Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AnalogCyborg t1_j27s9mk wrote

Reply to comment by yard04 in A Myanmar military court has sentenced Aung San Suu Kyi to a further seven years in prison by icedpickles

Without committing to the details, she's a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who later served as Myanmar's head of state during the human rights atrocities the government there perpetrated against the Rohingya people. Super bad shit - systematic rape and pillage, genocide, baby murder...the worst of the worst humanity does to each other.

It's complicated because of the military and political dynamics, and you should definitely look into how Facebook facilitated misinformation campaigns that drove things, but her hands are not clean.

184

SubredditPeripatetic t1_j28c69m wrote

I would say that she failed to stand up for her values and disappointed pretty much everyone including I expect herself....but doing so would have been a grandly performative act of self-immolation, & likely not much else.

The military still held onto the reins of legislative power after her release, as well as the obvious superiority of force. Rather than spurring reform, resisting them too openly would've mainly had the effect of returning her to prison that much faster, with probably about the same number of dead Rohingya.

Her hands were truly tied there--I can only be so harsh on her for that

116

southpalito t1_j28efjo wrote

She failed to perform for the western audiences that built her up. Ultimately she is just a flawed politician with no real power.

28

Mizral t1_j28qe85 wrote

Her entire family was held hostage by the military. I'm not saying shes perfect but I wonder how any of us would act in such a situation?

48

Who_DaFuc_Asked t1_j2951as wrote

I mean, the point is that if she did do something, the military junta would have just killed or falsely imprisoned her anyway.

18

WellHacktually t1_j2afolb wrote

As opposed to her publicly defending their genocidal acts, as she in fact did, which resulted in the junta... falsely imprisoning her (so far) anyway. Brilliant strategy, there.

6

whatelseisneu t1_j2cjdw9 wrote

This is probably the correct take. She was under house arrest for like 15 years and finally stepped into "power" with an absolute menace waiting to pry her from it.

She knew the people of Myanmar better than any of us, and was walking a fine line trying to solidify democratic institutions over time while staving off another military takeover.

At the end of the day, she wasn't perfect in the eyes of the west, but she was far better than the junta. Yeah she did a shit job at denouncing it, but look who took over: the people actually committing it.

1

bustedbuddha t1_j28mt6r wrote

This is a weird way to spell actively supported ethnic cleansing.

−7

sulris t1_j2ays4y wrote

This exactly. We all be it mad she didn’t push harder. She pushed harder and now look where she is.

We sometimes forget that progress isn’t won overnight and push regimes that might have moved forward slowly into a corner that forces a coup and a big step backward.

She is in prison now for reaching too far and we have the audacity to sit in our armchairs and criticize her for not reaching far enough.

22

BinkyFlargle t1_j29mn90 wrote

> In 2012, she told reporters she did not know if the Rohingya could be regarded as Burmese citizens.

and also

> In a 2013 interview with the BBC's Mishal Husain, Aung San Suu Kyi did not condemn violence against the Rohingya and denied that Muslims in Myanmar have been subject to ethnic cleansing, insisting that the tensions were due to a "climate of fear" caused by "a worldwide perception that global Muslim power is 'very great'". She did condemn "hate of any kind" in the interview. According to Peter Popham, in the aftermath of the interview, she expressed anger at being interviewed by a Muslim.

Sounds like she's a regular old flawed human being who grew up in a part of the world that has some particularly nasty sectarian hatred. And she's not immune to it.

Of course she's not a saint- basically nobody is. But whether it's fair or not, we tend to hold nobel peace prize winners to a higher standard, despite the almost random way they're handed out.

21

WellHacktually t1_j2afda8 wrote

>but doing so would have been a grandly performative act of self-immolation

Looks like she got immolated either way. Publicly sucking the genocidaires' asses and making excuses for them turned out not to save her, so she might as well have done the "grandly performative act."

