Columns

Aung San Suu Kyi was once the icon of democracy in the East the West worshipped with adoration, love and hope. Like the Crimean War had seen Florence Nightingale shine her lamp on the sick and dying to show their wretched suffering, she had lit the candle’s flame in the gusty winds that blew and still blow across the plains of Burma to reveal to the watching world the mass subjugation of her people under the imposing jackboot of the military junta that ruled the land.

For being the sole crusader of her peoples’ rights, for being the sole voice of the meek who dared to roar loud enough for the West to hear, for being the fearless activist to strike a one woman pose against the forbidding might of arms, she had been idolised, glorified and, had Burma — or Myanmar as it is now called — been a Christian country, almost canonised.

Her people placed her in their hearts and adored her religiously. The West placed her in the uplands of martyrdom and sang her hosannas profusely. The military junta placed her under house arrest and kept shut up the nation’s aspirations zealously.

Undoubtedly, she was Myanmar’s heroine. No wonder they called her ‘Daw’, the nation’s revered aunt, and as for the West, she was Joan of Arc.

That was until her mettle was tested through the furnace of fire two weeks ago in the International Court of Justice at The Hague. And was found wanting. The testimony she delivered before the Court to rebut the evidence presented against her country showed she had turned turtle and was now defending the very same military she had once so fulsomely attacked when her own liberties lay under siege.

The West had pinned their faith on her ‘thummy’ and it was now in danger of shattering. Alas, it seems that the beginning of the end of Aung San Suu Kyi’s long term reign as the darling of the West has just begun. The West who had held her high as a Joan of Arc were now busy searching for firewood to burn her at the stake.

UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT: Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi takes flight to The Hague to defend the alleged military massacre of the innocents which occurred under her watch

The rise of Aung San Suu Kyi from being enemy of the State ruled by the military junta to become the de facto Prime Minister of the State ruled by the military junta has indeed been checkered and remarkable.

Born on June 19, 1945, she is the daughter of Aung San, the man who founded the modern Burmese Army and persuaded the British to grant the country independence from the imperial yoke. Assassinated by rivals in 1947, he did not live to see the Burmese flag flying over a free nation. The day was January 4, 1948 exactly a month before Lanka received hers.

In the newly formed Burmese government, her mother Khin Kyi emerged as a prominent figure and was appointed as Ambassador to India and Nepal. Her daughter Suu accompanied them and had her education in India and graduated from the University of Delhi with a degree in Politics and obtained a BA degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. She then went to New York and worked for the United Nations for three years. In January 1972 she married Dr. Micheal Aris. In 1973 and 1977 respectively Aung San Suu Kyi gave birth to her two sons.

In 1962 the military took over power in Burma. Since then this 95% Theravadha Buddhist country has been ruled by a military junta. Though ostensibly a civilian government runs the country, the shadow of the military falls on every aspect and activity in Burma.

In 1988, Aung San Suu Kyi returns to Burma to look after her ailing mother. She also accepts leadership of the pro-democracy movement. In August 1988, she addresses a mass rally attended by nearly half a million people and calls for a democratic government. Her cry is refused and instead in September what the Burmese people get is a new military junta who seizes the reins of power. In July 1989, she is placed under house arrest. She is offered the freedom to leave the country; but she refuses.

The same offer will be made in in 1997 and her husband who lives in England is diagnosed with cancer and is refused a visa to visit her. Instead she is told by the authorities that she is free to go to see him if she so wishes. But fearing that the door will be shut on her forever and she will be refused to re-enter Burma, she refuses to go and opts to stay back to fight the good fight.

During a period of twenty years, she lives fifteen of it under house arrest. She is barred from meeting her party supporters and international visitors. She passes the time reading and playing the piano. She says; “As a mother, the greater sacrifice was giving up my sons, but I was always aware of the fact that others had given up more than me. I never forget that my colleagues who are in prison suffer not only physically, but mentally for their families who have no security outside — in the larger prison of Burma under authoritarian rule.”

In 1991, she is awarded the Nobel prize for Peace. Unable to accept in person the award is handed over to her two sons. The military junta continues to keep her in prison because it viewed her as someone “likely to undermine the community peace and stability” of the country, and used both Article 10(a) and 10(b) of the 1975 State Protection Act (granting the government the power to imprison people for up to five years without a trial) against her.

THE EXODUS: Rohingya refugees fleeing the Myanmar massacre seeking safety in Bangladesh

In 2010, the military junta feels confident enough to hold a general election. It has its own ready-made civilian party to run the race. And their party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), win the elections as expected. In a surge of new confidence running through the junta’s veins prompts them to cast a more benevolent eye toward Aung San Suu Kyi’s incarceration and she is released. The elections had been held after a 20 year gap and Aung San Suu Kyi had been held prisoner in her own home for a period of 15 years in total.

In 2015, her party wins the general election. A military junta issued law prevents her from being the President of Myanmar. Therefore, a figurehead is appointed to that post whilst Aung San Suu Kyi is sworn in as State Counsellor and Foreign Minister, she is effectively the Prime Minister.

It seems she has realised the futility of working outside the government and staging protests against it with only the prospect of house arrest awaiting her at the end of the line.

Instead, it seems she has decided to work within the system and in a position of power to use it to reform the system. Come to 2019, she will demonstrate that she is willing to take it to an even higher level.

