REITH LECTURES 2011: SECURING FREEDOM
AUNG SAN SUU KYI
LECTURE TWO: DISSENT
FIRST BROADCAST ON BBC RADIO 4 AT 0900HRS, TUESDAY 5th JULY 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/reithlectures
SUE LAWLEY: Hello and welcome to the Radio Theatre in Broadcasting House,
London. For the past 23 years, Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese pro-democracy leader,
has been fighting for freedom against the military dictatorship that rules her country.
Today she is giving the second of her two BBC Reith Lectures entitled “Securing
Freedom”, which have been recorded in secret at her home in Burma.
In her first lecture, Aung San Suu Kyi discussed what she called the “un-freedom” in
which the people of Burma live, and described the passion with which she and her
supporters, like those who’ve recently taken to the streets in the Middle East, seek
the right to liberty and democracy.
In this second lecture, Aung San Suu Kyi describes how her party -the National
League for Democracy, The NLD -has survived, despite being officially ignored by the
regime since it won a landslide election victory in 1990. She draws parallels with
dissidents throughout the world for whom, like her, struggle has been their life’s
work. Ladies and gentlemen, the BBC’s first Reith Lecturer of 2011: Aung San Suu Kyi.
Audience applause
AUNG SAN SUU KYI: When I agreed, with great trepidation, to take on the Reith
Lectures, it was based on the simple desire to discover what we are. By “we”, I mean
the National League for Democracy, the NLD, as well as other groups and individuals
who are engaged in the campaign for democracy in Burma.
1
We have been engaged in the struggle for democracy for more than 20 years, so,
you might think, we should know what we are. Well yes, we do know what we are,
but only up to a certain point. It is easy enough to say that we are members of a
particular party like the NLD or organisation, but beyond that things start to get a bit
fuzzy.
I was made acutely aware of this when I was released from my third stretch of house
arrest last November. Perhaps I should explain. A lot happened while I was under
house arrest, cut off from the world outside. Two of the most notable events -I was
tempted to say mishaps -that happened in Burma were the referendum in 2008,
followed by the general election last November. The referendum was supposed to
show -or at least the Burmese military junta hoped it would show -that more than
90 per cent of voters were in favour of a new constitution; a constitution which
would give the military the right to take over all powers of government whenever it
was thought necessary for the good of the nation. The first general elections in
nearly 20 years were meant to follow according to what the generals rather absurdly
called their “road map to disciplined democracy”.
This is when it starts to get complicated. To take part in these elections, new political
parties had to register with the Elections Commission along with all those parties
which had previously registered back in 1988. They also had to undertake to protect
and defend the constitution, drawn up two years earlier, and to expel any of their
members who were in prison, including those who were appealing against their
sentences. This included me as I would have to be expelled if the NLD wanted to
register. Instead it chose to carry on its right to remain as a political party in the law
courts, although we were fully aware of the lack of an independent judiciary in
Burma.
So when I was released from house arrest last year, only days after the elections, I
was faced with a barrage of questions. Two of the most frequent ones were, first,
whether or not the National League for Democracy had become an unlawful
organisation.
2
The second was how I saw the role of the party now that there was an official
opposition which didn’t include us. It was instead the handful of parties whose
representatives now occupy less than 15 per cent of the seats in the Burmese
National Assembly.
The first question was easy enough to answer: we were not an unlawful organisation
because we had not infringed any of the terms of the unlawful organisations law.
The second, regarding the role of the party, was more difficult because the NLD’s
position has been ambiguous ever since the elections held in 1990 when we won
more than four-fifths of the vote and shocked what was then known as the State
Law and Order Restoration Council, the official name of the Burmese military regime.
The years of military rule have produced a very rich collection of Orwellian terms.
There are countries where elections have been rigged or hijacked or where the
results have been disputed or denied, but Burma is surely the only one where the
results have been officially acknowledged in the state gazette, followed by nothing.
Nothing was done to provide a real role for the winning party or elected
representatives in spite of earlier promises by leaders of the Junta that the
responsibility of the government would be handed over to the winners once the
elections were over and the army would go back quietly to their barracks.
The most notable outcome of the elections in 1990 was the systematic repression of
all parties and organisations, formal or informal, as well as individuals who persisted
in demanding that the desire of the people of Burma for democratic governance be
fulfilled.
