In the summer of 1998, I had the pleasure of working on an isolated Pacific island with two Burmese doctors. This ‘husband and wife’ team from Rangoon took care of over 2000 Aitutaki residents, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They had originally found themselves on the island of Aitutaki as part of a VSO (Voluntary Services Overseas) programme. They stayed on after, mainly to help the islanders, however, a contributory factor to their decision was the military government in Burma. In 1988 one of them had been in Rangoon at the time of the military crackdown that led to the deaths of over 3000 Burmese. She told me of the horrific scenes in casualty departments that night. The sight of numerous gun-shot wounds had clearly had a profound effect upon her. Furthermore, her family had, had close links with Aung San Suu Kyi’s opposition movement and hence on her returns home she had been regularly subjected to close observation by the military.

As I watched the footage on television last night, remarkably being shared with the world via new media, I remembered my Burmese colleague’s recollections of the 1988 massacre. Today, Burma stands at a cross-road. The military government has succeeded in benefitting the very few and hindering the economic progress of the many. It has been humbling to see people on the streets calling for democracy ignoring the real threat of being shot. Despite this bravery, the international response has so far been modest at best, primarily because of Chinese heel-dragging. Once more the UN has appeared powerless to defend those rights we take for granted here in Britain: freedom of speech, democratic self-government, etc. What can Britain do to support the Burmese people? If possible, should a former colonial power been seen to intervene? My answer would be ‘Yes’. Not intervene in a military way, but rather, apply firm economic pressure via the EU – e.g. cancel credit, stop gas and oil purchase, freeze state assets, suspend trade and investment by Western companies. And if that did not work, apply pressure to China? How? Mention withdrawing support for the Olympics next year. Either the democratic countries of the world are serious about supporting freedoms abroad or they are not. It is about time basic principles of freedom are supported by the international community. It would be interesting to ask my former Burmese medical colleague what she now thinks about her freedom of speech, her freedom to move and her right to vote.

To be honest, I have never been tempted to pick up a Salman Rushdie book. Friends of mine who have dared, have reported that it was a soporific experience. Despite this, I would willingly fight, both in word and by action, to defend the right of Sir Salman, and other authors, to express themselves freely. Furthermore, I would defend the right of the elected government of this country to bestow any honour it chose to award to whomever it deemed worthy, however misguided I felt the decision appeared to be.

The recent events surrounding Mr Rushdie’s proposed knighthood are concerning. Burning effigies of the Queen and British flags in Pakistan, along with calls from Pakistani politicians to remove the honour, should be firmly resisted. The right of freedom of expression should be defended and shown to be a non-negotiable part of a successful democratic country. To not do so would be cowardly.

If society believes in the principle of the freedom of expression, it must apply it to all authors, irrespective of the content of their books. If an author offends a particular group, be it one based on faith or political persuasion, he should be openly challenged. Indeed, society should tolerate the freedom to criticise other beliefs and thoughts. To my mind, any religion or political philosophy is the stronger for having undergone rigorous challenge and assessment. Those followers who call for censorship appear weaker. Religions that need such protection (and I am aware of none) will probably have a short history. Islam, Judaism and Christianity, to name but a few, are all capable of withstanding continual re-evaluation. That is one of the reasons they have retained support across many centuries. Religious observance and the principle of the freedom of expression can, and should, co-exist happily in our society.

You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilized value. You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilized men and women – Alexander Litvinenko

The recent suggestion by Vladimir Putin that he may once again aim Russia’s nuclear arsenal at Western Europe has attracted much comment. The fear of a resurgent Russia bearing its military teeth has no doubt sent a few chills down the spines of Western foreign policy-makers. A cyberwar with Estonia, gas supply interference in the Ukraine and the on-going war in Chechyna are all reminders of Russia’s recent tendency to seek confrontation. The ex-KGB man, Mr Putin, has not been shy of talking and acting tough. The Litvinenko case, though unlikely to have been directly state-sponsored, is an unpleasant reminder of a Soviet past in Russia. Friends of mine who have working experience of the country talk of it verging on lawlessness, “a Wild West” in the East. This can hardly instill much confidence in Washington and London when formulating a diplomatic approach to the country’s foreign policy.

