Below there is a magical portrait of "The Lady", Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, relaxing on the roadside in the Chin State during her recent country-wide tour of her lovely country, which ended with her arrest and the death of many of her supporters. Daw Suu Kyi is still, as of June24, 2003, under arrest as is U Tin Oo. Chairman of her Party, the National League for Democracy.There are more photographs further down this page.

Her foreword is a strong reminder of the aspirations of the peoples of Burma for genuine peace and reconciliation. Altsean-Burma, the publishers of the English language edition, received her article before the violent attack on Black Friday. It is being released in time for Women of Burma Day which falls on Daw Suu's birthday, June 19.

The English language edition of "Burma ~ Women's Voices Together" is due out soon. Women's organisations will be completing translations into the Burmese, Shan, Kachin, Karen and Mon languages later in the year.

A FOUNDATION OF ENDURING STRENGTH
A foreword by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi

The dream of Burma as a strong, prosperous Union where all her people are ensured freedom and security is an endeavour that must be approached with unified efforts by all our people. Only a nation built on understanding and trust will endure, and provide its people with a haven where their creativity will be nourished and their humble dreams made possible. The necessary prelude to the building of such a Union is national reconciliation.

Reconciliation does not mean surrendering our unique cultures, abandoning our traditions, or relinquishing our customs. Rather it means creating a way by which different ideas and practices can exist together without being unfriendly to each other. More positively, it means being complemented and empowered by diversity.

We should therefore value our differences as they make us unique in today's world. Understanding each other will help us create a strong, lasting foundation on which we can build a nation that truly represents us and of which we can be proud. The adversities that we have had to face together have taught us that there are no barriers that cannot be overcome. Intolerance and misconceptions are the greatest threats to harmony and reconciliation. It is not enough simply to "live and let live" - genuine tolerance requires an active effort to try to understand the point of view of others; it implies broad-mindedness and vision, as well as confidence in one's own ability to meet new challenges. If our country is to progress into a strong, prosperous Union that guarantees the freedom and security of all its citizens, we each must be aware of our own potential and work to realize this vision.

Women have traditionally played the role of unifier and peacemaker within the family. They instil a nurturing sense of togetherness and mutual caring. They balance love and tender-ness with discipline while nurturing growth and understanding. Women have the capacity for the compassion, self-sacrifice, courage and perseverance necessary to dissipate the darkness of intolerance and hate, suffering and despair. Women have an innate talent for resolving differences and creating warmth and understanding within a framework of mutual respect and consideration. This talent should be used to address not only our individual, family and community needs, but also to contribute towards the process of reconciliation, which will make our country a democratic society that guarantees the basic rights of the people.

Burma has been an independent nation for more than half a century but we have still not been able to make it a true refuge for our people. Too many have been forced to try to find refuge elsewhere. There is much that still needs to be done before our country can become the place that best offers us heart's ease and happiness, the home where we can enjoy the tranquillity of assured justice and the warmth of a caring society. Such a time can and will come only when unity and peace come to Burma.

The women inside and outside Burma who are working for ethnic reconciliation in Burma are laying a sound foundation on which the Union of our dreams can be established. Their work will be honoured by all who truly love our country and who would like to see our peoples realize their potential, secure within the rule of just laws and good governance.

I hope this book will help build greater understanding of the ideas, dreams and experiences of many different types of women from Burma. These women are not speaking merely for themselves; they are also voicing our cares and aspirations. They are teaching us that while our differences define us, it is ultimately our similarities that form a foundation of enduring strength.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi pictured among children from a Magwe School at the end of May, 2003, a few days before she and her supporters were attacked by thugs working for Burma's military dictators. "The Lady", as she is widely known in Burma, is pictured below in the Arakan earlier in her tour addressing thousands of Burmese folk who refuse to be intimidated from welcoming her enthusiastically.

You may be asking how the free world can help his brave lady, daughter of the hero of her country, the overwhelming choice of her people in free elections held 13 years ago, and the winner of a Nobel Peace Prize a year later. Please read this article by Mr Fred Hiatt, published days ago in the Washington Post, and either mail me your comments, or add your comments to myThank you.

