Aung San Suu Kyi & Birtukan Mideksa’s release brings
smile on faces and hearts of people—but no one falls for
the dupery despots have in mind in so doing
15 March, 2010 | By Genet Mersha
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
with General Than Shwe, the military leader. Therefore, the electoral
‘competition’ behind it and bombarded by the torrent of rejections from
around the world, a week later the junta released the 65-year old Nobel
laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the most revered figure in that unfortunate country
and an international icon.
This is seen as an attempt to seek international acceptance and lifting of the
biting sanctions by giving a semblance of possible transition to democracy.
Nonetheless, the election has already been rejected by all democratic
countries and peoples around the world. There are two main reasons for that.
Firstly, the junta’s disbanded the largest pro-democracy party, Suu Kyi’s
National League for Democracy (NLD). Secondly, in its election laws the
junta decreed that pro-democracy figures would be banned because of
convictions linked to her political activities. This resulted in the exclusion of the
experienced NLD leadership from participation in the election. The party was
given the option to take part in the election only if it expelled Suu Kyi from the
party, which it refused on grounds of principle.
It seems that the military junta calculated this would create division within the
NLD. They anticipated that a fragmented party would be incapable of any
opposition activities. Most of the NLD members listened to their leader and
decided not to take part in the election. For its refusal on both counts, the
junta forcibly disbanded the NLD. A faction in the NLD, mostly consisting of
the young, was convinced it would make a difference for democracy’s future
in Myanmar by taking part in the election and getting parliamentary
representation.
Certainly, their move was based on wrong assumptions. Under Myanmar’s
new constitution, 25 percent of seats in all chambers are reserved for the
military. According to news sources, the USDP is led by former junta officials
who have only in recent weeks given up their military rank to run as civilians.
The National Unity Party (NUP) is led by a former deputy leader of the
armed forces. Such an arrangement, it is reported, would give the junta a
parliamentary majority of more than 75 percent. In addition, three key
ministerial posts - interior, defense and border affairs would be held by the
generals running Myanmar. It has also become evident to opposition parties
that participated in the election that they have been duped. They have already
“accused the military junta of fraud and said many state workers had been
forced to support the army-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party
(USDP) in advance balloting ahead of Sunday” (MSNBC).
In the circumstances, the best hope for Myanmar still rests with Aung San Suu
Kyi, although the environment she would be operating is more difficult than
before. Notwithstanding that she told the thousands that thronged during the
night cheering her release and tearing with joy: "I'm very happy to see you all
again." To the junta, she told them what they dread most: "They have treated
me well on a personal basis. But they have not acted in accordance with the
rule [of law]. And that I shall always fight against…The people cannot have
security unless there is rule of law. And I believe my treatment and that of all
prisoners is not within the norms of justice, but that does not mean that I have
been ill treated personally" (CNN).
Regarding the election, she said, "I don't think any country can survive as a
prosperous and dignified nation unless there is rule of law." Moreover, Suu
Kyi is reported to have said the "basis of democratic freedom is freedom of
speech" and urged supporters to "stand up for what is right." She said "I'm not
fearful, not in the sense that I think to myself that I won't do this or I won't do
that because they'll put me under arrest again. That I don't have in mind"
(BBC). In a BBC telephone interview she also said she did not fear re-arrest
if she continued to call for democracy, though she knew it remained a
possibility.
To the credit of the generals, the junta did not try to humiliate her either by
announcing any fabricated apologies or setting terms and conditions for her
release, as Ethiopia did in the case of the respected opposition UDJ party
president Judge Birtukan Mideksa. Aung San Suu Kyi’s lawyer Nyan Win
told journalists "This is an unconditional release. No restrictions are placed on
her" (MSNBC).
In the case of Birtukan Mideksa, she was released from prison on 6 October
2010, after serving over two years of her life sentence. The government went
extra length to make her release as if initiated with her apology. It announced
her release from prison about five months after Prime Minister Meles Zenawi’
s TPLF-led EPRDF won 99.6 percent of parliamentary seats. She was
coerced into signing a letter of apology to the prime minister that in part states
“I apologize for deceiving the Ethiopian people and government. I will not
involve myself in such deceptive acts in the future” (Reuters). On 22
September 2010, a government official told the media of her release saying,
“There was no bargaining. This is purely a magnanimous act by the
government” (Eskinder Nega, www.andinet.com).
