Few if any Asian leaders have been showered with as many human rights honors and accolades as Myanmar’s de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Similarly, never has the hallowed image of a rights and democracy icon so quickly crumbled to reveal as flinty and frivolous a leader in the face of mass crimes against humanity.
Western outrage over her disregard and denials for the violent expulsion of Rohingya Muslims, and silence over Myanmar military abuses against ethnic minorities in many other parts of the country, have been sustained at fever pitch for nearly two years.
But Amnesty International may have delivered the coup de grâce of Suu Kyi’s human rights credibility by withdrawing on Tuesday the title of “Ambassador of Conscience” they awarded to her in 2009 while she was in house arrest under repressive military rule.
Kumi Naidoo, Amnesty International’s secretary general, sent Suu Kyi a letter warning her the honor would be withdrawn, and saying he was “profoundly dismayed that you no longer represent a symbol of hope, courage, and the undying defense of human rights.”
Amnesty also redirected Suu Kyi’s platitudes against her, reminding the world that when she accepted the award in 2012 she exhorted the organization to “not take either your eyes or your mind off us and help us to be the country where hope and history merges.”
The stripping of Amnesty’s honor was a far cry from the time the global rights group celebrated Suu Kyi as the most famous “prisoner of conscience” in the world. Upon her release in late 2010, Suu Kyi maintained the façade of human rights champion, visiting Amnesty in New York where she expressed solidarity with the persecuted Russian punk rock group Pussy Riot.
But in the lead-up to the 2015 elections that catapulted her to power, Suu Kyi’s patience with Myanmar and international human rights groups was already wearing thin. Once in office, she failed to advance rights promoting laws or speak out on behalf of political prisoners.
Amnesty, given its long campaigns for prisoners of conscience in Myanmar, 115 of which are currently members of parliament, has had better access to the inner circles of the ruling National League for Democracy (NLD) than most other human rights organizations.
But the organization’s exemplary work on documenting Myanmar military crimes perpetrated against civilians in Kachin, Rakhine and Shan states – including a report on massacres perpetrated by the insurgent Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) against Rakhine Hindus – strained those relations amid the NLD’s almost total rejection of human rights.
Various organizations have stripped Suu Kyi of previous awards and prizes bestowed upon her for her past commitment to rights. Symbolically, however, Amnesty’s withdrawal is the biggest hit of all.
This isn’t the Freedom of the City of Sheffield, or Canadian Honorary Citizenship, her portrait being taken down at Oxford University, a chapter in her honor in the Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls book pressured to be cut in an updated edition, or rent-a-celebrity Bob Geldof huffingly returning his keys to the City of Dublin in protest because Suu Kyi has the same award, or even the Irish band U2 denouncing her silence as “assent.”
About her only remaining friend in the West is US Senator Mitch McConnell who has deplored so much criticism of Suu Kyi, saying in an interview in October that “The pile-on has been quite obvious. It’s also noteworthy that it hasn’t done any good.”
Amnesty International is the biggest human rights organization in the world. It was instrumental in not just “making” Suu Kyi, but also in spotlighting the thousands of political prisoners in Myanmar during the 1990s and internationalizing the human rights situation.
Amnesty’s actions are effectively an excommunication of Suu Kyi from the pantheon of human rights champions. Suu Kyi herself was an arrogant apostate over the last two years with her pitiless apologies for the military’s mass atrocities in Rakhine and northern Myanmar
Hysterical demands for the Nobel Committee to rescind the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to her in 1991 have been outraged distractions, and the committee itself has stated that it never withdraws prizes awarded for past actions, with committee head Berit Reiss-Andersen saying that “(t)he prize winners themselves have to safeguard their own reputation.”
But Suu Kyi, with all her arrogance, aloofness, and idiosyncrasies, has seemed as unconcerned with her reputation as she has the fate of the Rohingya. In a recent interview with Japan’s NHK, Suu Kyi said of foreign criticism, “I think friendship means understanding, basically, trying to understand rather than to just make your own judgement, but prizes come and prizes go.”
Many of the prizes she received were unsolicited, even after her 2013 interview with CNN when she said, “I’ve been a politician all along. I started in politics not as a human rights defender or a humanitarian worker, but as the leader of a political party.”
And yet even as the warning signs of her increasing distance from human rights principles grew, prizes continued to be showered upon her.
In 2016, Harvard University named her the Humanitarian of the Year, while she was also given the Helen Keller International Humanitarian Award (with social media satire in Myanmar portraying the award as fitting for someone who couldn’t see, hear or speak).
While Suu Kyi will go down in infamy as a human rights opportunist, if not an aloof and incompetent politician elevated to a position well beyond her competency, Amnesty and others who promoted her façade deserve some of the blame due to their own self-importance, self-promotion and fund-raising agendas.
Ideally, Suu Kyi’s fall from grace gives rise to a more rigorous auditing of personalities who are thrust to public prominence and celebrated without a clear indication of their character.
