Jeff Byrne

    MOST people with access to the Internet enjoy the benefits it provides. We can contact family and friends by e-mail and even talk on instant messaging services and see our loved ones on our computer screens.

    Satellite communications also allow us to watch interviews with news correspondents as they speak. TV hype calls them “live” telecasts. Well, they’re not “dead” are they.

    But modern technology also allows us to watch wars and massacres from the safety of our living rooms. We don’t have to be there, because war correspondents are there for us, and they provide the graphic details, whether we want them or not. It’s their choice, not ours. And, if we want to see the really gory details, we can see bloodied, dismembered bodies and blood on the streets. In full color.

    Marie Colvin, an acclaimed journalist who was killed in Homs in Syria last month, was wounded in an earlier conflict and among her injuries, lost an eye. Instead of having an artificial eye, she chose a black eyepatch which she wore, proudly it would seem, as a badge of honor. But, she had the freedom of choice.

    In Syria, the brutal killing of its citizens continues while Western and U.N. diplomats, in their fine suits and with full bellies, stand by collectively wringing their hands and calling for Bashar al-Assad to cease the massacres and “step aside.” Well, that has not worked with any authoritarian regime in the past, nor is it likely to have any effect in the future. When tyrants and their lackeys dine at the table of power, they are not likely to give it up.

    The Middle East and North Africa are in turmoil. Despite being the leader of the so-called Arab spring, Tunisia is no closer to democracy than Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya.

    What we don’t see in the mainstream media, certainly not in the United States, is the refusal by the Bahraini Government to allow hospitals to treat protesters. Indeed, hospitals are being closed down and doctors and nurses being arrested for assisting “terrorists,” when they are merely trying to perform their duty, that is, trying to save lives. We don’t hear any protests from the international community. Could it be because the United States has military interests there?

    The same is happening in Syria where the international Red Cross has been denied entry to help people in desperate straits. There is no electricity in Homs, little water or food. This would seem to be a siege of mediaeval proportions. Reports say people are huddled in darkened shells of bombed-out buildings waiting for the inevitable attack that will end their lives. Their calls for international intervention have fallen on deaf ears. They have lost all hope. They have no choice.

    While few believe that a military incursion would resolve this obscene slaughter, no one has come up with a solution. Perhaps because there is no solution. Those opposed to military intervention say a solution should involve dialogue. That means diplomacy, trying to persuade Assad that talking is better than killing. However, what is the point of talking when one side is not prepared to listen?

    We, all of us, should be entitled to the freedom of choice. We should be cognizant of those who do not. If we are deprived of our right to choose, we are deprived of our freedom.

    (The author is a former Shenzhen Daily senior copy editor and writer.)