We may have won, but the election in 1990 heralded the beginning of lean years for
the NLD. The party made determined efforts to keep itself alive -alive but certainly
not kicking. To casual observers, it began to look moribund. Only the year before the
Chairman of the party, U Tin Oo, and other key members of the Movement for
Democracy were imprisoned and I had been placed under house arrest.
3
When U Tin Oo and I were released 6 years later, we found that many of our most
effective activists were still in prison, had gone into exile or had died -some of them
while they were in custody. Others were in poor health as a result of harsh years
spent in jails that did not even provide the bare minimum of medical care. Most of
our offices had been forced to shut down. Our activities were severely curtailed by a
slew of rules and regulations, and our every move watched closely by the ubiquitous
military intelligence.
The M.I. or MI -as some refer to it with lugubrious familiarity -could drag any of us
away at any time -they preferred the dead of night -on any charge that took their
fancy. Yet in the midst of such unrelenting persecution, we had still remained an
official political party, unlike today, and we began to be referred to as “the
opposition”. So here we were in opposition, but not the official opposition. Should
we accept that we were the opposition, after all, because we were in opposition to
the government, whether or not that government is legitimate?
In 1997, the State Law and Order Restoration Council was renamed the State Peace
and Development Council. Was it because astrologers had advised that such a move
was necessary to ward off the possibility of regime change, or because the Junta was
getting tired of jokes made at the expense of the acronym SLORC, which smacked
uncomfortably of such artificial organisations as SMASH? We shall never know. The
official explanation was that the new name indicated it was time for the Junta to
move on to bigger and better things, as they had succeeded in their declared
intention of establishing law and order. Considering that the Burmese expression for
law and order translates literally as quiescent, cowering, crushed and flattened,
perhaps we’re not far from the truth.
The regime’s version of law and order was a state of affairs to which we were
thoroughly opposed: a nation of quiescent, cowering, crushed and flattened citizens
was the very antithesis of what we were trying to achieve. The shape of the NLD
began to take on a sharper contour as we faced up to the challenges of the struggle
to survive as a political entity under military dictatorship.
4
We sought ideas and inspirations in our own culture and history, in the struggles for
revolutionary change in other countries, in the thoughts of philosophers and the
opinions of observers and academics, in the words of our critics, in the advice of our
supporters and friends. We had to find ways and means of operating as effectively as
possible within the parameters imposed on us by the Junta while striving at the same
time to extend the frontiers of possibility. Certainly we could not carry out the
functions that would normally be expected of an opposition party.
As repression intensified, those of us in the National League for Democracy felt our
essential nature to be more and more distant from that of a conventional
opposition. We were recognised as the political party with the strongest support,
both at home and abroad, and we carried the burden of responsibility that goes with
such recognition. But we had none of the privileges that would have been accorded
to such a party in a working democracy and barely any of the basic rights of a
legitimate political organisation. We were at once much more and much less than an
opposition.
In one of the first public speeches I made in 1988, I suggested that we were
launching out on our second struggle for independence. The first, in the middle of
the last century, had brought us freedom from colonial rule. The second, we hope,
would bring us freedom from military dictatorship.
The prominent role students played when they rose up in the demonstrations of
1988 evoked images of the students who had swept the country along with them in
their demonstrations for independence in the 1930s. Some of these students of a
past era had become prominent national figures and served as members of the post-
independence government or as party leaders until they were forcefully removed
from the political arena after the military coup of 1962. Many of these veteran
independence fighters were quick to join the movement for democracy and thus
linked the new struggle to the old one.
5
Yet there were many differences between the two, of which the most obvious was
that while our parents had fought against a foreign power, we were engaged in
combat with antagonists who were of the same nation, the same race, the same
colour, the same religion. Another difference, pivotal though seldom recognised as
such, was that while the colonial government was authoritarian, it was significantly
less totalitarian than the Junta that came into power in 1988.
A well-known writer who had plunged into the Independence Movement as a young
student, and who had engaged in clandestine work for the resistance during the
Japanese occupation, told me in 1989 that she thought the challenges we had to
face were far tougher than the ones with which she and her contemporaries had had
to contend. Before and after the Second World War rule of law protected the
independence movement from extreme measures by the British administration.
