INSTALLMENT OF THE
AUNG SAN SUU KYI MONTH
CAMPAIGN TOOL-KIT
The first installment of the tool-kit contained documents
concerning the legal dimensions of Suu Kyi's house arrest.
Further installments will contain her curriculum vitae, a list of
her awards, selected citations, a chronology of events involving
Suu Kyi and the SLORC over the past year, suggestions for forms
of action etc.
Envisaged users are Burma and human rights activists, women's
groups, peace groups and others whose actions for Suu Kyi and
Burma may be enhanced by this materiel.