All this unsolicited hero-worship and symbolic baubles appeared to impress Suu Kyi when she was inundated with them – and she clearly enjoyed the laudatory attention. Yet she will likely pass off Amnesty’s withdrawal of its award as another concoction of the West to frustrate Myanmar’s “democratic” transition.
So far, she has not shown an iota of contrition over the mass crimes in Rakhine state, or the suffering of so many other people trapped in her country’s endless civil war. She has shown herself incapable, even defiant, of anything so weak as empathy and compassion.
Yet the international convulsions over Suu Kyi’s arrogance and incompetence have been somewhat misplaced considering her silence and inaction has really been a smokescreen to cover those truly responsible for atrocities: the Myanmar military and its top leadership, especially Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.
Amnesty has skillfully directed attention towards the commander in chief, portraying him as the figure most responsible for past and ongoing abuses. During the United Nations General Assembly in September, Amnesty drove a truck around Manhattan with Min Aung Hlaing’s pictures displayed on LED screens and the words “Wanted for Mass Murder.”
Suu Kyi will likely bristle at Amnesty’s latest action, but it will have no significant repercussions for the country or efforts to seek accountability. That’s in part because anti-Western nationalism that is rallying around Suu Kyi and Myanmar’s reputation, and the downgrading of relations with the West in favor of less critical Asian nations.
There is so little domestic sympathy for the plight of the Rohingya in Myanmar that criticism of Suu Kyi has been seen as an attack on the country. Many people have rallied around the State Counsellor on social media, where “Amay Suu” (Mother Suu) is still widely perceived as an almost divine deliverer of democratic change.
That attitude doesn’t extend to many ethnic areas, where feelings about her have always been more mixed. The danger of this resurgent defensive nationalism revolves around how it will be harnessed by the military and ultra-nationalist hardliners ahead of 2020 elections.
Relations with the West, especially the United States and United Kingdom, is at its lowest point in years. The United Nations is woefully divided, with one hand issuing a damning report that documents crimes against humanity and war crimes, with the other agreeing to secretive agreements with Naypyidaw to prepare for the repatriation of over 700,000 Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh.
Given the volume of Western pressure over atrocity crimes in Myanmar, with calls for independent tribunals to be established, a looming International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation, and the restoration of Myanmar’s reputation as an international pariah, Amnesty’s repealing a 20-year old award may seem trivial.
But it symbolically underscores how Suu Kyi’s imperious governance style, her government’s general arrogance and incompetence, and the malevolence of the Myanmar military and their leadership, have deeply scarred the conscience of the entire country, domestically and internationally.
Heading towards what are expected to be deeply divisive 2020 polls, Myanmar’s political scene will be bereft of any genuine leadership on human rights, while the military will not have lost a sliver of political or economic power. That will be Suu Kyi’s real legacy: jettisoning her once vaunted principles and getting nothing in return.
David Scott Mathieson is a Yangon-based independent analyst
So who is the fool?
So who is the fool?
Suu Kyi was promoted by the liberals in the West and "human rights" operatives like Amnesty Internation and Human Rights Watch for the simple reason that it was calculated that she could be used to create a state which could be an asset in the ongoing campaign to encircle China. When she ran off to Beijing as soon as she became the leader of Myanmar, the Western establishment was aghast and she became persona non grata and a campaign opened up against her. It really had nothing to do with the Rohingya. Since when has the western establisment cared about persecution of Muslims. If it hadn’t bee that, it would have been something else. Maybe persecution of gays.
Suu Kyi was promoted by the liberals in the West and "human rights" operatives like Amnesty Internation and Human Rights Watch for the simple reason that it was calculated that she could be used to create a state which could be an asset in the ongoing campaign to encircle China. When she ran off to Beijing as soon as she became the leader of Myanmar, the Western establishment was aghast and she became persona non grata and a campaign opened up against her. It really had nothing to do with the Rohingya. Since when has the western establisment cared about persecution of Muslims. If it hadn’t bee that, it would have been something else. Maybe persecution of gays.
Shut up, wumao.
Shut up, wumao.
But the British were merely "taking up the white man’s burden" to spread civilization to the unfortunate. They created many of the
"values" we hear so much about from the mouths of Western politicians. They created, and named, the original concentration camps for Boer women and children where god-knows-how-many died.
But the British were merely "taking up the white man’s burden" to spread civilization to the unfortunate. They created many of the
"values" we hear so much about from the mouths of Western politicians. They created, and named, the original concentration camps for Boer women and children where god-knows-how-many died.
So should she have taken a "principled" stand in opposition to the opinions of her electorate and had her party kicked out of office? The "human rights" industry does some good, but can seem silly and ignorant as well.
And it is part of the Western liberal "high-minded" imperialism that feels it has a right to impose modern Western values on developing countries, sometimes helping to retard their economic development. The West itself went through some quite authoritarian times before it became rich enough to pay more attention to individual rights.
Of course, the greatest silliness was giving Mr. Obama the Nobel Peace Prize before he had even taken office. That in itself discredits the entire Nobel operation.
So should she have taken a "principled" stand in opposition to the opinions of her electorate and had her party kicked out of office? The "human rights" industry does some good, but can seem silly and ignorant as well.
