Posted by Jack Healey

in The Huffington Post

In the early 1990s, at the Vienna Human Rights Conference, the Chinese government would not allow the Dalai Lama to enter the building and attend the on-going conference. Now in 2009, President Obama just did the exact same thing by refusing to meet with the Dalai Lama during his visit to Washington, DC. In Vienna, it was more understandable because China forbade it as they sat in the conference as a key player inside the United Nations. The President leads a free nation.

My reaction to the exclusion of the Dalai Lama from the Vienna Human Rights Conference was to carry out a blockade of the conference building entrance as an act of civil disobedience. The New York Times carried a picture of that demonstration. If I could find a venue to organize a similar demonstration of Obama’s refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama this time, I would.

Let me say why.

The Dalai Lama represents the Tibetan people better than most governmental leaders represent theirs. Like Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma, another popular leader kept out of power by her government and again backed by the Chinese. Why is it that he (or she) should suffer these kinds of slights? Should not the Nobel Peace Prize winners have anything to say about this? Is it not correct and proper that the winners of such prestigious awards be able to convene and talk about the state of peace in the world?

China is the answer. China is big. Big in dollars. Big in customers. Big in our national debt. Big in supplying guns, to Burma which itself oppresses its people with a serious determination. Big in human rights abuses. China often sends fearsome messages, in the form of military exercises and threatening diplomacy, to Taiwan. China is big in land and environmental abuse. China is big in labor abuses. Many corporations for fear of China will not do a certain kind of charity(funding of human rights groups for example) . Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State goes to China and goes easy on their human rights abuses. She was stronger when she spoke at a human rights event in China when she was the First Lady. We human groups are told that she is after a better economic relationship with China and that she needs to go easy. The President follows suit by avoiding the Dalai Lama. The administration is coordinated when it needs dissidence.

Our President, skilled in politics, terribly bright and a former community organizer, is afraid of being seen in public shaking the hand of the Dalai Lama. This is especially ironic in light of Obama receiving this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. There are vague promises that Obama can meet with the Dalai Lama later. If later, then why not now? One Nobel winner should be able to meet another Nobel winner without fear. Did not one of the President Roosevelt speak of the freedom from fear as a necessary ingredient for life in a democracy?

Thus, given this kind of timidity, hard questions need to be asked. Can President Obama ask the President of China if the Dalai Lama would be allowed back into Tibet? Take up his old residence? Calm his people? Walk familiar Lhasa streets now that he is in his older years? Hang out with his followers? Pray in monasteries that he knows? Dalai is old and it would be an appropriate gesture by both heads of state.

Tibet is the Dalai Lama’s “Vatican.” He is non-violent, unlike the Chinese government. Publicly acknowledging the Dalai Lama’s cause would be type of change I hoped to see when I gave money to Obama’s campaign. Can we advocate that the Dalai Lama be able to return to his home and join his people? Is this too radical?

Better yet, maybe the Dalai Lama ought to do what Gandhi did …march, not to the sea, but to the mountains. His mountains, Tibet. Maybe. Maybe not. But then, nothing comes from fear, not for the President, not for the Dalai Lama and not for the Chinese — it is time for the light.

Read more about it in LA Times’s Article See Shepard Fairey’s latest campaign poster

Dear Supporter,

Shepard Fairey has just unveiled a new image depicting Burma’s democracy icon and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi, which he created to raise awareness about the situation in Burma. Fairey drew international acclaim during the 2008 American presidential election for his iconic “HOPE” portrait of Barack Obama.

A special, limited edition print of the image will be available beginning today at noon through Fairey’s website. Proceeds from the sale of this print will benefit the U.S. Campaign for Burma and our partner organization, the Human Rights Action Center.

We are thrilled that Fairey, along with many others on all sides of the political spectrum, has lent his talent to supporting human rights in Burma and we wanted to share the news with you. You can find more information about Fairey’s new design at uscampaignforburma.org/pr/2009-shepardfairey.html or on Fairey’s own site obeygiant.com/.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s selfless devotion to freedom and democracy for the people of Burma continues to inspire us all and we are working dilligently to ensure that she is given the recognition she deserves.