4

SubredditPeripatetic t1_j2axtqy wrote

I actually tried crossposting this to r/LeopardsAteMyFace ... this account lacked the karma to get through the gates, but this was the explanation I submitted with it:

>I was conflicted about posting this one: I realize that practically speaking, her ability to go against the will of the military was extremely limited. Still, she did enter into a power sharing arrangement with the military, refraining even from making strong public statements against the genocidal purging of the Rohingya, and oh look, you can't save yourself by reaching a supposed understanding with a bunch of face-eating leopards.

^({emphasis added})

2

thekingminn t1_j2cj6u4 wrote

I mean you are judging this with hindsight.

1

WellHacktually t1_j2clv7g wrote

Yes, it's the specific kind of hindsight that I like to call "having an understanding of history."

0

thekingminn t1_j2cm8dr wrote

So you predicted that a coup would take place for a completely different reason. You must be a god.

1

FiendishHawk t1_j2abvjy wrote

She’s shown that she’s willing to do performative self-immolation for a cause she believes in. So one can assume that she was OK with the genocide.

1

SubredditPeripatetic t1_j2awx3t wrote

? ^(?)?...if you're talking about her initial jailing, I actually don't really know the context—hopefully you or someone else can provide a quick 5¢ version

2

Sniffy4 t1_j27wrx4 wrote

the military are the actual bad guys. she is guilty of being afraid they would throw a coup if she tried to criticize them, which turned out to be accurate.

99

DragonWarrior566 t1_j289ln9 wrote

She defended the military at the Hague.

Seems like a lot of angry Burmese downvoting since they are not happy with the truth.

Here’s a bit of truth: https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/10/aung-san-suu-kyi-court-hague-genocide-hearing-myanmar-rohingya

21

ruby_1234567 t1_j28ha8y wrote

She had her hands tied behind her back figuratively.

20

DragonWarrior566 t1_j28hzb8 wrote

At The Hague? Didn’t seem like it. She also took issue when a Pakistani “Muslim” was interviewing her. There’s no way to revise the fact that she was complicit, and the Burmese who are now asking for help, were actively supporting the genocide.

Link:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/3/28/11306856/aung-san-suu-kyi-muslim-rohingya-bbc

6

VeganLordx t1_j28jpsu wrote

That's bad of course, but that doesn't mean she agreed with murdering people and mainly in some of the most heinous ways possible. On top of that, many who are asking for help were kids at that time of the genocide who were brainwashed, that's not exactly fair to say they supported genocide.

−1

DragonWarrior566 t1_j28ka8d wrote

She’s a Bamar nationalist, who thought removing Rohingya was part of nation building. At no point did she show remorse nor say anything against the genocide. She was not silent. She openly supported the military and justified it by referring to fear of muslims taking over. Even as late as December 2020, she didn’t allow the Rohingya to vote in the national election.

Links:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/world/asia/aung-san-suu-kyi-rohingya-myanmar-genocide-hague.html

Here is her saying there were fine people on both sides:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42824778.amp

Here’s another:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/3/28/11306856/aung-san-suu-kyi-muslim-rohingya-bbc

https://time.com/5910739/myanmar-election-rohingya/

11

WellHacktually t1_j2ag10o wrote

That's bad of course, but

1

DragonWarrior566 t1_j2f2z8r wrote

“You know she’s actually a really decent person, if we ignore that tiny genocide she supported. Also, there were fine people on both sides anyways, so case dismissed”, random redditors. 🤷‍♂️

0

AnalogCyborg t1_j27xlfc wrote

Being complicit to genocide is never the best choice in any situation.

17

Evening_Presence_927 t1_j2831pr wrote

I mean, she literally had no other choice. The only way she was going to turn it around was to form a government majority large enough to override the tatmadaw, which happened in 2020. They then overthrew her and seized power before she could do anything.

56

BezosCockRocket t1_j285jxx wrote

I never got the impression that was she calling the shots. Seemed more like a trapped puppet for the military until she was no longer convenient to them. Suppose won’t know the truth for a long time, if ever.

47

Thoughtlessattimes t1_j287vek wrote

I’m giving you award. Why? Because you get it.

Edit: awww man, I accidentally gave the award to the OP. I’m sorry baba. God-dammit. That was my first award too. Shit.

