The government of Myanmar and its de facto head, Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, are facing renewed international condemnation.
This comes after two Reuters journalists, Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, were sentenced to seven years in prison for breaking an official secrets law.
Their “crime?” Receiving documents detailing the killing of ten Rohingya men and boys by Myanmar security personnel in 2017, during the military’s genocidal response to isolated attacks conducted by Rohingya militants.
Unusually, the authorities admitted that the killings did take place, and a military tribunal has sentenced the perpetrators to prison and hard labor.
For their part, the two Reuters journalists were detained by police moments after receiving the documents, adding credence to the suspicion that they were the victims of a somewhat bizarre conspiracy against Myanmar’s already very vulnerable press.
The United Nations, the European Union and various governments who’ve been particularly supportive of Myanmar’s stuttering democratic reforms have all condemned the verdict.
But given how little concern Suu Kyi and her government have shown in response to allegations of genocide and ethnic cleansing, it’s hard to see another wave of international criticism diverting the government from its potentially disastrous current direction.
Falling short
Only a week before the Reuters verdict, Suu Kyi and her government robustly dismissed the findings of a UN fact-finding mission into the military’s brutal ongoing campaign against the Rohingya Muslim minority, whom Myanmar’s authorities (and much of its general population) refuse to recognize as legitimate citizens.
Having been the victims of wide-ranging discrimination and persecution for decades, the Rohingya are now the victims of what senior UN figures have called “a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.”
While the Rohingya crisis is a profoundly complex one, unfolding in a deeply ethnicized country, the ludicrous circumstances of the charges against the Reuters journalists should have resulted in what could have been a politically advantageous acquittal.
Given that Myanmar’s judiciary is not independent, a not-guilty verdict might have provided some glimmer of hope to the many who have continued to support Suu Kyi and her government even as Myanmar’s reform process falters.
Suu Kyi’s continuing fall from grace signals that the international community made a profound error of judgment in investing so much faith in a single individual.
With de facto authority comes de facto responsibility – either Suu Kyi has the power to steer her country toward reform or she doesn’t.
The least critical view to take is that she holds no real power, and is simply a flimsy alibi for the military, which still exerts substantial control. There are other far less compromised forces developing in Myanmar, such as the so-called 88 Generation, a movement of former political prisoners who’ve recently formed a political party to contest the 2020 general elections.
But the apparent stillbirth of Myanmar’s reform process doesn’t just shame Suu Kyi. It also sheds an embarrassing light upon the many limitations and failings of Western diplomacy, international law and the global human rights protective system.
Too little, too late
The trajectory of this sad story has been marked by the steady disintegration of Suu Kyi’s image. Once an iconic victim of authoritarianism, she is now increasingly decried as an impassive accessory to the genocidal atrocities of the same military that imprisoned her.
Before and after she became the de facto head of state, a number of domestic and international voices (including this writer) questioned Western governments’ policy of “cautious optimism,” particularly in respect to the depth of challenges that would confront attempts to effectively end the persecution of the Rohingya.
For the most part, such concerns were ignored. And now, Myanmar’s increasingly robust dismissal of Western concerns makes it clear just how little influence those governments have.
Calls have been mounting to refer certain Myanmar generals and possibly even Suu Kyi herself to the International Criminal Court. However, as Myanmar is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the court, its crimes against humanity are not immediately subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction.
This could be overcome by a resolution of the UN Security Council, but Russia and China would almost certainly veto any such attempt.
For all those who remain deeply committed to Myanmar’s reform process, the Reuters case is yet another wake-up call. The country’s startling return to outright authoritarianism isn’t just a domestic disappointment; it’s a reminder that the global framework intended to prevent systemic state human rights violations has some critical flaws.
It also exposes the grave risks of passing over the hard work of building a democracy in favor of simply joining a personality cult.
Andrew Fagan is the co-deputy director at the Human Rights Centre and co-director of Postgraduate Studies, School of Law at the University of Essex.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
Read the original article.
Because of this bit ch, now we have Bhudist fundamentalist terrorists.
Abdul Rob Blame the Brits…. of course small brown people have no minds of their own
Uighurs should get a vote on independence.
Is Winnie Xi Pooh elected ?
Abdul Rob, Remember Lord Buddha was one spirit.
Real Buddhist believes only one.
Abdul Rob
If what we see here is fundamentalist Buddhism at work here, it is never mentioned in the US media. In the popular culture, Buddhism is always identified with all virtures; especially the Dalai Lama. There has been a subculture of people who identify as New Age who dabble in various South Asian religions. They are clueless as to the real life of people in South Asia.
