View previous stories
	I couldn"t sit with someone who justified the invasion of Iraq with a lie by Desmond Tutu The Observer South Africa   I couldn"t sit with someone who justified the invasion of Iraq with a lie, by Desmond Tutu.   The immorality of the United States and Great Britain"s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, premised on the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, has destabilised and polarised the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history.   Instead of recognising that the world we lived in, with increasingly sophisticated communications, transportations and weapons systems necessitated sophisticated leadership that would bring the global family together, the then-leaders of the US and UK fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further apart. They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand – with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us.   If leaders may lie, then who should tell the truth? Days before George W Bush and Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, I called the White House and spoke to Condoleezza Rice, who was then national security adviser, to urge that United Nations weapons inspectors be given more time to confirm or deny the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Should they be able to confirm finding such weapons, I argued, dismantling the threat would have the support of virtually the entire world. Ms Rice demurred, saying there was too much risk and the president would not postpone any longer.   On what grounds do we decide that Robert Mugabe should go the International Criminal Court, Tony Blair should join the international speakers circuit, bin Laden should be assassinated, but Iraq should be invaded, not because it possesses weapons of mass destruction, as Mr Bush"s chief supporter, Mr Blair, confessed last week, but in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein?   The cost of the decision to rid Iraq of its by-all-accounts despotic and murderous leader has been staggering, beginning in Iraq itself. Last year, an average of 6.5 people died there each day in suicide attacks and vehicle bombs, according to the Iraqi Body Count project. More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict since 2003 and millions have been displaced. By the end of last year, nearly 4,500 American soldiers had been killed and more than 32,000 wounded.   On these grounds alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.   But even greater costs have been exacted beyond the killing fields, in the hardened hearts and minds of members of the human family across the world.   Has the potential for terrorist attacks decreased? To what extent have we succeeded in bringing the so-called Muslim and Judeo-Christian worlds closer together, in sowing the seeds of understanding and hope?   Leadership and morality are indivisible. Good leaders are the custodians of morality. The question is not whether Saddam Hussein was good or bad or how many of his people he massacred. The point is that Mr Bush and Mr Blair should not have allowed themselves to stoop to his immoral level.   If it is acceptable for leaders to take drastic action on the basis of a lie, without an acknowledgement or an apology when they are found out, what should we teach our children?   My appeal to Mr Blair is not to talk about leadership, but to demonstrate it. You are a member of our family, God"s family. You are made for goodness, for honesty, for morality, for love; so are our brothers and sisters in Iraq, in the US, in Syria, in Israel and Iran.   I did not deem it appropriate to have this discussion at the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit in Johannesburg last week. As the date drew nearer, I felt an increasingly profound sense of discomfort about attending a summit on "leadership" with Mr Blair. I extend my humblest and sincerest apologies to Discovery, the summit organisers, the speakers and delegates for the lateness of my decision not to attend.
	Collision Course by Evan Williams Dateline Burma   "You are being watched right now by the police," whispered our contact as we sipped green tea in one of the busy teashops you find all over Burma. "There"s one behind you and two more outside. They have been watching you for a few days and and asking everybody questions about you."   After more than fifty years of military rule, Burma is taking the first steps towards a type of democracy but it seemed the old habits of surveillance and control, were still very much in place.   We knew why they were watching us. In a remote part of Burma"s north, a few hours from the famed city and now tourist hotspot of Mandalay, we had been filming a small group of farmers who were challenging some of the most powerful interests in the country.   While the army has taken a step back from direct political control, the generals still retain a massive and opaque business empire built on the assets they had amassed during their direct rule. Under dictatorship their holding companies were mandatory partners for any significant foreign investment and today they have stakes in virtually all aspects of the economy from beer to gas and land development.   At Letpadaung Mountain the generals had done a deal with a subsidiary of China"s main weapons manufacturer Norinco, to exploit what is believed to be one of the biggest untouched deposits of copper in the world worth billions of dollars. To do so, they need to demolish an entire mountain range and require 6000 acres of fertile farmlands for the rubble and processing centres.   In a deal signed just before they allowed democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and 45 party members to run for parliament, the generals took a fifty percent share. The mine owners insist they had paid enough compensation to farmers to have them leave the land.   But a small group of farmers told us they had been duped into signing contracts many of them didn"t understand. They didn"t want to leave their land as they feared this would leave them and future generations without the security of the income they could make from growing food. A job cleaning at the mine wasn"t good enough for them, they said.   I have been coming to Burma for about 15 years and I was immediately struck by the fact that these farmers were even able to complain, let alone organise against such powerful forces. And they were effective: they had received the support of pro-democracy forces as far away as the old capital Rangoon and politically active monks.   The security forces seemed unsure of what to do in the ‘new’ Burma as the crackdown and almost certain jail terms that had been their usual response would not sit well with the image the new country was now trying to portray. The showdown at Letpadaung cut across many of the key aspects of Burma"s transition and at the heart was a people able to stand up for the first time and ask for the generals business interests to be held to proper public accountability.   Aung San Suu Kyi is now head of a parliamentary body investigating the deal. It is under pressure to redraw the contract if it is found that the royalties benefit the generals more than they do the nation. Political activists have also now said Daw Suu must hold to account those responsible for attacking and badly burning Buddhist monks who had joined the farmers protest at the mine site.   What happens next is a major test of what kind of country the new Burma will be and a crucial challenge for Daw Suu"s commitment to reform. The generals have inched back from direct control to allow the West to re-engage. Will they be willing to reduce their stake in the huge business opportunities also now on offer as Western companies stream in to Burma. How far will this nascent democracy go when it comes to money? Visit the related web page
	View more stories