The Rohingya in the Hands of Aung San Suu Kyi
1. Aung San Suu Kyi’s Policy and Stance on the Rohingya Issue
While Aung San Suu Kyi may not have personally endorsed or ordered the persecution of the Rohingya, her position as the leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) government—following its landslide victory in November 2015—coupled with her dual roles as State Counsellor and Foreign Minister, meant she could not evade accountability on the global stage. Her stance and policies can be distilled into four core pillars:
Protection of All Communities: During the heightened tensions of September 2017, Suu Kyi maintained that the government was doing its utmost to protect all communities in Rakhine State. She also asserted that much of the information regarding the violence circulating on social media was heavily distorted and divorced from reality.
Acknowledgment of Human Rights Violations: Subsequently, her government issued a statement condemning all forms of human rights abuses and unlawful acts. Expressing deep condolences to those suffering from the conflict, she pledged to restore stability and reinstate the rule of law.
Perception of Status (The "Illegal Immigrant" Narrative): As early as November 2012, Suu Kyi characterized the situation as an "international tragedy" but emphasized that the immediate priority was to halt "illegal immigration from Bangladesh." This reflected her underlying view that the Rohingya were not indigenous to Myanmar. Later, during the March 2013 sectarian unrest (which left 43 dead, mostly Muslims), she expressed sympathy, noting the tragedy of their statelessness and the fact that no country, including Myanmar, was willing to accept them. However, she consistently declined to answer direct questions regarding citizenship, choosing instead to focus on establishing a secure environment to facilitate dialogue.
Denial of "Ethnic Cleansing": In April 2017, she stated that the violence did not reach the threshold to be classified as "ethnic cleansing." Instead, she framed parts of the conflict as an internal struggle where Muslims were killing other Muslims. This defensive stance drew heavy criticism from human rights advocates and marked the beginning of a sharp decline in her international reputation.
2. In-Depth Situation and Analysis (2018)
A late August 2018 report by the International Crisis Group (ICG) revealed that the Rohingya crisis is profoundly complex and too deeply entrenched to be resolved merely through conventional refugee talks and repatriation frameworks.
Since August 2017, approximately 700,000 Rohingya had fled across the border into Bangladesh, with clear evidence pointing to Myanmar military operations as the primary catalyst. The repatriation process stalled due to several critical factors:
Documentation Discrepancies: Glaring mismatches in records between the two countries were compounded by the Myanmar authorities' refusal to accept returnees whose paperwork did not strictly meet their stringent criteria.
Lack of Preparedness: The Myanmar government's unreadiness to safely accommodate returnees raised serious questions about the sincerity of the process and the physical safety awaiting those who returned.
Refugee Reluctance: Many refugees refused to leave the camps, preferring to remain in long-term limbo due to a total lack of confidence in their security back home. While they did not necessarily wish to resettle in a third country, they demanded a genuine guarantee of safety before returning to their ancestral lands.
The Infiltration of the ARSA Militant Group
The Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), a militant group, capitalized on the simmering resentment and despair within the refugee camps to expand its network and influence. By framing the Myanmar military as a common enemy, ARSA secured financial and political backing from sympathetic Muslim groups across various nations. ARSA’s coordinated attacks on state security outposts in 2016 and 2017 served as the primary trigger for the military's scorched-earth retaliation, ultimately leading to the mass exodus and immense loss of life.
Meanwhile, for the estimated 100,000 to 150,000 Rohingya remaining in northern Rakhine State, daily life is dictated by iron-fisted state control. Subject to strict curfews and severe movement restrictions, they live in a state of permanent subjugation, effectively stripped of any viable future.