Not so long ago, Russia, in the guise of the Soviet Union, straddled the world as a proper super-power. This is no longer the case. The problem for President Putin is that Russia now has all the appearances of an old heavyweight boxer returning to the ring: it is bloated on oil and gas revenue, less agile and apt to use under-hand (KGB-style) tactics to win each fight. Its economy is inherently weak, relying heavily upon revenues from mineral resources. With the G8 summit taking place over the next few days, what should the Western powers do in response to this Russian Rocky?

For Europe, a proper response is difficult. Our dependence on Russia for gas supplies is only going to increase over the coming decades. It is for this reason alone that building nuclear power stations is unavoidable. Indeed, energy independence for Europe would greatly aid our future relations with Russia. Furthermore, the mention of Russian missile targetting should sadly put to bed any question about replacing Trident.

For the USA, however, a proper response is more straightforward. American foreign policy of late has rightly “taken a kicking”. With Russia, they have a chance to re-establish their democratic, liberty-defending credentials. The democratic deficit, the apparent disregard for a proper legal process and human rights, in general, within Russia, should all be top of the agenda in US-Russia bilateral talks. A stable, democratic Russia will be good for both Russians and the rest of us. American and European foreign policy should be about achieving that goal. It should not be about tolerating a failing state simply because we need its gas. Our children and grandchildren would not thank us for that policy decision.

Something lighter to end the week.

Dealing with dictators has become more difficult in recent times. In the past, democratic governments could go to war more easily, secure in the knowledge that they had public support, safe in the knowledge that distressing imagery from ‘the front’ would not make it on to screens back home. With the advent of 24-hour news media, those images of warfare are now spread quickly around the globe, often eliciting a negative response from the viewing public.

Recently, the BBC ran a series of programmes on BBC Parliament illustrating how the media’s coverage of war has changed in just the last 25 years. During the Falklands Conflict, British journalists were embedded with our forces and technically unable to broadcast live from the Islands. Furthermore, the MOD censored the footage and reports that did make it back to Britain, often causing a significant delay in the reporting of incidents. For example, footage of the May 4th attack on HMS Sheffield was not shown until over fortnight after the Exocet was launched against it. I could not imagine that type of delay being acceptable today.

This change in the way the media handles warfare has been widely welcomed. Commentators have argued that seeing the realities of war on our screens makes us all less inclined to support the use of force. That may very well be true. My concern is, however, that whether we like it or not, the world remains an unstable place, and as the pictures above highlight, there are still countries around the globe controlled by aggressive and violent dictators. What with the spread of nuclear technology and the apparent acceptability of state-financed terrorism (e.g. Hezbollah and Iran), the democracies of the world need to be on guard to defend freedoms that we all now take for granted.

But it is not just the defence of our freedoms, and indeed, the freedom of all peoples, which will require Britain and its fellow democratic countries to resort to force throughout the next century. It is also the defence of human rights, and the prevention of crimes against humanity, that should concern us all. What if the very media that provides daily reports of the loss of civilian life in Iraq, also brought us regular footage of barbarity in the Sudan and Zimbabwe, and detailed coverage of the recent famine in North Korea? Would there be a call for military intervention to save African and Korean lives? And if not, why not?

For being inconsistent on these matters elicits derision from the developing world. Displaying such double standards does nothing for our moral standing in the world. The situations in Zimbabwe and Darfur are an international disgrace, a shame on all of our houses. We should not be weak in the face of these issues, for it only serves to provoke further transgressions against humanity. Britain and its Allies should be prepared to intervene to protect any innocent life. And if it came to it, we should also be prepared to accept the awful face of the realities of war on our TV screens, if the ends justify the means. It would be a sad irony of the 21st century if the modern media’s detailed coverage of warfare inadvertently ended up costing more lives.