True Political Statesmen:

Discussion in 'Politics' started by paddoboy, Nov 29, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Not too many of them about.
    I can really only think of four at this time, [one not actually a politician] although I am in no way any political animal.
    [1] Nelson Mandela:
    [2] Mahatma Ghandi:
    [3] Aung San Suu Kyi :
    [4]Malala Yousafzai:

    Is there any more over the last century that could be included in the four above?
    Would anyone really disagree with any of the above?
    The common traits I see among the four of them are, Unselfishness, and total devotion to their cause.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    You might be setting a high bar. Functionally speaking, leaders like these only arise rarely.

    Then again, the more practical context for statesmanship is a considerably lower bar. I mean, try applying that word in Congress.

    Was a time, maybe. But in this context, derived from statecraft, Ted Kennedy died, and Indiana Republicans decided to go with Richard Mourdock, because the "Statesman of the Senate"―a colloquial title not given lightly―was insufficiently conservative for his fellow Republicans.

    Like I said, the practical context is a pretty low bar. Still, it invites some interesting juxtapositions of statesmanship.
     
    paddoboy and joepistole like this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I don't really think Aung San Suu Kyi belongs in that list.

    "'I was speechless,' Ali told AFP. . . 'Looking at these people, me and my friends cried because they looked so hungry, so skinny.'"

    These Rohingya "boat people," however, are a symptom of a much bigger problem. As Kate Schuetze, Amnesty International's Asia Pacific researcher, has observed: "The thousands of lives at risk should be the immediate priority, but the root causes of this crisis must also be addressed. The fact that thousands of Rohingya prefer a dangerous boat journey they may not survive to staying in Myanmar speaks volumes about the conditions they face there."

    Those oppressive conditions range from a denial of citizenship to Myanmar's 1.3 million Rohingya Muslims to severe restrictions on their movement, employment and access to education and healthcare, as well as a discriminatory law imposing a "two child" limit on Rohingya families in their home state of Rakhine.

    Hundreds of thousands have been driven from their homes; their towns and villages razed to the ground by rampaging mobs. In 2014, the government even banned the use of the word "Rohingya," insisting the Muslim minority, who have lived in that country for generations, be registered in the census as "Bengali."

    So, where does Suu Kyi fit into all this? Well, for a start, her silence is inexcusable. Her refusal to condemn, or even fully acknowledge, the state-sponsored repression of her fellow countrymen and women, not to mention the violence meted out to them by Buddhist extremists inspired by the monk Ashin Wirathu (aka "The Burmese Bin Laden"), makes her part of the problem, not the solution.

    "In a genocide, silence is complicity, and so it is with Aung San Suu Kyi," observed Penny Green, a law professor at the University of London and director of the State Crime Initiative, in a recent op-ed for The Independent. Imbued with "enormous moral and political capital," Green argued, Myanmar's opposition leader could have challenged "the vile racism and Islamophobia which characterises Burmese political and social discourse."

    She didn't. Instead, she spent the past few years courting the Buddhist majority of Myanmar, whose votes she needs in order to be elected president in 2016 -- if, that is, the military will allow her to be elected president, or even permit her to stand -- by playing down the violence perpetrated against the Muslim minority, and trying to suggest a false equivalence between persecutors and victims of persecution.

    In a BBC interview in 2013, for example, Suu Kyi shamefully blamed the violence on "both sides," telling interviewer Mishal Husain that "Muslims have been targeted but Buddhists have also been subjected to violence."

    Yet in Myanmar, it isn't Buddhists who have been confined to fetid camps, where they are "slowly succumbing to starvation, despair and disease." It isn't Buddhists who have been the victims of what Human Rights Watch calls "ethnic cleansing" and what the UN's special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar has said"could amount to crimes against humanity." It isn't Buddhists who are crowding onto boats, to try and flee the country, and being assaulted with hammers and knives as they do so. It isn't Buddhists, to put it bluntly, who are facing genocide.

    Is this mere hyperbole? If only. Listen to the verdict of investigators from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide.

    "We left Burma," they wrote in a report published earlier this month, "deeply concerned that so many preconditions for genocide are already in place."

    The investigators, who visited Rohingya internment camps and interviewed the survivors of violent attacks, concluded: "Genocide will remain a serious risk for the Rohingya if the government of Burma does not immediately address the laws and policies that oppress the entire community."