When war and the Japanese Army came to the country, the presence of the newly
created Burmese Army, commanded by my father, acted as a buffer between the
resistance and the worst elements of the occupation forces. We could draw
inspiration from the triumph of our forebears, but we could not confine ourselves to
our own history in the quest for ideas and tactics that could aid our own struggle.
We had to go beyond our own colonial experience.
The regime meanwhile preferred to remain shackled to the past, blaming colonialism
for all the ills of the nation and branding the NLD and its supporters new colonialists.
Scanning the world for ideas and inspiration, it was natural that we should have
turned to our close neighbour India. We sifted through the tactics and strategies of
the Indian Independence Movement and the thoughts and philosophies of its
leaders, looking for what might be relevant or useful.
Gandhi’s teachings on non-violent civil resistance and the way in which he had put
his theories into practice have become part of the working manual of those who
would change authoritarian administrations through peaceful means. I was attracted
to the way of non-violence, but not on moral grounds, as some believe. Only on
practical political grounds.
6
This is not quite the same as the ambiguous or pragmatic or mixed approaches to
non-violence that have been attributed to Gandhi’s satyagraha or Martin Luther
King’s civil rights. It is simply based on my conviction that we need to put an end to
the tradition of regime change through violence, a tradition which has become the
running sore of Burmese politics.
When the military crushed the uprisings of 1988 by shooting down unarmed
demonstrators with a brutal lack of discrimination or restraint, hundreds of students
and other activists fled across the border to Thailand. Many of them were convinced
that those who lived by the gun could only be defeated by the gun, and decided to
form student armies for democracy.
I have never condemned and shall never condemn the path they chose because
there had been ample cause for them to conclude the only way out of repressive
rule was that of armed resistance. However, I myself rejected that path because I do
not believe that it would lead to where I would wish my nation to go.
Those who take up arms to free themselves from unjust domination are seen as
freedom fighters. They may be fighting for a whole country or people in the name of
patriotism or ideology, or for a particular racial or ethnic or religious group in the
name of equality and human rights. They are all fighting for freedom.
When arms are not involved “activists” seem to have become the generic name for
those who are fighting for a political cause: civil rights activists, anti-apartheid
activists, human rights activists, democracy activists. So do we belong to the last two
categories since we are constantly speaking out for human rights and democracy? To
say that those of us in Burma who are involved in the movement for democracy are
democracy activists would be accurate, but it is too narrow a description to reflect
fully the essential nature of our struggle.
A scholar comparing Indonesia under President Suharto to Burma under army
dictatorship wrote that in Burma’s case the military had “held a coup against civilian
7
politics in general”. In light of this insightful observation, it can be deduced that the
mission of the NLD was not merely to engage in political activities but to restore the
whole fabric of our society that civilians might be assured of their rightful space.
We were not in the business of merely replacing one government with another,
which could be considered the job of an opposition party. Nor were we simply
agitating for particular changes in the system as activists might be expected to do.
We were working and living for a cause that was the sum of our aspirations for our
people, which were not, after all, so very different from the aspirations of peoples
elsewhere.
In spite of the stringent efforts of the military regime to isolate us from the rest of
the world, we never felt alone in our struggle. We never felt alone because the
struggle against authoritarianism and oppression spans the whole human world,
crossing political and cultural frontiers.
During the years I spent under house arrest, the radio, which was my link to the
great outside, took me as easily to the far reaches of the globe as to the top of my
own street. It was from the radio that I heard about NLD activities in the immediate
vicinity of my house, just as it was from the radio that I learned of the breaching of
the Berlin wall, the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the moves towards constitutional
change in Chile, the progress of democratisation in South Korea, the dismantling of
apartheid in South Africa. The books I received intermittently from my family
included the works of Vaclav Havel, the memoirs of Zakharov, biographies of Nelson
and Winnie Mandela, the writings of Timothy Garton Ash. Europe, South Africa,
South America, Asia -wherever there were peoples calling for justice and freedom,
there were our friends and allies.
When I was released from house arrest, I took every opportunity to speak to our
people about the courage and sufferings of black South Africans, about living in
truth, about the power of the powerless, about the lessons we could learn from
those for whom their struggle was their life, as our struggle is our life.
