By Raj Gonsalkorale
It
was always known that the self-appointed icons of democracy only pay lip
service to democracy and that self- interest and the singular desire to control
a global agenda of their choosing takes precedence over everything else. The
recent G7 meeting confirmed this.
The G7 countries and their invitees gathered in the UK to
send warning signals to both China and Russia that the high powered democratic
alliance of the world, the G7 was back in business. In reality however, this
was more about trade than democracy as all these countries do substantial trade
with the countries they sent warning signals to. All G 7 countries and their
friends will continue trading with China irrespective of what China does. So
they will with Russia. This dichotomy will ensure that poorer, less privileged States
like Myanmar, and stateless people like the Palestinians will always be ignored
by political bigamists like the G7 and their friends.
It is no surprise therefore that while trumpeting (no pun
intended) the common values, democracy, freedom and liberty, that binds this
club together, not a word was said about a country whose democracy, freedom and
liberty was snuffed out by a Military takeover, and the country’s democratic
icon, Aung San Suu Kyi languishing in jail and is facing a bogus trial.
At least in hindsight, the G7 and their democratic friends
should see why Aung Sung Su Kyi took the stand she took during the Rohingya
crisis, and the eventual price she paid even after not voicing her concern and
opposition to the Military led offensive against the Rohingya’s. Her failure to
speak against the treatment of the Rohingya people cannot be overlooked, as a
leader of her stature should have done so.
However, with the Military almost at her throat, she would
have been toppled long ago had she expressed a view in opposition to the
Military stance. She no doubt realises now that it would have been better to have
been toppled for a principled humanitarian reason then, rather than being
toppled for a cause she fought for, spent time in prison for, and for a cause
she may have mistakenly imagined, the democratic power houses in the world
would take note and come to safeguard what they professed so loudly to the
world, the democracy and democratic rights of a small country which had fought
so relentlessly to restore what they profess as an important human value.
While the world, especially the democratic high powers
sleep, the people of Myanmar have not. Nearly 1000 people have died since the
Military takeover for a cause they fought for decades. The open as well as rear
guard action continues from within to win back what they lost. In an article
titled Resistance to coup bleeds Myanmar by Ashok K Mehta in the Sri
Lanka Guardian
(http://www.slguardian.org/2021/06/resistance-to-coup-bleeds-myanmar.html),
this resistance and the ongoing battle against the Military has been well
articulated.
The people of Myanmar have fought for and won their democratic
rights in democratically conducted elections. In the 1990 elections, NLD won 81% of the seats in Parliament,
but the results were nullified, as the military government refused to hand over
power. Aung San Suu Kyi had been detained before the elections and remained
under house
arrest for
almost 15 of the 21 years from 1989 to 2010, becoming one of the world’s most
prominent political prisoners.
Her party boycotted the 2010 elections, resulting in a decisive victory for the
military-backed Union Solidarity and
Development Party (USDP). Aung San Suu Kyi became a Pyithu
Hluttaw MP while her party won 43 of the 45
vacant seats in the 2012 by-elections.
In the 2015 elections, her party won a landslide
victory,
taking 86% of the seats in the Assembly of the Union – well more than the 67% supermajority needed to ensure that its preferred
candidates were elected president and second vice president in the presidential electoral
college.
Although she was prohibited from becoming the president due to a
clause in the
constitution – her late husband and children are foreign citizens – she
assumed the newly created role of State Counsellor of Myanmar, a role akin to a
prime minister or a head of government.
The democratic elephants have allowed the Military to impose Military
rule in Myanmar, imprison Aung San Suu Kyi and subvert democracy and take away
their freedom and human rights, something they had fought for decades. Nothing
tangible has been done to date to take action against the Military and to
restore democracy in Myanmar. Although they all trumpeted anti- Chinese
sentiments during their summit and professed to form a united front to
safeguard democracy” and democratic values”, they have given a virtual free
hand to the Myanmar military and for China, the main backer of the Military, to
do as they please in Myanmar.
If this is not rank duplicity what is?
The sorry situation faced by Palestinians since a few people sat in
London and decided to carve up a State for Israel in 1948 throwing the
Palestinians to a virtual dustbin since, is another example of this duplicity.
In this case, a people who deserved a State were not given one, and more than
70 years later, they remain stateless, and the land they lived in for centuries
has been encroached by Israel, while those who profess democracy,
freedom and liberty have done the opposite.
