Email This Story :
When Secretary Hilary Clinton visited Burma in December 2011, opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi reportedly told her that she would rather be regarded as a politician than an icon. To that, Clinton replied, “Get ready to be attacked”.
And sure enough, criticism of her silence on the plight of the persecuted Rohingyas is following her as she embarks on an award crammed, landmark visit to the US. Disaffected rights groups and scholars have become more vocal with their attacks, with one academic even going so far as to question the credentials for her 1991 Nobel Peace prize.
Some observers say she has no option other than to remain silent as politically, she cannot afford to antagonise the majority Bamar Buddhists, including powerful opinion makers like the monks, who vociferously oppose rehabilitating the Muslim Rohingyas whom they regard as illegal aliens and should be deported back to their country of origin, Bangladesh, or some other third country.
If remaining silent on the Rohingya issue is to avoid alienating her supporters with an eye to the 2015 elections, what could be the rationale for her silence on the terrible suffering of the Kachins in northeastern Burma?
Since the resumption of hostilities in June 2011, after a 17-year ceasefire, the number of Kachins being displaced by the war is increasing at an alarming rate, estimated to be nearing the one million mark. These IDPs are in dire need of the most basic of human requirements. They have been driven off from camps along the border and forced to return to conflict zones by Chinese authorities. Their security in government-controlled territory is tenuous at best, when even the shelter of church-based camps could not protect them from being subjected to summary arrests and torture.
To the profound disappointment and frustration of Kachins at large, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the one Bamar they look to more than any other to come to their aid, has chosen to remain silent and indifferent to their suffering. Unlike the Rohingya situation, the opposition leader does not have to walk such a political tight rope in speaking up for the Kachins. There is clearly no national identity controversy involved here. Neither is there any danger of inflaming the ire of her Bamar constituents. In fact, the sympathy and support ordinary Bamars have shown displaced Kachins, most notably that of 88 Generation leaders, has been remarkable.
When a response of sorts did come, it was one that sent shock waves throughout the Kachin world. During panel discussions at the London School of Economics on 19 June 19 2012, when pressed on why she had not spoken out against atrocities in the Kachin area, she replied rather testily that, “the root, the cause of the (Kachin) conflict” still needs to be determined.
“A democratically elected national leader needs the trust and cooperation of ethnic minorities”To the Kachins, this displayed a stunning lack of understanding, or perhaps interest, in Kachin affairs. That she is still not clear after all these years, that the denial of rights promised by her own father, independence architect Gen Aung San, is the root cause of the Kachin conflict, shocked and dismayed the world-wide Kachin public.
Some of her supporters coming to her defense have said the Kachins need to be patient because she is sure to be working on the situation behind closed doors and that she knows what she is doing and that it is not realistic to expect her to accomplish everything at once.
To this, we Kachins would counter that, although we may be simple hill tribe folks, we are not so naïve as to expect she will be able to solve all our problems. We know only too well, as chief peace negotiator Minister Aung Min himself has indicated, that stopping this internecine war rests mainly with the army. When the army does not even listen to the President’s orders, given twice, to stand down, everyone understands that stopping this war rests solely with the military. The army has its own agenda for continuing this war, foremost being maintaining its grip on this resource-rich area where personal and institutional fortunes are so intricately intertwined.
The Kachins cannot be expected to stand idly by while their kinsmen suffer. What they are hoping for from the Nobel peace laureate and influential parliamentarian is to show solidarity with the downtrodden Kachins, to speak up and be a voice for the voiceless Kachins.
Mere platitudes, like the need for peace in ethnic areas, are of no help. What she needs to do is to use her moral and political authority to ensure that the war-displaced Kachins receive the aid they desperately need and capitalise on her international stature to draw attention to the gross rights violations being committed in war torn areas, and the need for UN mediators to monitor and prevent such abuses. Even if these measures do not materialise, the mere fact that she made an effort, that she chose to speak up, would have spoken volumes with the Kachin people. As the 88 Generation leaders have shown, such actions can be accomplished without causing political jeopardy.
Although political ambitions may have taken precedence over moral considerations, remaining silent may not prove to be that politically astute either. A democratically elected national leader needs the trust and cooperation of ethnic minorities, not just the majority Bamars. By remaining silent and aloof to ethnic suffering, she stands to lose, if she has not lost it already, the support so overwhelmingly bestowed on her in the beginning, as daughter of the country’s independence hero. As a Karen refugee at the Mae La camp remarked during her Thai visit in May 2012, “If she doesn’t talk about the conflict in Kachin state, what can she do for the Karen?”
The age old adage about silence being golden may not always apply as there can be consequences, political as well as moral, to remaining silent when people around you, especially those you hope to represent, are being so cruelly oppressed.
-Pangmu Shayi is a political analyst at Kachinland News
I saw her speech & impressed that she made it clear that
(1)NLD is not the government of Burma,and
(2)that respect for human rights and rule of law were essential to “build up ethnic harmony in Burma”
So the answer is there if you care to understand what she meant.