8
Perhaps because I spoke so often of the East European Movement for Democracy, I
began to be described as a “dissident”. Originally Vaclav Havel did not seem to have
been enthusiastic about the term “dissident” because it had been imposed by
Western journalists on him and others in the human rights movement in
Czechoslovakia. He then went on to explain in detail what meaning should be put on
dissidents and the dissident movement in the context of what is happening in his
country. He held that the basic job of a dissident movement was to serve the truth that
is to serve the real aims of life -and that this endeavour should develop into a
defence of the individual and his or her right to a free and truthful life. That is a
defence of human rights and a struggle to see the laws respected.
This seemed to describe very satisfactorily what the NLD had been doing over the
years and I happily accepted that we were dissidents. The official status of our party
as seen by the authorities matter little because our basic job as dissidents remains
what it has been over the years, and the objectives of our dissent remains what it
has been over the years.
Audience applause
SUE LAWLEY: Well now Aung San Suu Kyi recorded that lecture recently at her home
in Burma. We now hope to have her on a telephone line from that same room. Daw
Suu, are you there?
AUNG SAN SUU KYI: Yes, I’m here.
SUE LAWLEY: Welcome. Just let me explain to you that with me here in Broadcasting
House in London, I have Robert Gordon whom I know you came to know very well
when he was British Ambassador to Burma in the late 90s, and who subsequently
ran the South East Asia Department in the Foreign Office. I also have with me Xenia
Dormandy who was Director for South Asia for the White House and is now a Senior
Fellow at Chatham House. And we have an audience of politicians and experts and
dissidents from China and the Middle East, as well as Burma itself.
9
I’m going to begin by asking Robert Gordon, who saw how your dissidence was
treated by the regime when he was in Burma for four years: there was a moment,
was there not Robert, when the NLD’s dissent began to bear fruit, when the regime
actually engaged with Aung San Suu Kyi?
ROBERT GORDON: Well yes there was a little bit of a mini Burmese Spring just
before Daw Suu started her latest bout of house arrest in 2002/2003 when Daw Suu
was able to visit more and more outlying parts of Burma and address people in
increasing crowds until the dreadful moment came in May 2003 when the shutters
came down, there was this attack on her convoy, 70 of her colleagues were killed,
and she very nearly lost her life. But very recently -and this is perhaps something
that Daw Suu could shed light on -there has been a report that in fact behind the
scenes there was some progress between the NLD and the military government in
the shape of the then Prime Minister, General Khin Nyunt. And, so the report says,
an agreement of sorts was reached whereby the NLD would rejoin the National
Convention. Perhaps, Daw Suu, you could enlighten as to whether this report is true
or not?
AUNG SAN SUU KYI: Yes, I had some talks with three representatives of the regime
and I felt that these talks were genuine. I think we were trying to reach some kind of
agreement. And, as far as I can make out, those who were talking to me also thought
that we had reached some kind of agreement. But at the last moment, just a few
days before the National Convention, this all changed.
SUE LAWLEY: But you’re pushing hard at the moment -you’ve given these lectures
to the BBC, you addressed the US Congress, you’re talking about intending to tour
Burma -to tour the provinces. The generals have been patient so far. How much do
you fear that their patience may run out?
AUNG SAN SUU KYI: I’m not sure that patience is a word that you should apply to
them. After all, we have been patient for 23 years. And when you say that they are
patient, what do you mean?
10
After all, it’s my right as a citizen to travel around this country if I wish to and it’s my
right as a citizen of this country to say whatever I believe to those who ask me what I
think.
SUE LAWLEY: I’m going to bring in Xenia Dormandy who’s a Senior Fellow at
Chatham House and an expert in your region. Xenia, what’s your reaction to hearing
the way Aung San Suu Kyi has described the narrative history of her struggle? Are
there lessons there for us actually in how we should seek to influence what’s going
on in the Middle East, for example?
XENIA DORMANDY: I think that’s an excellent question. I think that there is a
message that could be picked up. There has been some success in some areas of the
Middle East; there has been less success in others. I think we can all guess which
ones fit in which camps. And the question is can we take some of the success of the
use of technology, the difference between having an authoritarian regime that
would shoot at their people versus those who don’t? And I would ask Daw Suu are
there lessons for the international community, that you would like to see action
from the international community that we saw perhaps in the Middle East that we
haven’t seen in Burma?