There are enough and more examples one can cite to illustrate this
duplicity when it comes to people in States whose democracy, freedom and
liberty has been overrun by forces practising the opposite, and of Stateless
people like the Palestinians who have been ignored as a consequence of this
duplicity and whose democratic rights have been denied to them.
Then, there are democratic countries like Sri Lanka, which are
constantly under the microscope of clubs like the G 7 and their friends who
measure human rights progress by standards even they do not subscribe to in all
instances and more universally in their own countries. While Sri Lanka could do
better in some areas of human rights, it certainly could teach a lesson or two
to some in countries like the USA.
Human Rights in the USA
Human Rights Watch World Report 2021 states the following in regard
to the human rights situation in the USA in its introductory section (https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/united-states). Other reports citing the level of gun
violence the level of poverty in the US, does not demonstrate that the USA is
exactly the ideal preacher who should be lecturing other countries on human
rights failings.
The HRW reports says, quote Important human rights failings of
the United States were laid bare in 2020.
The grossly disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on Black, brown,
and Native people, connected to longstanding disparities in health, education,
and economic status, revealed the enduring effects of past overtly racist laws
and policies and continuing impediments to equality. The police killing of
George Floyd in May, and a series of other police killings of Black people, sparked massive and
largely peaceful protests, which in many instances were met with brutality by
local and federal law enforcement agents.
The administration of President Donald Trump continued to dismantle
the United States asylum system, limit access to women’s health care, undermine
consumer protections against predatory lenders and abusive debt collectors, and
weaken regulations that reduce pollution and address climate change. After
election officials across the US tallied the votes for the presidential
election, determining that Joe Biden was the president-elect, Trump made
baseless allegations of voter fraud
In its foreign policy, the United States worked on several fronts
to undermine multilateral institutions, including through the use of sanctions
to attack the International Criminal Court. It flouted international human
rights law as it partnered with abusive governments—though it did sanction a
number of individuals and governments for committing human rights abuses’, unquote.
Gun violence in the USA
A BBC report cited There were 14,400 gun-related homicides in 2019.
Killings involving a gun accounted for nearly three quarters of all homicides
in the US in that year. Compared to 22 other
high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher.
Although it has half the population of the other
22 nations combined, among those 22 nations studied, the U.S. had 82 percent of
gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children
under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with
guns.
Poverty in the USA
The
website Poverty USA (https://www.povertyusa.org/facts states, quote In 2018, 38.1 million
people lived in Poverty USA. That means the poverty rate for 2018 was
11.8%. to take a closer look at poverty statistics in the United
States. Poverty does not strike all demographics equally.
For example, in 2018, 10.6% of men, and 12.9% of women lived in poverty in USA.
Along the same lines, the poverty rate for married couples in 2018 was only
4.7% – but the poverty rate for single-parent families with no wife present was
12.7%, and for single-parent families with no husband present was 24.9%.
In 2018, the poverty rate for people living with a
disability was 25.7%. That’s nearly 4 million people living with a
disability—in poverty.
Children
in Poverty
In 2018, 16.2% of all
children (11.9 million kids) lived in Poverty. —that’s almost 1 in every 6 children.
In 2015, the National Centre on Family Homelessness analysed state-level data
and found that nationwide, 2.5 million children experience homelessness in a
year.
Poverty by
Ethnicity
According to 2018 US Census
Data, the highest poverty rate by race is found among Native Americans (25.4%),
with Blacks (20.8%) having the second highest poverty rate, and Hispanics
(of any race) having the third highest poverty rate (17.6%). Whites had a
poverty rate of 10.1%, while Asians had a poverty rate at 10.1%.
In the context of hypocrisy, China does not profess to say
something and do something else. Their people do not have the democratic rights
that democracies profess their people do have. A philosophical argument could
be had about authoritarianism and democracy, and no doubt democracy would win
such an argument. It is always a difficult proposition in such an argument, to
consider issues such as poverty, security of people, standard of living, income
inequality, racism, all falling within the realm of basic human rights denials,
to judge what is more important, all of these, or a compromise with democracy, freedom
and liberty in order to provide citizens of a country their basic entitlements
for a decent livelihood, education, health and other social and societal fundamentals.
Many democratic countries have shown that such compromises are not needed or
desired, and not many authoritarian regimes have shown that compromising has
worked. What is perhaps important is for hypocrisy to end and for democracies
to save each other in order to prevent authoritarianism from taking hold on
account of such hypocrisy.