The Muslim Rohingya community had for long been in residence in Burma. They have their own language and culture and say they are descendants of Arab traders and other groups who have been in the region for generations. But the Myanmar government does not buy it. It has for long stubbornly refused to recognise the existence of this minority group on Myanmar soil even excluding them from the 2014 census, refusing to recognise them as a people.

A deep-seated sense of aversion exists in Myanmar’s body politic that it vehemently refuses to even refer to it by its name, Rohingya and instead label them as Bengalis, or foreigners, or terrorists, or whatever, referring to them by anything but their own name. And as for persecuting them, how can there be persecution of a sect that does not exist?

However, in 2017, the gloves were off while Aung San Suu Kyi sat in her prime ministerial chair. Whilst the junta stood behind her, Myanmar’s military machine started to roll.

It was in response to an attack by Rohingya militants on 30 police posts, as reported by the BBC. The report further said, Rohingyas arriving in an area known as Cox’s Bazaar – a district in Bangladesh – on 25th August 2017 say they fled after troops, backed by local Buddhist mobs, responded by burning their villages and attacking and killing civilians.

As Human Rights Watch reported, more than 740,000 Rohingya refugees have fled Rakhine State of Myanmar since August 2017. Not to forget of course, that a few of them sought refuge in Sri Lanka too.

In 2012, Aung San Suu Kyi maintained a studious silence on the Rakhine State riots. She appeared to be indifferent to the plight of the Rohingyas and told reporters that she did not know if the Rohingyas will be regarded as Burmese citizens. In a 2013 BBC interview she did not condemn the violence against the Rohingya and denied that they had been subjected to ethnic cleansing.

But after 2017 the world had seen enough. Those organisations which had honoured Aung San Suu Kyi earlier, began to recall the honour. The reason given was that evidence emerging from the United Nations meant that she was ‘no longer worthy of the honour. There were even growing calls for her Nobel Peace Prize to be recalled. But the Nobel Committee issued a statement, that once the award is given it is the policy of the committee not to withdraw it.

In a new twist the African nation of The Gambia filed a lawsuit on behalf of 57 other Islamic countries. Gambia’s case which began on December 10th relied on numerous eyewitnesses and the United Nations fact finding mission.

Aung San Suu Kyi was called to deliver the rebuttal for the case that was presented against the government. She, who could have delegated this task to someone, opted to do it herself and gave a spirited defence of the same military junta who had locked her up for so long.

On Wednesday the 11th of this month, Aung San Suu Kyi rose to take her place on the podium at the United Nations Highest Court to defend her nation against accusations of genocide. Her defence was that there was no orchestrated campaign of persecution. She did not address the alleged atrocities committed by the Myanmar military, which the Court heard the day before when the Gambia presented its case – although summary killings, babies thrown to their deaths, mass rapes, whole villages burned into cinders, which were all amply documented by the United Nations, and Human Rights groups.

Instead, she said, that the atrocities against the Rohingya had been exaggerated. She simply chose the simple defence that the Myanmar military did not possess intent to commit genocide.

She said, genocidal intent cannot be the only hypothesis and added ‘three I.D.P. camps have already been closed and an I.D.P. camp closure strategy has been adopted. Myanmar is also committed to the voluntary, safe and dignified repatriation of displaced persons from Rakhine under the framework agreement reached between Bangladesh and Myanmar. Mr. President, how can there be an ongoing genocide or genocidal intent when these concrete steps are being taken in Rakhine?’

Well, there you are. Human Rights activists and groups have come to a dead end in a narrow one way Myanmar back alley. Especially when, according to jurists, the legal requirement of ‘intent’ is difficult to prove in genocide cases. Apart from the general intent to kill there is the added complication that, to constitute the crime of genocide, it must be accompanied with the intent to destroy a protected group.

Furthermore, the International Court of Justice is a toothless watchdog. It cannot bite. Even if the genocide allegation is proved against Myanmar, the perpetrators cannot be hauled before the bar of justice and punishment meted out. The Courts only power lies in its bark which can deter nations from committing genocide with the threat of sanctions being imposed on it.  Apart from pointing to the genocide patch and warning trespassers to keep off the grass or face a penalty, there is little or nothing the United Nations’ court in Hague can do.

As said earlier there was no need for Aung Sang Su Kyi to apppear in perso to defend the alleged atrocities committed by Myanmar’s military, even though it happed under her watch. She could have sent someone else to do the needful. She didn’t. If an explanation for this sudden volte face is that she did it to strengthen her standing in Myanmar before she could introduce far reaching reforms from within the system, then, perhaps, the time for it is long past. By her twenty minute defence of the alleged horrors committed against the Rohingya by Myanmar’s military she crossed the Rubicon and became even more firmly wedded to the junta.

Perhaps, the real reason for her change of stance lies in the upcoming 2020 general elections. While Myanmar’s bloody killings and rape of the Rohingya on a genocidal level may have horrified the western conscience, to the chauvinist Myanmar people Aung San Suu Kyi’s ‘eloquent’ defence of it was delightful tidings. They even marched on the road holding photographs of their revered Aunt whilst support flowed from across the country.

While she wailed to the world to weep with her over her plight of being denied freedom of movement and freedom of speech and, in those poverty stricken lean mean days, enjoyed the luxury of the world’s sympathy, Aung San Suu Kyi today can find no place in her heart to shed a single tear for the massacre and rape of an entire group of people by her own forces.