1

Relevant-Ad1624 t1_j28r0zu wrote

The problem with the whole situation is that she was powerless in the genocide. Myanmar he just become a democracy after existing as a military junta. The military was committing these atrocities and there was still the institutional rot of the junta within it. She was absolutely powerless to do anything about it, lest she get couped and another junta is installed. In retrospect, It happened anyways.

14

DukeOfGeek t1_j29pp8c wrote

Anything she did other than escaping on an airplane to become a refugee somewhere ends up with her in prison. Which is where she is now.

3

soejubunyip t1_j27t5lw wrote

Isn't that hating her more than the military? What she did was what the military wanted

11

AnalogCyborg t1_j27t90l wrote

'Kay.

I'd love to see them all hang for what they did.

−5

CumtissueSevant t1_j2ceq2u wrote

So her biggest crime is not having a tougher control over the nations corrupt and semi-autonomous military who is responsible for the crimes against humanity. Damn, I mean I get it - but strange take.

3

AnalogCyborg t1_j2dsku3 wrote

It's not a weird take.

She stood on the literal world stage as the leader of the Myanmar government and denied the allegations of rape, murder, razing of homes and livestock, and intentional destruction of Rohingya people in an attempt to dissuade outside forces from intervening and preventing further violence. She blamed the Rohingya for any violence that did occur.

She was a party to it. She's an apologist who knew better, but lied anyway. She has blood on her hands and it isn't even a question.

0

nasty_nater t1_j28qo31 wrote

Yet another reason that Nobel Peace Prizes amount to a steaming pile of horse shit.

−5

Shanghaipete t1_j28gkvt wrote

Her father was basically the George Washington/Simon Bolivar of Burma, and founder of the Army. She might have leveraged her immense family prestige to pressure the Army into ending the genocide of the Rohingya. But instead, she showed great cowardice by essentially endorsing their campaign of ethnic cleansing and murder.

−9

Gluroo t1_j28m00o wrote

> She might have leveraged her immense family prestige to pressure the Army into ending the genocide of the Rohingya

lol the army literally overthrew her government the moment she had a majority. I dont think they ever gave a shit about her 'family prestige'.

16

Shanghaipete t1_j28u7ip wrote

Ignorant nonsense. As state counselor, she presided over the Rohingya ethnic cleansing from 2015 until she was ousted in 2021. She literally defended the Burmese military in the International Court of Justice in 2019. She went out of her way to cover up human rights abuses. Tons of human rights NGOs and institutions have rescinded their earlier praise for her.

She's a sanctimonious, nepotistic figurehead. I understand why people want to believe in her, and her activism before her Peace Prize was admirable. But she's been utterly corrupted by political game-playing. Burma can do better.

−2

thekingminn t1_j2cjiku wrote

You are clearly out of your depth here. You know nothing of Myanmar's politics and history.

2

Shanghaipete t1_j2d7j73 wrote

Hey, I don't spend my days posting anti-junta war porn, as you do. But what did I say that is inaccurate? Did she oppose the anti-Muslim violence? Or did she deny that Muslims are even Burmese citizens? Have many human rights orgs turned against her? Why?

I get it, you want Reddit to rally behind your figurehead "freedom fighter." But she's a bigoted, self-righteous ally of genocide. Like Kissinger and Obama, another undeserving Peace Prize laureate.

−1

thekingminn t1_j2daqxg wrote

Your whole argument no matter how many sentences long fell apart as soon as you said "As state counselor, she presided over the Rohingya ethnic cleansing from 2015" because if you know anything about Myanmar you would know the civilian government has no power at all over the military. Since you did not even know this most basic of the basic facts about Myanmar means every point you make is irrelevant. Here is a video that explains very well how politics works in Myanmar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX3LhFFXw-I

Also on your other points. She did infect condemn the anti-muslim violence in Myanmar. And she did not once deny Muslims as Burmese citizens. You seem to have mixed up Rohingyas with Muslims. I am no ASSK worshipper but what you have said is just wrong.

2