Miss Kolka

Do I need words?

Burma has been our top story for a week now. Burma I say a bit confused because everyone else, all the media and even the United nations call it Myanmar - its the name the military gave the country in english after it seized power in 1989. It changed the name of the capital (until 2006) Rangoon into Yangon - but strangely enough France 24 seems to be the only network that refuses to use the term chosen by the military regime... On France 24 you will only see Burma or Birmanie in french with Rangoon and Rangoun. (this has caused problems in our online version since wires from news agencies AFP and Reuters are published there with the Myanmar name while on the screen we never use it)

Looking for more details I found that the original name, chosen by British authorities at the time of the independence in 1948 was Burma. Then the military regime who wanted to distance itself from the former British rulers, decided to change the name in english into "Myanmar" to reflect the official name in burmanese which is Myanma, or Bama on occasion. Also according to Wikipedia "the military thought that the name Myanma was more inclusive of minorities than the name Bama".According to an anthropologist cited by the BBC the "formal term is Myanmar and the informal, everyday term is Burma. Myanmar is the literary form, which is ceremonial and official and reeks of government. [The name change] is a form of censorship. If Burmese people are writing for publication, they use Myanmar, but speaking they use Burma".

But it is a problem because minorities in the country had become used to the english name Burma over the years - and opposition parties have argued that the new name "Myanmar" reflects the policy of the ruling regime where the ethnic Burman majority rules over the minorities. Burma is made of many different racial groups coming either from India, China and Cambodia or descending from other groups formed many centuries ago from Siamese and thai tribes - so the racial mixture is important.

Its strange that the international community accepts the terms the military chose (at least for the name of the country - but not the choice of the new capital, Naypyidaw) and still does not recognise the power in place. (Musharraf in Pakistan came into power also after a military coup).
Since the violence began in Burma a week ago - The whole world has been condemning and warning the military of using force - and it also recognises Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been in house arrest for most of the last 18 years, as the rightful winner of democratic elections in 1989.
Is France 24 by using these terms taking sides with the burmanese opposition? Isn't that a little bit unprofessional?
This whole thing is confusing.

And not only the nomenclature. The interest the world media have showned in the clashes from day one are clear. Its a little bit like waiting for disaster to happen. I believe we have seen huge protests in other countries before - somehow here because of the oppression and the difficulties of getting information out if the country I think the media see the opportunity of testing their limits. They all want to be the first with the story - and have exclusive access to it - so as soon as a journalist witnesses what happens it becomes breaking news. All the images coming out thanks to the internet and account of ordinary people make this a differently reported revolution. And the Internet has become one of the main factors to illustrate the difference between the crackdown in 1988 and now. Its strange how self-obsessed the media can sometimes be. Of course by this I don't mean that the events in Burma are of none importance but it is still intruiging how quickly it got the world's attention. Without anyone asking any questions how we were reporting it.

AFP 27/09/07 22h20 GMT+1
"Security forces swept through Myanmar's main city Thursday, killing nine people including a Japanese journalist, and arresting hundreds more in a brutal crackdown on anti-government protests."

9 killed - among those a japanese and probably a german...

In gaza - Israel killed 12 persons in air strikes during the last two days

In Iraq, 27 died in different bomb attacks around the country.

It does matter where you live.

a warm welcome!?

Ahmadinejad has spoken.

But only after a rather humiliating introduction by Columbia president Lee Bollinger.
It was quite surprising to hear the University scholar make so direct remarks about The Iranian President while "welcoming" him as a guest speaker, saying that he behaved like a "petty and cruel dictator" and was either "provocative or uneducated" when he talked about the Holocaust. Of course Ahmadinejad was rather surprised by this and said that where he came from, people did not make assumptions about their guests or insulted them before they spoke. Then he went on with a religious rhetoric for quite a while, saying that Science was a gift from god and that Knowledge was the most important element for human beings. He mentioned the nuclear, Isreal and Palestine - and from what I heard (and I listened to the whole speech) he asked there to be more research on the Holocaust and that he was for a wider debate on the matter - without banning "revisionists" from expressing themselves - making there a little wink to the so much appreciated freedom of speech of the Americans. He also said that it was unacceptable for Palestinians to suffer the consequences of the Holocaust 60 years later.