AUNG SAN SUU KYI: I don’t think the world was as interested in what was going on
in Burma as it is now in what is going on in the Middle East. It may be because we
are much more aware of what is happening there. It may be because there are
differences between the strategic position of Egypt and the strategic position of
Burma. But I think that I would like the world to care for each and every bit of the
world in the same way when it comes to basic human needs.
SUE LAWLEY: I’m going to bring in Malek al-Abda. You talked in that lecture about
the methods of dissent employed and you talked about violence versus nonviolence.
Malek al-Abda is a Syrian dissident and a television journalist who’s now in
exile in London. Malek, your question please to Daw Suu?
11
MALEK AL-ABDA: In your first lecture, you talked about the possibility of a change in
tactic given the brutal nature of the Junta in Burma. How seriously would you
consider supporting violence to achieve goals?
AUNG SAN SUU KYI: I wouldn’t support armed action just because somebody else is
calling for it. I place all my hopes in the young people of our country, but I wouldn’t
support armed action simply because they called for it. I think if I were to support
violence, it would only be because I believed that a short burst of violence, if you
like, would prevent worse things happening in the long-run. Only for that reason
would I ever support violence if I were to support it.
SUE LAWLEY: I’m going to bring in Sue Lloyd-Roberts who’s a foreign correspondent
who’s worked for many of the major UK TV news channels, Daw Suu. And she’s most
recently been undercover in Syria, so she’s no stranger to the activities of a
repressive regime. Sue, your question?
SUE LLOYD-ROBERTS: Yes, I’ve just come back from Damascus, Daw Suu, and you
may or may not know that you are an icon on the streets of Damascus. I met a Syrian
woman protestor, a very brave woman who led the women of her district out onto
the streets despite the fact that army snipers were shooting from the rooftops and
she said you were her inspiration. I have one question for you. You were quoted
recently as saying that “a charade of democracy can be much more dangerous than
outright dictatorship.” I assume by that, you meant the Junta’s recent elections. Do
you think the international community and some people in Burma have been fooled
by them?
AUNG SAN SUU KYI: Rather than fooled, I think people want change so much that
they are deceiving themselves. They want to see change. So they want to see change
so much that they start saying that there has been change. So far as I can see, there
have been no real changes yet. There have been lots of very beautiful words, but
those are not enough.
12
SUE LAWLEY: (to Sue Lloyd-Roberts) Is it your view that the recent elections, albeit
they were rigged, but then the release of Aung San Suu Kyi has damaged the cause
of democracy in Burma? Is that what you’re suggesting?
SUE LLOYD-ROBERTS: The release, no, because she has proved to be a huge
inspiration and has done a huge work of advocacy since she has been released. But
there’s no doubt that I think the elections let a lot of people off the hook. You heard
a lot of international politicians say well you know these generals are trying. And
surely that can be a very dangerous thing to think, which is why Aung San Suu Kyi so
rightly said that a charade of democracy can be so dangerous.
SUE LAWLEY: How far, Robert Gordon, are the people of Burma themselves fooled
by it? After all they’re surrounded by a lot of other autocratic nations, aren’t they?
Might the Burmese people actually think across the land that they’re not doing too
badly?
ROBERT GORDON: No it’s true that they are members of ASEAN, the Association of
South East Asian Nations, which embraces many different forms of rule and sorts of
democracy -some of which are highly qualified. So by the ASEAN yardstick, it’s
possible that even this highly suspect election may not be so totally out of character.
But I think that the Burmese people are very careful to listen -not least to the BBC
and other radio stations broadcast into Burma -about themselves, and they will
have certainly heard the many irregularities that have marked these elections and
they will have seen for themselves how very different they were to the last real
elections that happened in 1990.
SUE LAWLEY: Is that why you want to get out into the provinces, Daw Suu? You
actually want to talk to people beyond Rangoon to find out what they’re thinking?
AUNG SAN SUU KYI: Yes, and I think it’s very important to be in touch with the
people. After all, if you’re in politics it means you have to work with people. It’s not
just to go out and campaign.