Thank you for your support,

- Jack

Posted by Jack Healey

in The Huffington Post

Sometimes in life, luck, unlike lightening, strikes many times. And every time it strikes, your life experience enriches. I have been fortunate enough to have luck strike about once a decade: In the 60′s, a twist of fate brought me to Dr. King’s March on Washington; in the 70′s, Dick Gregory and I connected on ways to continue King’s dream; in the late 80′s, I was lucky enough to have a front row seat to the Human Rights Now Tour with Sting, Bruce Springsteen and Peter Gabriel; in the 90′s, on a whim, I met Michael Aris, the late husband of Aung Sung Suu Kyi, and later in that decade I had a chance meeting with the imprisoned rightful leader of Burma herself. Recently, thanks to my friends at Causecast, a new start up to help non-profits, I met Shepard Fairey.

If there was one symbol that galvanized Obama’s movement of hope and change, it was Shepard’s red and blue image. The minute I saw it, I knew Obama would win.

Shepard has been kind enough to use his talents to create a dazzling image of Aung San Suu Kyi. My sense is that it will turn the tide and be the lift this campaign needs. Why? It strikes you immediately, one of the portraits that immediately morphs into an icon because it does what Aung San Suu Kyi does: waits, and in its simplicity, inspires. It is the canvas equivalent of Peter Gabriel’s “Biko” or U2′s “Sunday Bloody Sunday” or Sting’s “They Dance Alone.”

When I met Aung San Suu Kyi, in Rangoon in February of 1999, I promised her husband I would do everything possible to get his wife the “freedom to lead.” The US Campaign for Burma and Human Rights Action Center (HRAC) joined forces over ten years ago to give this movement more force.

Helping this cause is not easy. Few know where Burma is. Even fewer can pronounce Aung San Suu Kyi’s name. But the facts are impressive. She won the Nobel Peace Prize; she won as the candidate of her party, the National League for Democracy, with 82% of the vote. Her protest is non-violent. She could easily leave and live a grand life, traveling the world to receive awards, appropriate doctorates, etc. Instead she stays with her people as a prisoner. But unlike other leaders of her sort, she is not yet the Mandela of Asia. Nor the Gandhi of Burma. And yet, torture and rape remain state policy of the military and there are more villages destroyed in Burma than in Darfur. But no one notices.

We’ve all been inspired by the recent and courageous movement for democracy inside Iran. We’ve been horrified by that oppressive government’s response. This has been the status quo inside Burma for nearly two decades. What will it take for people to get outraged at this oppression?

I hope Shepard’s icon can help inspire people to care. It gave this seventy-one year-old radical a new lease on hope. Below is the image. If it moves you, please visit this site and do something. Time is running out.

Posted by Jack Healey

in The Huffington Post

The military of Burma has crushed the nonviolent monks, uses Burmese children as soldiers, allowed a cyclone and its consequences to sweep over 100,000 Burmese to their deaths, driven a half million from their homes and now the military will not allow the proper medical care for their Nobel Peace Prize winner. Aung San Suu Kyi is ill and not doing well.

Having led the National League for Democracy to a massive victory in 1990, Aung San Suu Kyi could have left Burma and traveled the world, enjoying her freedom and the respect of the world, gathering doctorates and living a reasonably good life. She instead stayed home in Burma. Isolated, surrounded by soldiers who are terrified of a woman who doesn’t even weigh 100 pounds.

But her life and writings are strong. Many see her as the living symbol of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She certainly is the symbol of hope for many outside of Burma, but she is deeply needed inside of Burma. The Burmese military are an out of control government who have the firm support of the Chinese government. Human rights groups of all kinds strain to tell of the brutality and monstrous actions of this government. People like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, REM, Will Ferrell, Jim Carrey, Bono, Sting, President Obama, the US Senate Women’s Caucus and Peter Gabriel have all sent messages of support.