Ahmadinejad answered his critics saying that Iran did not want to develop a nuclear bomb - that it was outdated and had never really served anyone. (whether they are trying or not is besides the point) He also answered Bollinger's remarks about Iran executing homosexuals in front of the public. He simply said that there were no homosexuals in Iran like in the Us, that this phenomenon did not exist there. By phenomenon I dont know whether he ment homosexuals or their execution. It was nevertheless an intriguing answer to a strange question - I have never heard about those executions and I don't think the United states can lecture anyone on inappropriate executions.

Ahmadinejad may have his views and to some they might sound foolish and ignorant. My experience is that he is well-spoken, well educated (he is a senior lecturer at Tehran University on regular basis), intelligent and follows a rational line of thought. He might though on occasion say things that appear bizarre, provocative or mention god a little too much for my taste. But he does come from a different culture and I find it astonishing how the media portray him as a madman and lunatic. When what he does is get attention to his point of view - which is clearly different from the usual political crap we are used to hear. People saying things they dont mean and doing the opposite of what they preach. We are of course capable afterwards to make our own judgement. He at least is not as "bad" in his choice of words as I would have imagine nor does he say "evil" things or threaten other countries (not even Isreal this time).

To Condelezza Rice's comment that it would have been a "travesty" if Ahmadinejad would have been allowed to visit the world trade center because "I think this is somebody who is the president of a country that is probably the greatest state sponsor of terrorism", I can only say this:
Because the United stated have never sponsored terrorism?? What about Cuba in the 1970's, the Contras in Nicaragua in the early 1980's, the early Saddam years and Bin laden before he decided to turn against his previous sponsors? What is Israel doing in the Palestinian territories? Many would argue that their actions are the biggest example of modern state terrorism today and remind us again who is their most loyal ally? Nonono the US NEVER sponsor any kind of terrorism...

Whatever was said I think it was very rude and disrespecful of the audience to boo the guest speaker who is after all the president of a country that has over 70 million people.

It is interesting to see how Ahmadinejad is portrayed just hours before he is to adress students (and the world) at Columbia University in New York this monday. Its enough to google his name to find some humiliating pictures and lots of unjust criticism that appears right away. The man has clearly become the next evil leader everyone should hate - after Osama, Saddam, Hitler, Stalin .... Unjust I say because I personally have never heard so very shocking comments made by this man - sure he questions that the Holocaust took place and Isreal's right to exist, often critices the US and Bush and he defends Iran's right to develop a nuclear program. On the first point - for him and his country - Israel is clearly the enemy considering the history and he is by nature provocative so that has to be taken into account. On the second point - well he's not the only one, joining Venuzuela's Chavez (who is regularly portrayed as a lunatic by the world's media) and on the last point - I still don't understand why some countries are trusted to have the bomb and not others- of course people have an equal right to defend themselves and no one will convince me that the United states are more wise in their use of weapons than other countries.

So Ahmadinejad is in New York for the UN Security meeting that will probably adress the Situation of Iran's nuclear program - Last year the same topic was on the agenda - what has changed since then? Nothing. The international community still says Iran should not develop nuclear weapons and Iran still claims it does not have use for the bomb and only has a peaceful program. The president wanted to go to the site of the World trade center and pay his respect to victims of the 9/11 attacks on his US visit (maybe a shameless PR-move?) but because of "security reasons" was banned from going there. Also last year A. was scheduled to speak at Columbia University but it was cancelled at the last minute. Will he be allowed to speak this time? It has been announced that 600 tickets for the venue sold in less than an hour - that security is tight and that mass protest against the Iranian president have been organised. Well, if protesters are using the same arguments as I found on the internet and heard on CNN - "he is evil"- and "we are going to show him what freedom of speech means" than it is likely to be completely useless. Ahmadinejad says he wants to express himself in front of a US audience to clear things up and explain himself. Is it possible that things have gotten lost in translation?

Whatever is on his mind.. he still is number one on my list of axis of "evil cuteness" amongst world leaders.

• Who's Anatomy? | 24-11-2009
• Here we go again. | 19-11-2009
• Of Sex, Violence and Bad men | 08-10-2009
• of Bloggers and other creatures | 05-09-2009
• swineflu - what are we to think? | 13-08-2009
• Was it for an underwater Rock concert? | 11-08-2009
• The city of the Happy People | 04-08-2009
• Felix meets Loulou | 21-07-2009
• This is Iceland! | 13-07-2009
• Popularity! | 22-06-2009
• Aurevoir..mais pas Adieu! About Burqas, Sarkozy and all that | 22-06-2009
• ... | 18-06-2009
• What's happening? | 18-06-2009
• Reminder | 15-06-2009
• What can Europe do? | 08-06-2009