    Yet, despite the boats and the bodies, the reports and the revelations, Suu Kyi is still mute. She hasn't raised a finger to help the Rohingya, as they literally run for their lives. Shouldn't we expect more from a Nobel Peace Prize laureate?

    She cares too much for her political image and garnering votes.

    Despite requests from the Dalai Lama that she speak out on their plight, to speak out against what is looking like a genocide of the Rohingya. Instead, she remains silent. Why? Because she prefers to protect her political hide and instead, pander to the sentiments that are leading to a genocide.

    It is inexcusable.

    You can read the report from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum's Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide here: http://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20150505-Burma-Report.pdf

    It makes for harrowing reading.

    And she says nothing.

    Does nothing. Why? Because it is easier to pander to those committing the genocide for their votes than to speak out against it and lose those votes.

    And instead, has insinuated that their plight is being exaggerated, despite clear evidence that they are at risk of genocide at her country's hands..

    Now a member of parliament, Aung San Suu Kyi has become less an activist and more a pragmatic politician. Rights groups this year have called for her to speak out on the plight of the persecuted Burmese Muslims, many of whom are unable to vote. Analysts speculate that Aung San Suu Kyi has decided it is politically unwise to make issue of the inter-ethnic violence as ultra-nationalist Buddhist monks will use to it rally their supporters against her in the polls.

    She told reporters on Thursday not to exaggerate the problems of the country in response to a question about Rohingya, part of the country’s Muslim minority living in western Rakhine state.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Necklacing
    Moloko said her sister (Maki Skosana) was burned to death (on 20 July 1985) with a tire around her neck while attending the funeral of one of the youths. Her body had been scorched by fire and some broken pieces of glass had been inserted into her vagina, Moloko told the committee. Moloko added that a big rock had been thrown on her face after she had been killed.

    "[W]ith our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country."
    -- Winnie Mandela


    Mandela's legacy: The freefall of South Africa
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Aside from having fallen into the grip of the horrors of communism and socialism, SA seems to have suffered much less than "freefall" would indicate.
    http://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=735&id=1
    https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/coecpo/v15y1997i3p62-72.html

    But Mandela was not a "statesman" per se at all. Neither was Gandhi. At least, as one would take such a term - being a State official or representative of a formal political poser doing official business would seem to be the minimum setup.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    To wit, I'm not certain a statesmanship throwdown between Obama and Putin would be fair. There is an historical case for Putin's versions of statecraft and statesmanship, but his expansionist tendencies speak to a subordinated statecraft, and his entry to the Levantine Theatre was so clumsy it could only be called statesmanship at some point in the future when Russia leads the world and Putin himself is vindicated as a visionary genius.

    Then again, Obama's strongest statesmanship has yet to weather history; nor do we know the sum of his statecraft errors, omissions, failures, and outright disasters. He's had his moments, to be certain, but all that can hinge on problems like the most wanted man in France roaming freely through the country and European continent until he does his damage. You know, when Maddow had to host Williams for five minutes as they changed shifts during the Paris attacks, he reflected on talking to an elder journalist―and we all know he means Brokaw―who described Daa'ish as the World War of our time. And all things considered, I'm annoyed enough that they're rehabbing Williams on msnbc; even more so that they're expanding MTP to give him a banner gig. And this just seemed at the time like the kind of melodramatic nonsense we really didn't need at that moment while the attacks were going on. (Neither did we need the earlier interview with the dude wagging his finger at the French and blaming them for the ongoing attacks because France was inadequate; it really was a bizarre, low moment.)

    I am not so certain, today, that the elder journalist is necessarily wrong. And, besides, if it was, as I suspect, Brokaw, the point would be a lot more complicated than Williams' ridiculously overworked sound bite.

    Still, yeah. A proper World War would really fuck up a president's legacy of statecraft, and, thereby, statesmanship.

    For Putin's part, though, starting a proper World War ... er ... yeah. Right. Even more obvious than the last.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Hmmm, it appears my limited knowledge on her has lead me to be wrong in categorising here as a statesperson.
    I was unaware of the info you provided.
    What has that to do with Nelson Mandela?

    Definition of a Statesperson:
    a skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure.

    Let's also be clear, that no one is perfect and everyone [except perhaps the virgin Mary] would have at least one skeleton in his or her closet.
    So my modified three are....
    [1] Nelson Mandela:
    [2] Mahatma Ghandi:
    [3]Malala Yousafzai:

    Any other modern day leader one would see as reasonably fitting the bill?
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2015

Share This Page