Kachins should realise that
(1) Aung San Suu Kyi is a Bamar politician and she would not go beyond that.
(2) the majority race Bamar needs to understand very well that the Kachins, Shan, Chin,Kayin, Mon, Kayah, Kayan, etc. are the cofounders of the Union and not survitude to anyone. Only then there will be ethnic harmony in Burma.
Every one know that NLD is not government but people want to know where she stand on issue like Rohingya.She just need to say her standing or opinion.She just try to fool press while she is enjoying the respect.
Aungsan Sukyi is trying to fool the citizens of Burma. Before she was in the lutdaw,she spoke out for the Burmese citizens. Now, She is speaking for herself to favor ex-military president. She is just who she is(Tiger is just a tiger). She is enjoying her success by forgetting people who died for the democracy & peace in Burma.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is now on the learning curve as a politician. She enjoys enormous political capital she has earned over the years as an activist and her flaws and weakness as a politician are all shielded at least for now. However, after watching the interviews she gave and Q&A sessions she participated, I wonder the very qualities of strict discipline and strong principle that formed her pride in standing against the brutal regime could one day become prejudice against her political career as she moves on.
I am in total agreement with the author and believe that Daw Suu shall join continuing civil campaign against armed conflict in Kachin State at least as a supporter. Recent tragedy of 9th grade schoolgirl in Hpakant breaks many people’s heart across the nation. When Daw Suu goes back to Myanmar, I wish she visits the girl’s family or invite them to her office to convey her sympathy and support, or writes an opinion piece in now apparently free to express journals. My humble opinion is that, as a politician, Daw Suu can certainly enhance her leverage by applying multi-fetch approach. Isn’t she the one who has claimed to work for democracy from both inside and outside of the parliament.
So long as ASSK don’t come out loud and clear on the core issue of ethnic self-determination, she will be viewed as a Bama politician, who more or less still could not brush out her Maha-Bama tendency or numerical population count of the Bama mentality, which gives them the right to lord over all non-Burman ethnic groups.
Another way to project herself clear and underpin her liberal democratic moral commitment is to pronounced her political stance that genuine federalism, as agreed in 1948 Panglong Agreement by his father, Aung San, is the way to go, to achieve lasting ethnic conflict resolution.
It doesn’t surprise me the least she has been silent on this and so many other important issues like concrete ideas for the health and education systems for the ethnic people as well as for the Bamar. Intellectually she just hasn’t got it. Didn’t she do a very mediocre degree in Oxford? She also does not brook any dissenting opinion among her own party and with those who went to jail for her. Daw Suu, your arrogance is beginning to show.
(1)respect for human rights-Burma government must respect human rights with respect to all residents in Burma,regarding their maintenance of Law & order.
(2)rule of law were essential-All Burma residents must respect Law & Order.
to “build up ethnic harmony in Burma”
Jack, you don’t really understand the context! You are holding “Reckless Optimism”, to borrow her word.
This is how an old joke goes.
A drunkard, only one brave enough was put in place to face the visiting Chinese scholar in a question and answer session. Chinese scholar showed up five fingers meaning whether the ruler kept Five Principles of the King’s Duties. The drunk showed ten fingers meaning he could finish ten bottle. That was interpreted by the scholar as the king keeping even ten principles.
Any little things Aung San Suu Kyi says or not said are generously interpreted by adoring cult. For now!
Fact remains she has not much as said any little useful/ practical/ earthly/ effective thing do any sort whatsoever. Not for the country. Not for the community. All she came out thus far are all high school essays.
In fact she was not even that well thought of before the “west ” started to lionise her. Just like they did with Mandala and Havel both of whom have proved to be useful for the”west”.
Deifying machines, the western media and institutions including the governments are.
“The Kachin Ayay” is clear. Chinese wants the Pipes. And rails. Thant Myint-U said they will be great. Great for the multinationals to trade, loot and make money while destroying the environment and societies .
Burmese in low land are dumb enough to haul pipes for them. Can’t blame the poor sods. They are so hard up and brain washed, they do not know what they are doing.
Kachins on the way to China says NO. And back it up with lives sacrificed.
Aung San Suu Kyi never a word said she did not want the Pipes. Chances are that she wants them. Only way the Pipes will be up is now on the decaying bodies of tortured Kachin deaths.
By not saying a word about most aweful aggression using largest number of soldiers in the history of Burma wasting millions of dollars in hardware alone, she is supporting the killings and the Pipe laying. Pipes and Port to be used by Chinese just as the Tavoy one is for the Thai’s benefit are part of the multinationals plan for…
Pipes and port are so important for the Chinese they may even send in their own armed forces to raid the land if their slave Min Aung Hlaing keeps getting bad press with nothing accomplished so long after the PR arm head Thein Sein said they will annihilate the Kachin in one month.