And it is part of the Western liberal "high-minded" imperialism that feels it has a right to impose modern Western values on developing countries, sometimes helping to retard their economic development. The West itself went through some quite authoritarian times before it became rich enough to pay more attention to individual rights.
Of course, the greatest silliness was giving Mr. Obama the Nobel Peace Prize before he had even taken office. That in itself discredits the entire Nobel operation.
It does not require an average intelligence to know that the West only uses Myanmar in their grand game of World domination. So why should one expect Suu kyi to put the West’s interests before her country’s.
It does not require an average intelligence to know that the West only uses Myanmar in their grand game of World domination. So why should one expect Suu kyi to put the West’s interests before her country’s.
The plight of the Rohingya/Bengali is not unique for the PEOPLES of Burma. Since 7 July 1962 to the present day the Tatmadaw (Burma Army) under the successive military regimes have been committing several massacres and rapes against their own and non-Burman peoples (the so-called indigenous national races) with the weapons and money of a few wealthy and powerful western countries and Japan (Japan’s loan until 1988 was more than USD 6 billion). Right now, Britain has an investment of more than USD 4 billion in the energy sector. It may sound cynical, but the truth is the Rohingya/Bengali case is, ironically, a great blessing in disguise even for the ethnic Burmar people, otherwise no one – except of course a number of human rights organizations – from the West would know and care about the ruthlessness and corruption of Burma’s political and military elite. A few years ago I had compiled a 103-page paper called Burma’s 60-Year Old Civil War (1948-2008): A Brief Chronology.
The plight of the Rohingya/Bengali is not unique for the PEOPLES of Burma. Since 7 July 1962 to the present day the Tatmadaw (Burma Army) under the successive military regimes have been committing several massacres and rapes against their own and non-Burman peoples (the so-called indigenous national races) with the weapons and money of a few wealthy and powerful western countries and Japan (Japan’s loan until 1988 was more than USD 6 billion). Right now, Britain has an investment of more than USD 4 billion in the energy sector. It may sound cynical, but the truth is the Rohingya/Bengali case is, ironically, a great blessing in disguise even for the ethnic Burmar people, otherwise no one – except of course a number of human rights organizations – from the West would know and care about the ruthlessness and corruption of Burma’s political and military elite. A few years ago I had compiled a 103-page paper called Burma’s 60-Year Old Civil War (1948-2008): A Brief Chronology.
This guy might be hired by Min Aung Hlaing or Wirathu. Nice work!
This guy might be hired by Min Aung Hlaing or Wirathu. Nice work!
The world is fooled by genocide business done by organisations and UN.
The world is fooled by genocide business done by organisations and UN.
She was a puppet, now no more.
She was a puppet, now no more.
Silly comment. She is not puppet. This means you still need to study more about understanding.
Silly comment. She is not puppet. This means you still need to study more about understanding.
The writer "David Scott Mathieson" (so called yangon-based independent Analyst) is not so independent. His views are biased and pessimistic.
He wrote 29 articles (since May, 2017) about Myanmar. None of them are in positive perspective. Since 2015, there are many positive changes in Myanmar(for those who do not know about Myanmar History, will not understand this). But he did not see them.
As for outsiders like David, it is easier to damn Suu Kyi for not condemning Myanmar Military for their wrong doings. What they do not understand is that condamnation is not a solution and that will not solve the problems in Myanmar. That will make problems getting worse. (Remember Suu Kyi is not an activist, She is the Leader of her country. She need keep the interest of her own people) Suu Kyi is doing whatever she can to make change the myanmar to a better country.
Aung San Suu Kyi is still the same person that we know since 1988 who love her people(and loved by the people), work tirelessly to make her people to live peacefully and dignified manner in the world. There may be some shortcomings regarding to economy and some changes that people want her to change faster. But Myanmar people are patient enough to wait for a bit longer as they have already suffered hardship for 50 over years under military rule. 5-10 years wait is not a big deal. So Please be patient, she is doing her best.
The writer "David Scott Mathieson" (so called yangon-based independent Analyst) is not so independent. His views are biased and pessimistic.
He wrote 29 articles (since May, 2017) about Myanmar. None of them are in positive perspective. Since 2015, there are many positive changes in Myanmar(for those who do not know about Myanmar History, will not understand this). But he did not see them.
As for outsiders like David, it is easier to damn Suu Kyi for not condemning Myanmar Military for their wrong doings. What they do not understand is that condamnation is not a solution and that will not solve the problems in Myanmar. That will make problems getting worse. (Remember Suu Kyi is not an activist, She is the Leader of her country. She need keep the interest of her own people) Suu Kyi is doing whatever she can to make change the myanmar to a better country.
Aung San Suu Kyi is still the same person that we know since 1988 who love her people(and loved by the people), work tirelessly to make her people to live peacefully and dignified manner in the world. There may be some shortcomings regarding to economy and some changes that people want her to change faster. But Myanmar people are patient enough to wait for a bit longer as they have already suffered hardship for 50 over years under military rule. 5-10 years wait is not a big deal. So Please be patient, she is doing her best.