But still, Burma is far away from us. Few know her name. Fewer can pronounce it. Most do not know where Burma is. So what do we do?

We rally around her, is what we do. Just like we did for Mandela and all the Mandela’s of the world. This is one time that the US government is in advance of the cause. Aung San Suu Kyi has the support of our president and of the Western governments.

My search for my own symbol of hope took me to Burma in February of 1999. My lady and I pretended to be tourists, actually antique dealers, so that we might get a moment with Aung San Suu Kyi. It worked because we spent many an hour walking up and down in front of the little dilapidated headquarters of the National League for Democracy. At that time she was allowed to give rice out to her people once a month. We found her that day and got in line with her followers and finally met her for about 20 minutes. She is a steel flower. Bright, articulate, focused. A no nonsense person, no wonder she won 82% of the vote. We finally took a picture and got her autograph for my stepson. On the way out that night, the customs people tried to find these but to no avail.

A deep fear will and has gone through the Burmese community all over the world. They know she, their Mandela, cannot fall before the fall of apartheid. We all live and we all die… but if the Burmese military denies her medical support appropriate to the problems, and she dies, it will be a devastating blow beyond all comprehension for the decent people of Burma. We must not allow that to happen.

Her father Aung San, the founder of the military of Burma was executed when he was 32. It was a premature death. We must not allow this to occur to his daughter.

Posted by Jack Healey

in The Huffington Post

As in horseshoes, basketball and love, “almost” does not count. It is either a score, or not, in sports. It is in love, or not in love. It is the same with torture. A government that almost tortures does torture. The act debases the individual suffering torture and breaks the law as well. The torture victim spends the rest of their lives trying to make their shame into their glory. Many do not make it. Many never really come back. Many victims do come back but never is the horror forgotten for long.

Looking into one’s own military for criminal violations of abusing prisoners is hard to do. Here in America, the new administration is not hastening to do that for understandable reasons. It is hard. Harder yet, but necessary, is to avoid looking like they are just chasing and embarrassing the predecessors. But looking back is necessary for two reasons; crimes must be researched and pursued (nature of the law) and we must help victims receive justice.

Looking into the daily use of torture around the world will certainly terrify the toughest of us. The abusing governments on every continent always and forever say, “it is necessary for the safety of the nation.” All nations have “good” reasons to torture until the human rights groups show up– probing, asking, looking at wounds, checking with families, speaking with guards and lawyers looking for patterns of torture.

Today in Burma, the military junta is torturing its people. Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy, won 82% of the votes in the 1990 election. This means she should be Prime Minister of her country. The military placed her under house arrest shortly after this election to prevent her from assuming her role. She is an “almost leader.” There was almost a democracy. But as in horseshoes and basketball and love and torture, almost is not good enough. And the small difference between what should be and what is, has resulted in a human rights crisis. The almost government of Burma is still not representing its people.

Accountability goes with the rule of law, or there eventually is none. If we do believe that torture is necessary in some cases, why not make that a national discussion? Nations have found many ways to handle a human rights crisis. Truth commissions. Presidential pardons. Amnesty after truth. Many nations have found a way to expose the truth and then unite the country around the truth of the past.

A worldwide dialogue with torture victims will bring a tsunami of tears that would wash our shore and embarrass the supporters of torture to no end. Millions are tortured. Some governments call it “physical pressure.” Some call it “getting the truth.” Some know the data gotten from the victim is useless and they know torture is a warning to others, not a device to get correct data. But one must also accept the reality of the victim. The victim always wants the truth to be told. Exceptions are few. When a nation does torture, it joins other nations doing the same. If we eliminate torture and find another way to deal with the offenders, we can join the courageous nations of Chile, Argentina, Rwanda and South Africa who have risen above their horrific pasts to set an example, and finally rid the world of this routine state practice.

Leaders in our country are beginning to wrestle with whether we should prosecute the people of our past. We can find a way to resolve our past and heal our wounds. As we move into the new year, with a new administration and a new outlook on the world, let us work toward “no on torture” both at home and around the world. No more almosts. Almost is not good enough.