And international communities will tut- tut and let it go as the buoyant Asian trade and Grand Loot is the last saviour for the rotten global economy with beginning of civil unrest across Europe and worse to come while all American government departments are gathering weapons including illegal self- expending Dum- Dum bullets in preparation for civil war.
A lot of “progressive” Burmese are one with Aung San Suu Kyi to get the Pipes (Papa Chinese’ Pipes) done. Hence “Die Kachin”.
@Didn’t she do a very mediocre degree in Oxford?
Yes, she received a third-class degree, which is the bottom 1%!!! In most years, no one gets a third-class degree. The top 5% get First class, the next 30% or so get an Upper Second, and the majority 65% or so get a Lower Second. Third Class is almost failing.
On the Kachin situation, it’s hard to blame her too much. But she’s in a bed of her own making. She’s really a politician, through and through, with the aim of achieving power. Every step of the way, she’s chosen what’s more likely to get her into office than taking a principled position.
That may shock some, but it’s true. Look at her remarks on sanctions. She must have known that cutting off aid ten years ago to HIV-AIDs patients would kill thousands of people. But she chose to back that over anything that would even give an inch of concession to the government and “weaken” her political position.
From the outside, she seems a martyr. But the real martyrs are the millions of Burmese people who had to suffer under sanctions as well as under the boot of the military regime.
Well, the truth cannot be hidden forever,as Steven King has proven.
Pathetic arguments!!! I’m sure she never wanted to be a leader of any ethnic groups, i.e., either minority or majority groups. She is just a person who loves the country where she belongs to and wanted to see it growing like any other developed country, which is the only reason she is still staying strong. Some people claimed recently that she was their national leader because it suited them.
Kachin leaders should take their own responsibilities. They used to be cronies of military junta for 17 years and made a lot of monies out from selling the resources belong to Kachin people.
Karen leaders themselves are in power struggling as usual and neglecting what Karen IDPs needed.
Rohingyas went OTT (Over-the-top) by claiming citizenships for ALL regardless of living in Burma for decades or for a few years.
Burmans are still need to learn how to be tolerant. Whether they like the immigrants or not; they have to accept that if there is a border, there will be immigration problems.
Burmese military junta and their cronies are still holding full power and businesses in Burma and it is still a long way for them to come clean.
It’s human nature to sought for their own agendas. But why blame ASSK’s silence? What have they achieved in the last 60 years on their own? What benefit do you think she will expect if she ever wins the presidency in 2015?
ASSK is now getting older and she needs to think of how long she can serve for the country. The only sensible choice she has at the moment is to swallow her pride for the sake of the under-privileged people living in the country and see whether all the arrangements are going as planned.
Instead of blaming of ASSK, just work out for your own ways to sort things out. If you want to rely on her, trust in her judgements and support her course. There is no two ways about it. You either be a good leader or a good follower. If you have the abilities to lead, please do so. If not, R.E.S.P.C.T the leader that you are relying…
To the defenders of Su Kyi on her silence on kachin issue, Rohingya issue, etc.
Have you looked at yourself in mirror? Try doing that to see how pathetically stupid you are. Su Kyi has been made by the West a figure for democracy and yet she can’t even bring herself to make a comment that shows sympathy/empathy for the minorities? Pathetic.
Thandar,
Aung San Suu Kyi has sold out the country to the military in sheep clothes and more importantly the multinational corporations as millions put unworthy faith in her.
Accordingly, she is no longer to be relied upon as there is hardly any reason for it, but to be firmly side stepped before the military and the multinational companies finish ruing the country in the name of “developments”.
Ohn
I want to hear “What would you do differently if you were her?” or “Tell me something of your own best plans for Burma as a whole or a particular region developments” rather than blaming on one woman. Always easier to be said than done.
mandyswe
If you have tried harder in your life to be able to speak out for the weaker groups, you wouldn’t need to wait for her to make the comments. Look at yourself in the mirror too and change yourself first before you’re trying to change someone else.
Silence is consent.
Suu Kyi
Your silence will haunt you from the graves of those innocent.
Your statement has already degraded you.
Fools are pretending as wises and looking too ideal and blaming her.
Little minds are behaving as great minds and talking too wise and belittling her.
No-bodies are acting as some-bodies and playing too important and criticizing her.
History has no place for fools, for no-bodies, for little minds.
At the end, all rubbish will be in dustbins. Tell Aunty that time will always be on her side, history will always honour her, our people will always adore her and our nation will always be grateful to her
Thank you, Stephen King, my sentiments exactly about the real martyrs, who are the people of Burma and especially the 1988 generation of students who were (unlike Daw Suu) put in jail for 20 years + and tortured. Does she listen to them now? You bet not. Why do the Burmese who support Daw Suu blindly not see this? Thanks also for confirming about Oxford. Ironic they awarded her with a Doctorate after a Third class degree.