13
People use the word ‘campaign’; they say that I’m going out on a ‘campaign’ trip. It’s
not so much that. Let’s say that I want to go on a contact trip.
SUE LAWLEY: But your problem is, is it not, is that your party’s been splintered by
these elections because you boycotted the elections for reasons you’ve explained to
us; but other parties stood, other members of your party wanted to stand and other
ethnic minorities stood in Burma. So in a way the opposition has got fragmented,
which is exactly what the regime wanted, isn’t it?
AUNG SAN SUU KYI: I wouldn’t say that the opposition has got fragmented because I
think I can say, truthfully, that the NLD has the greatest support in Burma still, and,
with the support of the people, that we are remaining as a political force.
SUE LAWLEY: Xenia Dormandy, let’s talk about sanctions and trade. China spends
four billion dollars. Well what does it spend? What does China spend in Burma?
XENIA DORMANDY: A significant amount of money. (audience laughter)
SUE LAWLEY: A huge amount.
XENIA DORMANDY: I think the issue with China, with India, with the United States,
with Europe, the question is interests versus, maybe, moral obligation. There is
perhaps a moral obligation to act. We heard President Obama talk about a moral
obligation when he chose to put the US to be involved in Libya, but how do you
measure that against a national interest, whether it’s trade, whether it’s energy,
whether it’s protecting one’s borders? And I think if you look at the international
community activities in Burma, or lack of activity, and you compare that to what’s
gone on in the Middle East, North Africa, a lot of it comes down to this question of
where does the moral obligation, balanced with the national interest, demand that
our actions take place?
14
SUE LAWLEY: Let me call in Simon Tisdall, a foreign affairs columnist and leader
writer for the Guardian, of which he’s also Assistant Editor. Simon Tisdall, your point
please.
SIMON TISDALL: Well Daw Suu, you set your Burmese struggle in an international
context, indeed a context of universal rights and obligations. I’m wondering are you
dismayed, disappointed even, that countries coming out of post-colonial situations
like South Africa -which you praised the struggle there -India, Brazil, as well as
China, these leading developing powers around the world have not taken a stronger
line on Burma, have not shown the support and solidarity that if we really are to
have changes there, the international community needs to exert?
AUNG SAN SUU KYI: I am disappointed, of course, but at the same time I’m afraid
that we have got rather used to it -that when a democracy movement, a human
rights movement are in opposition, then they take a different line; but once they get
into government some of them are not as supportive of struggles in other places as
we might have expected them to be. There are exceptions of course, such as
Czechoslovakia -or rather the Czech Republic now. President Vaclav Havel was very,
very supportive of our movement for democracy when he was in opposition; and
when he was President he was every bit as supportive. And there are individuals like
Desmond Tutu who are exactly the same. I would wish more countries and more
leaders to be like them, to remain true to the values for which they fought; once
they have succeeded in their struggle not to forget those who are still struggling.
SUE LAWLEY: I’m going to call in David Steele because I think this line is fading on us
slightly and I do want to get your question in before the end. Lord Steele?
LORD STEELE: I want to ask a more personal question. I knew your husband Michael
during his terminal illness and I know how distressed you both were when he was
refused a visa to come and pay a last goodbye. And I’ve also been in Cairo recently
talking to members of the Youth Coalition who saw some of their colleagues killed.
And my question is, is there too high a price to pay for dissent?
15
AUNG SAN SUU KYI: I don’t think so because if you think of what many of my
colleagues have had to give up, what they have had to go through, then I don’t think
you would even ask me the question -have I paid too high a price. There are many
others who have paid much more, a much higher price for their beliefs.
SUE LAWLEY: Did you expect her to say anything else, David Steele? (laughter)
SUE LAWLEY: I’ve got one more point for you. Say who you are.
BRAD ADAMS: Hi, I’m Brad Adams. I’m the Asia Director at Human Rights Watch.
One of the things you said at the last lecture that was most impressive was that you
felt mentally free throughout all of your ordeal, and what we’ve seen from change in
other countries is that change happens when something happens within a regime.
Their mental state changes. And I’m wondering what you think could change the
leadership of the regime, the rank and file in the army? What would make them
change their world view so that they would accept the principles and the values that
you espouse?