Nevertheless, to the extent I can understand her legal and political mind, I
would be hard pressed to believe she would write of her own free will in her
apology letter the following sentences. The language is typically Meles’s that
he had employed from time to time in his press conferences, accusing her of
such things. Here is that part:
In this connection, recall that Reuters on its blog of 16 June 2009 wrote
“Now, a year into her detention, Meles seems reluctant even to speak her
name, preferring to call her “the lady” or “that woman”. When he finally did
say the word Birtukan last week at a news conference, he couldn’t have been
clearer about her future. There will never be an agreement with anybody to
release Birtukan. Ever. Full stop. That’s a dead issue.” Recall also that the
prime minister had told a press conference, “there is zero chance that
opposition leader Birtukan Mideksa will be released from prison in time to
compete in the elections scheduled for next May [2010]. He also said
Birtukan’s jailing is not a pretext to eliminate political opposition” (Bloomberg,
22 June).
Recently Eskinder Nega wrote (after the election), Prime Minister Meles
Zenawi “spoke about her harshly, but noticeably absent the typical ardor:
“This (her release) is a purely legal issue, and it is between her and the law.
No one can come between the two. Not opposition parties, not our friends
abroad.”
Interestingly, like Mynamar’s the May 2010 election was rejected by election
observers, outlining a list of several failures. In its conclusion the EU Election
Observer Mission report states, “The electoral process fell short of
international commitments for elections regarding the transparency of the
process and the lack of a level playing field for all contesting parties.” In its
damning report, Human Rights Watch wrote, “Although the ruling party
introduced multiparty elections soon after it came to power in 1991,
opposition political parties have faced serious obstruction to their efforts to
establish offices, organize, and campaign in national and local elections.”
Certainly, the fate of Judge Birtukan is already sealed. Meles must be clear in
his mind that he would only bid his time for another round of imprisonment. In
his response to a question about her fate at his recent visit to Columbia
University, before her release he said, “I wouldn’t be surprised if she were to
ask for a pardon. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the government was to grant
it to her.” Is it that not troubling how much power a single man wields in our
country, with the law having no powers to protect citizens or restrain an angry,
moody, mercurial personality in power? God save Ethiopia!
smile on faces and hearts of people—but no one falls for
the dupery despots have in mind in so doing
15 March, 2010 | By Genet Mersha
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- On November 7, Myanmar
held national election, after
twenty years of military rule.
Quoting a senior party official,
Reuters reported that the Union
for Solidarity and Development
Party (USDP) has taken as
many as 80 percent of the
available seats for parliament.
News sources report that the
with General Than Shwe, the military leader. Therefore, the electoral
‘competition’ behind it and bombarded by the torrent of rejections from
around the world, a week later the junta released the 65-year old Nobel
laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the most revered figure in that unfortunate country
and an international icon.
This is seen as an attempt to seek international acceptance and lifting of the
biting sanctions by giving a semblance of possible transition to democracy.
Nonetheless, the election has already been rejected by all democratic
countries and peoples around the world. There are two main reasons for that.
Firstly, the junta’s disbanded the largest pro-democracy party, Suu Kyi’s
National League for Democracy (NLD). Secondly, in its election laws the
junta decreed that pro-democracy figures would be banned because of
convictions linked to her political activities. This resulted in the exclusion of the
experienced NLD leadership from participation in the election. The party was
given the option to take part in the election only if it expelled Suu Kyi from the
party, which it refused on grounds of principle.
It seems that the military junta calculated this would create division within the
NLD. They anticipated that a fragmented party would be incapable of any
opposition activities. Most of the NLD members listened to their leader and
decided not to take part in the election. For its refusal on both counts, the
junta forcibly disbanded the NLD. A faction in the NLD, mostly consisting of
the young, was convinced it would make a difference for democracy’s future
in Myanmar by taking part in the election and getting parliamentary
representation.
Certainly, their move was based on wrong assumptions. Under Myanmar’s
new constitution, 25 percent of seats in all chambers are reserved for the
military. According to news sources, the USDP is led by former junta officials
who have only in recent weeks given up their military rank to run as civilians.
The National Unity Party (NUP) is led by a former deputy leader of the
armed forces. Such an arrangement, it is reported, would give the junta a
parliamentary majority of more than 75 percent. In addition, three key
ministerial posts - interior, defense and border affairs would be held by the
generals running Myanmar. It has also become evident to opposition parties
that participated in the election that they have been duped. They have already
“accused the military junta of fraud and said many state workers had been
forced to support the army-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party
(USDP) in advance balloting ahead of Sunday” (MSNBC).
In the circumstances, the best hope for Myanmar still rests with Aung San Suu
Kyi, although the environment she would be operating is more difficult than
before. Notwithstanding that she told the thousands that thronged during the
night cheering her release and tearing with joy: "I'm very happy to see you all
again." To the junta, she told them what they dread most: "They have treated
me well on a personal basis. But they have not acted in accordance with the
rule [of law]. And that I shall always fight against…The people cannot have
security unless there is rule of law. And I believe my treatment and that of all
prisoners is not within the norms of justice, but that does not mean that I have
been ill treated personally" (CNN).
