Speakers envision a positive or changed outcome of an event, one that may not eventuate into reality, however imbue a message into realms of inspiration provides, hope and understanding for those engaged. Political democrats Aung San Suu Kyi and Anwar Sadat both explore the prospect for peace, equality and tolerance within the conflicts that were current to the time of their delivery. The speech ‘Keynote Address at the Beijing World Conference on Women’ 1995, and ‘Statement to the Knesset’ 1977, reveal to responders the power of speeches to correlate the actual and the possible through a promotion of ethical values, unity and hope.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy conveys the impact of barriers between tolerance, and conflict. Her speech addresses not only those at the Beijing conference, but the international community to urge for gender equality and tolerance. Aung San Suu Kyi informs that 1995 is the “International year for Tolerance" to directly engage her audience. With her appeal Kyi’s political passions are highlighted in her critical assertion, “insecure people tend to be intolerant…where there is no security there can be no lasting peace.” This contrast confronts the impediment of political tensions, claiming through the anaphora of “it is want”, “it is fear” that liberation from political desires can achieve peace. Thus her speech is integral to not only the Burmese democratic issue in 1995, but upon reflection of the ongoing obstacles of human security and militarisation that tolerance incorporated the need to “understand the point of view of others.”

Unity and peace are the aspirations and principles endorsed in Anwar Sadat’s speech in Israel, “Statement to the Knesset” in 1977. Sadat, an Egyptian Leader shocked his audience by demonstrating his principles of peace within a whirlpool of hostility in the Middle East. Despite ongoing conflict, his speech motivated a move to overcome the barriers of political aspirations through justice. His introductory and inclusive statement “the mercy of God Almighty be upon you and may peace be for all” develops his sense of integrity by affirming unity of faith among his audience. He imbues a coherence of interfaith dialogue in the triple utterance of “we are all Muslims, Christians and Jews”, to reinforce how the shared appreciation of God and the moral principles of all religions transcend the differences. We see that Sadat intentionally extends this inclusivity to provoke not just those entrenched in the Middle Eastern violence, but all individuals separated by aggression and hatred. Religion is constant, and therefore the speech lasts beyond one time and place, motivating the audience to overcome religious and political conflicts to achieve justice.

Suu Ki and Sadat both assert their fervour for peace within their respective contexts. Suu Kyi reveals the prospect of gender equality, where as Sadat envisions the elimination of war and violence. However their contrasting issues go beyond both speakers’ passing moment through the universal significance these issues regard, and responders within any time or place, can relate to or understand. Kyi extends a use of inclusivity within lines such as “our common hopes that unite us” that she evokes requires an “active effort”, giving audience members some ownership to the shared responsibility of achieving gender equality. Her allusion to the Burmese proverb “the dawn rises only when the rooster crows” insinuates both her cultural appreciation, and the inherent belief that women are co-creators with men in bringing light to the world. The light and dark metaphor extends her message of women as educational and intelligent contributors in society and politics. This encourages nation leaders and audience members within not just the context of Burma in 1995 but also individuals today, to understand that by overcoming “gender barriers” and embracing the power of the female psyche democracy prevails.

In similarity, Sadat proposes an avenue for achieving his underlying value of peace, by evoking powerful imagery of ‘constructing’ a metaphysical structure of peace. Like Kyi, he obligates his audience to break the “…Huge wall between us” by building an “edifice of Peace”. This metaphor extends through the motif of the “wall” to invigorate the audience to identify the political tensions that impede on pacifism and justice. He rhetorically implores, “why don’t we stretch out our hands with faith and sincerity?” to evoke the inherently shared human values of “love, freedom and peace”, and that such values compel Sadat to propose a ‘peace plan’ built on justice justice. The correlating issues offered by both speakers affirm their integrity by drawing on universal ideas and values of peace and tolerance. For audiences responding to these ideas offered within a 21st century context, we can appreciate how invigorating and radical these speeches would have been, and draw comparisons to gender inequality within current Australian politics, and an absence of peace in ongoing conflicts throughout Syria and Israel. The speeches’ meaning transcends the context in which it was delivered to inspire all responders to deliver values of tolerance, peace, equality and justice for a better humanity.

Ultimately both Aung San Suu Kyi’s speech “Keynote Address to the Beijing Conference on Women” and Anwar Sadat’s “Statement to the Knesset” utilise the effective rhetorical devises to reveal the tensions inherent between a speakers ideas and values, and the probability of becoming a reality. Both speakers offer their insight to coagulate comprehensive peace, tolerance and justice for all.