AUNG SAN SUU KYI: I think it would help a great deal if they could be exposed to
other people’s thoughts much more. We do not get through enough to the regime partly
because they’ve cut themselves off deliberately from the people, and partly
because there is not enough effort from all directions to make them see that things
are not necessarily the way they think they are.
SUE LAWLEY: Xenia Dormandy, do you feel that there may well be a moment when
you know the generals make another big mistake, which of course they did when the
monks rose up in 2007 -suddenly they were putting up the price of food or reducing
the value of savings? Do you feel that that is in the end how it will happen – the big
“it”? That the generals will make a big mistake and there’s going to be much more
communication, as there is in the Middle East, and the whole thing could take off?
16
XENIA DORMANDY: I think that maybe I will revert to two things that President
Obama has said in the last two months, or so. One of them is that these drives have
to be internally led, not externally led. And the second is notwithstanding President
Obama’s insistence that US actions in Libya followed a moral obligation as much as
anything else, I don’t think that one should expect the United States, the European
Community, other Western powers to choose the moral right over the national
interest. And so I think that there has to be a question for those within Burma -is
there a way to change the calculation so that national interests become more
powerful, become more relevant? Is there a narrative that can be explained as to
why democracy in Burma is so important that the international community should
be taking actions that are otherwise not directly perceived to be in their national
interest?
SUE LAWLEY: Daw Suu, music to your ears, hmm?
AUNG SAN SUU KYI: Yes, but I think I would like to say that we would like more done
on the basis not just of democracy in Burma but fairness and justice throughout the
world. And we are part of the world, and it is not just that you’re doing something
for Burma when you help us in our democracy movement. I think you are helping the
whole world to have greater access to fairness, to justice, to security, to freedom. I
would like people to think of it like that -not just that we’re helping this particular
country or that particular country but as promoting more security, more freedom
and more justice in this world.
Audience applause
SUE LAWLEY: A last thought from you, Robert Gordon, before we say goodbye. It
would be very easy to say that very little had been achieved by the National League
for Democracy over the past 23 years because there hasn’t really been any
continued engagement or any beginning -only one small beginning as we heard of
engagement with the regime. No freedom has been won, there’s no dialogue. Has
anything been achieved that you felt when you were there -and you can put your
17
finger on now -by the heroic efforts of Aung San Suu Kyi?
ROBERT GORDON: Well I think internally she has kept the flame of hope alive in a
long and very dark period of Burmese politics, and that’s an enormous achievement
in itself. And we heard from Sue Lloyd Roberts and others that in today’s Syria and
other countries there are many, many people who look from outside at what Daw
Suu is trying to do in her country and are drawing inspiration for their own countries.
SUE LAWLEY: Daw Suu, are you happy with that as a summary of your achievements
-that you’ve kept the flame alive?
AUNG SAN SUU KYI: I don’t like to think of it as my achievement talking about what
the NLD has done or not done. But to put it all in a nutshell, we have done as much
as I think any party could do under the circumstances.
SUE LAWLEY: And here’s an easy question for you to end on. How much have you
enjoyed being our Reith Lecturer 2011?
AUNG SAN SUU KYI: Oh I’ve enjoyed it tremendously. I was very nervous about it,
but I’ve enjoyed it very much because it gave me a chance to do what I enjoy doing reading
and writing and communicating with people who are interested in the kind
of things that I am interested in.
SUE LAWLEY: Well I think the world is interested in the kinds of things that you’re
interested in. Aung San Suu Kyi, thank you very much indeed. There we must end it.
In September, 10 years on from 9/11, the former Director General of Britain’s
security service MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, will be delivering three Reith
Lectures, also under the title of “Securing Freedom”. She will talk about securing the
freedom of those of us who already enjoy it against those who would take it away.
But for now, our thanks to our audience here in London and a very special thank you
to our first Reith Lecturer of 2011, Aung San Suu Kyi.
END
I haven't heard or read this yet. INterested in anyone's comments ............................
It is hard to understand but it is a fact that I am feeling the longing again for JH. I really felt I loved him and invested myself into the relationship. I have not helped myself by the occasional reading of his website etc. I know I need to stop all of that and it feels like really letting go. I have to stick to the commitment not to have any peeks at all. It is not fair to me. It keeps something alive that really isn't alive. And all I do is hurt me over and over again. So today feels like I am feeling the loss all over again. I am a fool to myself.