3. The Myanmar Military’s Stance and Its Impact on National Reform
The stance of Myanmar's military leadership and high-ranking officials has remained unequivocally clear: they do not recognize the Rohingya as an indigenous ethnic group of the country.
| Key Figure / Agency | Stance and Statements on the Rohingya |
Gen. Min Aung Hlaing (Commander-in-Chief at the time) | Stated that the physical appearance and culture of the Rohingya bear no resemblance to Myanmar’s recognized ethnic groups. He classified them as "foreigners" who would only be treated as citizens if they successfully passed the strict National Verification Process (NVC). |
U Ohn Gyaw (Foreign Minister in 1992) | Referred to this group exclusively as "Bengali" and claimed that the refugees in Bangladesh camps originated from Dhaka, asserting not a single one was from Myanmar. He also noted that under the 1982 Citizenship Act, land and business ownership rights are strictly reserved for citizens. |
The ICG highlighted that this crisis directly derailed Myanmar’s fragile democratic transition. The situation deteriorated further when a United Nations (UN) fact-finding mission implicated the Commander-in-Chief and top generals in mass killings, gang rapes, and arson, recommending they be prosecuted for genocide and crimes against humanity.
International governments (including the US, UK, France, Kuwait, the Netherlands, and Sweden) united in condemnation, pushing to refer the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) while heavily criticizing Suu Kyi’s government for its perceived complicity and inaction.
Furthermore, Rakhine State has evolved into a geopolitical battleground. China holds deep strategic interests in the region, planning a deep-sea port and a high-speed railway linking Yunnan Province directly to the Indian Ocean via Rakhine. Concurrently, several Islamic nations have increasingly exerted diplomatic and economic influence by championing the Rohingya cause.
4. Overall Conclusion: An Agonizing Dilemma
Based on a comprehensive synthesis of the evidence, the core of this crisis boils down to four critical dimensions:
Point 1: The Clash Between Democracy and Human Rights
The majority of Buddhist citizens in Myanmar harbor deep prejudices against the Rohingya and vehemently oppose their return. Reports of ARSA's militancy and its backing from the broader Islamic world have only intensified this domestic backlash. This creates a profound political dilemma: In a democracy, should a government defer to the majoritarian will of its electorate (who reject the Rohingya), or should it uphold universal human rights and international obligations? From the perspective of domestic politics, the military's actions aligned with public sentiment; however, in the eyes of the international community, it represents a catastrophic moral and legal failure.
Point 2: The Cycle of Human Trafficking and Exploitative Labor
As hopes of a safe return home fade, Rohingya in refugee camps increasingly turn to human traffickers to seek better opportunities abroad (primarily in Malaysia and Thailand). They risk their lives traveling thousands of kilometers by sea and land, ultimately accepting exploitative, grueling labor conditions that local populations reject. This dynamic has turned the humanitarian crisis into a lucrative revenue stream for illicit trafficking syndicates, evolving into a transnational issue that demands robust multilateral cooperation to resolve.
Point 3: Limited Power and the Question of Suu Kyi's Accountability
Despite the NLD’s landslide election victory, it was widely understood that Suu Kyi’s civilian government wielded only partial administrative power. Absolute institutional power remained firmly in the hands of the military establishment.
The Optimistic View: Allowing Suu Kyi’s government to function was a necessary first step toward democratic transition, opening the country to foreign investment to stimulate the economy.
The Pessimistic View: Suu Kyi merely served as a "human shield," absorbing the international spotlight and condemnation on behalf of the military generals, who continued to reap political and economic benefits behind the scenes.
Regardless of these internal power dynamics, as the de facto head of government on the global stage, she inevitably had to shoulder both the blame and the credit for what transpired under her watch.
Point 4: The Ultimate Dilemma of Decision-Making
In September 2017, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called on Myanmar to halt military operations and grant the Rohingya citizenship or legal status. This intense international pressure forced Suu Kyi to make a calculated choice between "the political survival of her party" and "universal human rights principles."
Had she chosen to unequivocally protect the Rohingya, she would have won international applause but completely alienated her domestic base. This would have led to the immediate collapse of the NLD, effectively ending the democratic movement she had fought for over decades.
Consequently, she chose to preserve her domestic political capital. She broadly acknowledged that human rights violations had occurred without identifying the military as the perpetrator, while framing the operations as a legitimate counter-terrorism response—all in an effort to keep the country moving forward under her vision of a controlled democratic transition.
Comments
Post a Comment