Regarding the election, she said, "I don't think any country can survive as a
prosperous and dignified nation unless there is rule of law." Moreover, Suu
Kyi is reported to have said the "basis of democratic freedom is freedom of
speech" and urged supporters to "stand up for what is right." She said "I'm not
fearful, not in the sense that I think to myself that I won't do this or I won't do
that because they'll put me under arrest again. That I don't have in mind"
(BBC). In a BBC telephone interview she also said she did not fear re-arrest
if she continued to call for democracy, though she knew it remained a
possibility.
To the credit of the generals, the junta did not try to humiliate her either by
announcing any fabricated apologies or setting terms and conditions for her
release, as Ethiopia did in the case of the respected opposition UDJ party
president Judge Birtukan Mideksa. Aung San Suu Kyi’s lawyer Nyan Win
told journalists "This is an unconditional release. No restrictions are placed on
her" (MSNBC).
In the case of Birtukan Mideksa, she was released from prison on 6 October
2010, after serving over two years of her life sentence. The government went
extra length to make her release as if initiated with her apology. It announced
her release from prison about five months after Prime Minister Meles Zenawi’
s TPLF-led EPRDF won 99.6 percent of parliamentary seats. She was
coerced into signing a letter of apology to the prime minister that in part states
“I apologize for deceiving the Ethiopian people and government. I will not
involve myself in such deceptive acts in the future” (Reuters). On 22
September 2010, a government official told the media of her release saying,
“There was no bargaining. This is purely a magnanimous act by the
government” (Eskinder Nega, www.andinet.com).
Nevertheless, to the extent I can understand her legal and political mind, I
would be hard pressed to believe she would write of her own free will in her
apology letter the following sentences. The language is typically Meles’s that
he had employed from time to time in his press conferences, accusing her of
such things. Here is that part:
- "When I was on duty abroad, I falsely told my supporters that
government released me the first time around without me asking any
apology, which on my part was false information. Because of that,
when the authorities asked me to correct that mistaken information,
instead I committed another mistake of not responding to that
request appropriately. The reason for that is my mistaken belief that
the government would not dare arrest me for fear of foreign
pressure; or even if it did it would free me without delay (unofficial
translation).
In this connection, recall that Reuters on its blog of 16 June 2009 wrote
“Now, a year into her detention, Meles seems reluctant even to speak her
name, preferring to call her “the lady” or “that woman”. When he finally did
say the word Birtukan last week at a news conference, he couldn’t have been
clearer about her future. There will never be an agreement with anybody to
release Birtukan. Ever. Full stop. That’s a dead issue.” Recall also that the
prime minister had told a press conference, “there is zero chance that
opposition leader Birtukan Mideksa will be released from prison in time to
compete in the elections scheduled for next May [2010]. He also said
Birtukan’s jailing is not a pretext to eliminate political opposition” (Bloomberg,
22 June).
Recently Eskinder Nega wrote (after the election), Prime Minister Meles
Zenawi “spoke about her harshly, but noticeably absent the typical ardor:
“This (her release) is a purely legal issue, and it is between her and the law.
No one can come between the two. Not opposition parties, not our friends
abroad.”
Interestingly, like Mynamar’s the May 2010 election was rejected by election
observers, outlining a list of several failures. In its conclusion the EU Election
Observer Mission report states, “The electoral process fell short of
international commitments for elections regarding the transparency of the
process and the lack of a level playing field for all contesting parties.” In its
damning report, Human Rights Watch wrote, “Although the ruling party
introduced multiparty elections soon after it came to power in 1991,
opposition political parties have faced serious obstruction to their efforts to
establish offices, organize, and campaign in national and local elections.”
Certainly, the fate of Judge Birtukan is already sealed. Meles must be clear in
his mind that he would only bid his time for another round of imprisonment. In
his response to a question about her fate at his recent visit to Columbia
University, before her release he said, “I wouldn’t be surprised if she were to
ask for a pardon. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the government was to grant
it to her.” Is it that not troubling how much power a single man wields in our
country, with the law having no powers to protect citizens or restrain an angry,
moody, mercurial personality in power? God save Ethiopia!
| All rights reserved. |
| Ethio Quest News Together We Can Make It! |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Ethiopia's History of National Resistance for African Unity & Dignity |
| Ethio Quest News: For latest Ethiopian News, views, Reviews and More |
| Ethiopian Perspective Articles by Category Ethiopian Diversity Ethiopian Economy Ethiopian Politics Ethiopian Women |
| Previous Articles by Genet Mersha |