I wonder if he knew I loved him that much. But the reality is he didn't love me at the end of the day so how ever much I loved him would not make the blindest bit of difference.
So I MUST MUST MUST allow myself to get over this. After all it wasn't even a year we were seeing each other. So how can it have become so BIG in me?? No idea. Perhaps it is just all the loss I feel right now augmenting and appearing as if it's all about JH. I have no idea.
My friend is off on a weeks holiday. I am very pleased for her. I would like to be holidaying too. But I am getting on with y studies. Hopefully I ca take a longer holiday around October time. Another friend has invited me to Guernsey - partially paid for too. That would be lovely. I haven't been there for years. End of July - but she is unwell right now so it may not happen. However, I will visit the IOW for a break and later on Spain.
My session with SC last evening was very helpful indeed. I tried to explain how I feel as if I am carrying something very light and big and real. When I listen to my body feelings, I can almost feeling it touching the inside of my arms when I stretch them around whatever it is. But when I try and grab it, it's like thin air and there's nothing there. When SC re framed this back to me he reflected as me having a relationship with my dad now that feels very real and big but is indescribable and unreachable. And that is just how it is. I do not know how to relate to my dad now. I have confronted him with so much, admittedly not the sexual abuse. And so he has contacted me a little more and things are a little more out in the open. I can even understand dysfunction that resides in him and is the motive for many of his behaviours. I feel some forgiveness and sad. I also feel angry but not raging. But when he calls I do not feel safe enough to really say how I am feeling, i.e. up and down with depression. I do not know if I feel safe enough to say how sad I feel that I have always felt our relationship has been so difficult at times. Actually I think I could say that. I think I did say something along those lines that day in the restaurant car park.
SC reminded me to listen to my body. I can't remember what else he said.
I told him about the bi-polar label. Another label. I was glad that he understood what I meant about this. Suddenly when people create labels for others, then there is a tendency to treat them as per the label rather than as the individual that they are and always have been.
So we talked about the extremes of ups and downs that I have lived in and at times till live in. And how the highs can at times get me into situations that are also probably addictive. I can see that with SLY during the November to the time I got involved with JH. And despite starting off reasonably healthily with JH gradually it became unhealthy. He and I were involved in that I am certain. It wasn't all unhealthy but some things went out of balance and then when I realised he was lieing on the occasions I learnt about I was in deep water. I did not keep close to recovery and my support, I invested everything in him. This is a finger pointing this is just another version of writing to understand what I need to change. Some of it is probably inaccurate but the process was unhealthy for me in the end. It could have been very different and much healthier even with all the things going on in and between us. I have a lot to learn.
If he read that I suspect he would feel accused etc. And yet I am not doing that at all.
Anyway keep the focus on me not him. So I can see how the ups can lead me into situations head strong and I drop some of my living techniques. And again just because I have ups and downs and addictions too it doesn't mean I do not have healthy spiritual connections and awareness. I have a lot. I can feel the wisdom within me especially when I am working with others. When I am low and in this dark mood, it is difficult to keep it applied to me. So somewhere between these highs and lows is the middle way. Of course I have times when I am content and peaceful and there. BUT I also know I can get bored there. That's the difficulty because when the boredom hits I think this is actually when the highs start and then after the highs come lows.
I see this as a process but in this darkness it's difficult to be OK with me.
I so want to speak to Stephen Fry. Or other people who get this and have found ways to deal with the lows. I believe he is now on medication.
I have started my new meds. I think I felt a bit spacey yesterday afternoon. I spent a very nice time really with my friend. Chatting. But we were also analysing. I was able to say how scared I am of the consequences of hers and my own depression on our friendship as she had commented the other day that she thought we were probably not good for each other. I was scared that it would have an effect on me being able to see her or keep in contact.
Oh well....
I need need need to study! I have requested another 2 days holiday to try and get this done and have an extension arranged. My concentration is shot to pieces. Why?
This blog was originally to help me focus in between studying - ha ha - it's till sort of for the same reason but I don't think I was suffering with depression then.
Oh I HATE this!
Bliss
XX