How Best to Rid the World of Monsters
By Fred Hiatt - Washington Post - June 23 2003

Almost everyone who opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, both here and overseas, agreed that Saddam Hussein was a monster. "We're glad the dictator is gone," they say now. "But war was the wrong way to unseat him." Fair enough. But then, what is the right way? Aung San Suu Kyi might like to know.

In case you haven't been following the news from the other side of the world, she is the leader of pro-democracy forces in Burma, a lush, predominantly Buddhist nation of Southeast Asia. At the moment she is thought to be in Insein Prison, the terror center outside Burma's capital, where dog kennels have been converted to torture cells and prisoners are forced to beat each other bloody for the entertainment of guards.

If Saddam Hussein's rule was monstrous, the regime of Burma's junta is no less so. Ethnic cleansing, rape as an official tool of repression, heroin and HIV/AIDS as primary exports, a vast security apparatus spreading fear throughout society, slave labor -- Burma's got it all.

But Burma has something that distinguishes it from most totalitarian systems, too. In Iraq, Hussein's apologists could claim, up to the very last minute, that the Iraqi people loved him. You could scoff at the claim, but you couldn't absolutely prove it false. In Burma, you can declare with mathematical certainty that the regime is illegitimate: It lost a 1990 election to the National League for Democracy, which won 82 percent of parliamentary seats even though its leader -the same Aung San Suu Kyi -- was under house arrest at the time. Those elected were never permitted to take their seats. Quite a few, in fact, ended up in Insein.

Given all that, you might ask why regime change is not on the world's agenda. Last week the United Nations General Assembly adopted a $2.17 billion budget for the coming year for peacekeeping operations. Why nothing for democracy-keeping?

It's accepted, now, that the "international community," as we call it when no one wants to take responsibility, would have been justified if it had violated Rwanda's sovereignty to prevent genocide there -- that is was morally remiss, in fact, in failing to do so. Many nations supported the violation of Serbia's sovereignty to save the people of Kosovo from forcible eviction from their homes.

The people of Burma have been suffering far longer. Yet somehow, as in North Korea, it is considered perfectly moral to stand aside and watch crimes against humanity that just unfold in slower motion than Rwanda's. The Burmese generals are permitted to shield themselves behind a sovereignty that does not legitimately belong to them. Leaders around the world go on receiving their ambassadors and embracing their foreign ministers.

Is it fanciful to dream of a democracy-keeping force that would liberate the people of North Korea (where at least 2 million have died of officially induced starvation) or Burma? No doubt. Jacques Chirac would be upset, Kofi Annan would remind us of the absence of consensus, George Bush would see no issues of national security to justify the use of force.

But then, what would they do? Sen. Mitch McConnell has one suggestion, and he persuaded 96 other senators to go along: a ban on imports from Burma. Such economic punishments often have little effect, or end up hurting poor workers more than rich generals. U.S. business almost always opposes sanctions.

But for a couple of reasons, Burma might be different. The regime -- which calls itself the State Peace and Development Council -- controls most of the economy and so would be immediately affected. U.S. clothing and shoe importers, who account for most Burmese goods sold in this country, became so disgusted by the child labor and other coercive practices of the regime that, through their trade association, they actually endorsed an import ban before the Senate voted. Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and development expert, said Friday that sanctions "are more likely to be effective there than almost anywhere else I can imagine" -- provided other countries join in.

With which McConnell agrees. "Our actions will not be truly effective until our European allies and Burma's neighbors also place pressure on the junta," he said last week.

And that brings us back to all those politicians who bowed to no one in their disdain for Saddam Hussein -- but who insisted war could never be the answer. They have a chance to show that another way might work. Aung San Suu Kyi is waiting.

You may be asking how the free world can help his brave lady, daughter of the hero of her country, the overwhelming choice of her people in free elections held 13 years ago, and the winner of a Nobel Peace Prize a year later. Please read the article above by Mr Fred Hiatt, published days ago in the Washington Post, and either mail me your comments, or add your comments to myThank you.