Hmm… I seem to notice that you bring up the Uighurs in China to articles about Myanmar on many occasions but I’m now not allowed to mention Pakistan… It’s called analogy. The point is, Buddhism like all religions have splits, & it may be helpful to specify what type of Buddhism one is referring to as regards Myanmar.
It was Min Aung Hlaing’s trap. He used the same tactic by creating ARSA .
Joe Wong , Why Myanmar does not leave UN ?
She has put Min Aung Hlaing first.
The question here is life death and rape of Myanmar Rohyangas. Are you going to awaed Nobel Prize to the Rohyangas or Min Aung Hlaing now. Is it your way to divert the issue.
Abdul Rob, This news article is on ‘On going disintegration…..
The context is ‘Genocide of Myanmar Rohyangas’.
So, Mr Abdul, Why you are bringing Pakistan?
My question, "The religion Buddhihm, does it allow any form of killing"?
It may be helpful to narrow down your definition of Buddhism in the context of this article. There are many different opinions within a religion, sometimes fundamentally incompatible with each other. For example, in Pakistan the largest Ahmadi community in the world are persecuted for their belief that there is prophet after Muhammad. Legislation in Pakistan bans Ahmadis from calling themselves Muslim & practicing the rituals of Islam. In Myanmar, it may be useful to refer to Theravada Buddhism. Their notion is that the strength of the religion is reliant on a state that is committed to its protection. The British failed in the expectation that ‘legitimate’ rulers must promote Buddhism as an integral part of Burmese culture. During the 1970s & 1980s the military co-opted organised Buddhism as the state religion & supported monasteries which had fallen into disrepair under the British. The generals claimed they were fulfilling the Theravada expectations of just rulers. Pro-Buddhist websites in present day Myanmar see the Rohingya as a moral threat to Buddhist Myanmar. We also know they believe they are outsiders with no historical rights. Aung San Suu Kyi is allied with the Theravada Buddhist belief that for Buddhism to be safe all other religious beliefs must be eliminated – that’s why she won’t comment on the persecution of the Rohingya.
They were arrested for obtaining classified information. They were there where the police were waiting to handover to them some classified information. But instead they got arrested. They are jailed for that, not for what they reported.
I would rather call this article is "On going disintegration of Myanmars people from their fundamental faith of Buddhism", no hate and killing. Min Aung Hlaing transformed this into genocide. Suu Kyii failed to uphold the message of peace in Buddhism.
The best answer to this topic can be given by Dalai Lma. He said even Lord Buddha would have helped the Myanmar Rohyangas.
At the same time UN envoy Yang Hee Lee says, the fate of Rohyangas now hangs on the powerful countries like China and Russia.
This is not a disintegratioin of Suu Kyii alone, Its the humaniny at large and the evil desire of the powerful. One good thing is that there still peace loving people in Myanmar, but no Gandhi or Mandela.
I do not see any disintegration of the image of Aung San Suu Kyi both in her own country, Myanmar, and in other countries like China, the other ASEAN countries, and the other East Asian countries. The governments of the western countries do not like her because she refuses to toe the line of USA. And, of course, those so-called analysts who are paid by USA must promote the propaganda of USA. But I do not think that the population of Myanmar and Sung San Suu Kyi, herself, give a damn to what the government of the western countries and the US-paid analysts think of her.
Desintegraring image because she has put Myanmar first.
Thats what the Western that poured $$$ painted her …to woo her away from China orbit especialy U.K. they are still the long arm of USA Neo-Cons don’t let them fool you with all that garbish of human Rights ..Bla..bla..bla !!!
According to WESTERN view only! She’s doing a lot for the MYANMAR future and its people .
Aung San Suu Kyi is only an elected politician, she cannot interfere the independence of Myanmar judicial system like in any democracy around the world. Why does the author, Andrew Fagan, believe that Aung San Suu Kyi can interfere a court’s decision like a dictator? Is Andres Fagan saying that it is norm in the Western democracies that politicians can overrule courts’ decisions at will? Or he is still living in the old days of colonialism and believes Whiteman is stilling ruling Myanmar, hence Whiteman’s wish is Burmese’s command, Aung San Suu Kyi must obey a Whiteman’s troll to break Mayanmar’s law, if not Aung San Suu Kyi’s image will be in tartar?
Andres Fagan should known Aung San Suu Kyi is a Nobel Peace Prize Laurent, she earned it with decades of imprisonment and hardship, Andres Fagan has no right to defame her because she refuse to break Myanmar’s law for a megalomaniac imperialist busybody Andres Fagan wanted to make a name for himself at the expense of the integrity of Myanmar’s judicial system.