Overseas Roundup

Good Morning!

I haven't done one of these in a while...

If you haven't found your way to the wondrous website, "Watching America", you're missing one of the great treasures of the internets.

Starting in England, there's a story about Bush leading the charge against Burma now. If you haven't been following along, check out the news about this regime. You might have heard about Tibetan Monks leading a massive protest; I saw last night that Burmese authorities have begun a crackdown. Of course, with the United States that 'shining city upon a hill', I guess our side feels it necessary to ramp up the rhetoric. Without actually helping the opposition, of course.

George W. Bush, the US president, led a growing backlash against Burma's military regime yesterday, announcing new sanctions against its leaders and their financial backers.

The move came as the junta threatened to use force to quell growing demonstrations in Rangoon, the former capital, that were led by 10,000 Buddhist monks chanting "democracy".

Vehicles with loudspeakers toured the city declaring a 9pm-5am curfew and a ban on assemblies of more than five people.

"People are not to follow, encourage or take part in these marches. Action will be taken against those who violate this order," the loudspeakers blared.

On state media the night before, Brigadier-General Thura Myint Maung, the religious affairs minister, said young monks who persisted in fomenting opposition to military rule would face retribution "according to the law".

In New York, Mr Bush said the US would tighten economic sanctions and impose an extended visa ban on the worst human rights offenders and their families.

He urged UN member states to use diplomatic and economic leverage to "help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom".

"Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma where a military junta has imposed a 19-year reign of fear," he told the UN General Assembly.

The US had previously imposed a wide range of sanctions on Burma. Other measures already included a ban on all imports from Burma, a ban on new investment in the country, a ban on the provision of financial services to the country, a visa ban on certain named government officials and an asset freeze of certain Burmese institutions.

In London, Gordon Brown, the prime minister, urged the European Union to tighten its sanctions "as soon as possible".

Asian analysts said that the latest threats against demonstrators, led by monks, echoed a warning issued before the crackdown against a monks' protest movement in Mandalay in 1990 when a handful of monks were shot, many were injured and hundreds more forcibly disrobed.

"I am really worried that there will be bloodshed soon if the international community does not intervene," said Win Min, a Burmese academic at Chiangmai University in northern Thailand.

At mass demonstrations in the heart of Rangoon, the capital, yesterday, young monks carried banners with pacifist slogans such as: "Loving kindness must win everything."

Although authorities again made no effort to intervene, military vehicles were parked a few hundred yards away at Bogyoke Market and near the goldencrusted Shwedagon Pagoda, Burma's largest and most venerated religious site.

"The stakes have been much higher today," said a western diplomat. "It is very difficult to know how [the military] are going to react. It is an amazing feeling, but the reality is that they are strong and ready to crack down."

Looking to the Middle East, I'm struck by a pair of dueling stories out of Israel, both on the recent visit of the Iranian President to Columbia University here in New York.

First, "Columbia was Right"

“What chutzpah, what hypocrisy!” said everyone: Politicians in Jerusalem and Washington, American-Jewish leaders, students at Columbia University – how dare a distinguished university invite Iranian President Ahmadinejad to deliver a lecture? He must be silenced!

The calls to curb speech have become familiar and tired. Politicians are allowed to say this, and in any case it would be naïve to expect them to display openness to other views or the expression of views that contradict popular sentiment. Yet it’s irritating to hear the representatives of two leading social groups join this demagogic campaign: Academicians and journalists.

First of all, academicians: They should be the first ones to recognize the fact that universities are the only place that still maintains genuine commitment to the freedom of speech, and are at times an island of openness amid the wave of calls to curb speech – and it doesn’t matter whether the calls are directed at radical views on the Right or Left.

Therefore, it was unfortunate to hear serious and distinguished professors speaking out against the Columbia University president’s decision.”

The enthusiasm of editors and newscasters in the broadcast media and press who spoke out against Columbia University should also raise concerns. Journalists should be at the forefront of the struggle for the freedom of speech. It is good that they directed tough questions at Columbia University, but they should also direct such questions at those objecting to the Ahmadinejad visit. It would be appropriate for journalists to leave the populist statements for politicians.

Notably, freedom of speech is not meant to protect common and agreed-upon views. The objective of the freedom of speech is mostly to allow the voicing of different and annoying opinions. This is one of the most important rights given to a minority in a democratic regime, and this is the essence of democracy: Granting rights to minorities.

When is it proper to limit the freedom of speech? When there is substantive danger that the words will encourage listeners to engage in violent or racist acts. Does anyone believe that Ahmadinejad’s American audience was convinced that their country is the “kingdom of evil” and that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth?

Therefore, the Columbia University dean was right to say that had it been possible, he would have invited Hitler as well. It would have

been appropriate, in the 1930s, to allow the Nazi leader to express his disgusting views within an academic framework, lecture on his doctrine, and confront the tough questions. This would have allowed the listeners to better understand him and assess the seriousness of his intentions regarding the Jews (as you may recall, many doubted that he intended to realize his fiendish plans.)

And now, the other side...."Columbia was Wrong"

The Iranian president, clearly enjoying every moment of the uproar he provoked in American discourse, parried the tough questions posed him at the end of his speech to 600 students and faculty Monday, Sept. 24, by throwing questions back, longwinded evasions and barefaced lies.

From his first words, Ahmadinejad showed that, far from being a potential partner for dialogue, he incarnates the arrogant, intolerant certainty that there is only one correct path, the one pursued by the Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Iran. Even so, his glib, hectoring style of speech is known to grate on more than one of his colleagues at home.

As demonstrators rallied outside the campus, the Iranian president was asked if he supported terrorism. He replied that Iran was itself a victim of terrorism. He did not mention the US, but cited the camps in Iraq housing terrorists responsible for 4000 Iranian deaths, a transparent reference to the opposition Iranian Mujahedin Qalq. The Americans banned this group for many years, reactivating it last year in response to Iran’s massive aid to Iraqi insurgents fighting US troops.

Asked about his government’s nuclear program, Ahmadinejad said its intentions were peaceful. Therefore, he said: “Iran does not want the bomb.”

Ahmadinejad dodged the question about his declared wish to wipe Israel off the map by saying the Palestinians must have the freedom to self-determination. But at the end of his speech, he said: Iran has always sought friendly relations with all nations except for two, “the South African apartheid regime (which no long exists) and the Zionist regime.”

He thus obliquely reaffirmed his wish for the latter to go the same way as the former, off the map.

Regarding his denial of the Nazi Holocaust, he declared piously: “We academics must always pursue more research.”

Women are free and respected in Iranian culture, said the Iranian president with great solemnity, when asked why Iranian women were denied human rights. As to the execution of homosexuals, “We do not have homosexuals in our country like you,” said he with a straight face.

Interestingly, the Iranian president was not heckled or interrupted even once, even at his most outrageous. Some of his comments were greeted with applause. He clearly attained his main objective: a respectful hearing in the heart of a prestigious American center of learning in New York.

Ahmadinejad showed he was skeptical not only of the “Holocaust myth” but America’s affirmation of the “real hands” behind the 9/11 atrocities when he asked: “Who really did execute the attack?” This question will be understood in Arab and Muslim bazaars as echoing the anti-Semitic libel current there that the al Qaeda attack was a Zionist plot.

Even though Columbia University President Lee Bollinger greeted the Iranian visitor as “a cruel and petty tyrant and terrorist,” there is no gainsaying that he granted a coveted platform to a world figure who abused it to disseminate a creed which preaches the superiority of the Iranian race, culture and religion and whose highest objective is the downfall of Big Satan America and Little Satan Israel.

So.

I'm betting you won't find this anywhere else today.