Last November, The Gambia, with the support of 57 nations, filed a case to the International Court of Justice against Myanmar’s UN Genocide Convention violations. The court unanimously ruled two months later that Myanmar breached the Convention, and needed to end the violence against the Rohingya.
This ruling is the first substantive international response to the Rohingya genocide that started in August of 2017. Decades of ethnic conflict culminated in =a military campaign of arson, murder, rape, and the expulsion of 750,000 people. Within the Rakhine state, the Buddhist majority formed mobs and attacked the Rohingya Muslim population, who they consider to be Bengali invaders. The Myanmarese government suspended the Rohingya’s basic rights of suffrage, citizenship, and safety.
Post colonial Myanmarese history established the political and social environment that led to the genocide. Independence gained in 1948 gave way to the 1962 coup that established a military dictatorship under Gen Ne Win. The military junta brutally oppressed minority groups like the Rohingya until its transition into democracy in 2011.
Aung San Suu Kyi spearheaded the fight for democratization. Her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), won with a landslide in the 1990 elections. The military ignored the results and sentenced Suu Kyi to house arrest for fifteen years. Despite the crackdown, they announced a ‘Roadmap to Democracy’ in 2003 and began the country’s gradual liberalization.
In 2010, the junta released political prisoners, freed Suu Kyi from house arrest, allowed limited demonstrations and press freedoms, and held flawed elections. The military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) won and formed a quasi-civilian government. In 2015, the NLD received enough votes to form a government under President Htin Kyaw, a long-time ally of Suu Kyi.
A stipulation in the 2008 constitution denied Suu Kyi the office of the presidency because of her foreign-born spouse and children, but the NLD created the position of State Counselor for her to be “above the president” and made the Presidency a ceremonial position.
During the fight against dictatorship and the process of democratization, the international spotlight was focused on Aung San Suu Kyi. As the daughter of a national war hero and the torchbearer of the NLD, she gained a global reputation as a defender of human rights. The Nobel Committee, Chatham House, Amnesty International, and other institutions honored her with a variety of awards. Suu Kyi was affectionately known as The Lady by the international community, idolized as an advocate of peaceful resistance.
Her response to the genocide has tarnished her image as a champion of democracy. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence of violence against the Rohingyas, including a UNHRC report claiming that “The crimes in Rakhine State, and the manner in which they were perpetrated, are similar in nature, gravity and scope to those that have allowed genocidal intent to be established in other contexts.”
Nevertheless, Suu Kyi refused to condemn the military or even acknowledge the crimes detailed in the UNHRC report. During the ICJ case, she claimed that the evidence of genocide was exaggerated or false. Suu Kyi also rejected the label ‘Rohingya’ during her defense, refusing to acknowledge their ethnic identity.
According to Habiburahman, a past supporter and refugee, “She doesn’t care about minorities. Not only that, she is defending the military. She is saying, ‘this is not happening, what they [Rohingya] are saying is fake’ and she is blocking the international community coming to [Myanmar].” Moreover, the Myanmarese government has attempted to censor the genocide by locking up critics and suppressing dissent.
As prominent media sources start to hold Suu Kyi accountable for her inaction, many institutions have begun revoking past awards. However, as Suu Kyi continues her fall from grace, the reason for her stubborn silence is more complicated than the surface-level simplification given by most media.
Despite the purported transition to democracy, the military is still powerful. In the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, the military junta pushed through a flawed 2008 constitution to hold onto power. It carefully constructed the 2003 roadmap created “democratic” institutions to maintain the military’s political and economic control.
Although the military opened the Myanmarese economy to foreign investment and limited political freedoms, they still control politics and civil government. The junta holds major cabinet positions, ¼ of all seats in Parliament, and control over the nation’s security and police forces.
The military’s influence makes it difficult to understand Suu Kyi's power as State Counselor. Her position is complicated by Commander-in-chief Min Aung Hlaing’s ability to "take over and exercise State sovereign power" during a state of emergency. As the military authority constrains her power to govern, she may not be able to speak out without facing severe repercussions.
Even if she wished to condemn the genocide, there is a chance she could lose political capital. That loss would then impact other reforms and goals, such as human rights defense, the growth of freedoms, and democracy. And—although this is a far stretch—the power-sharing agreement between her civilian government and the military is fragile and could still slide back into a full dictatorship. For Suu Kyi, agreeing with the military may be the best way to further her political ambitions.
Despite these risks, if she spoke out in defense of the Rohingyas, little would likely change. Although she is beloved in her country, Islamophobia and anti-Rohingya bigotry has festered for years, especially with government propaganda and hate speech on social media. This hatred and fear makes it difficult for even an adored leader to change the national sentiment. Condemning the genocide could push her supporters away, rather than garner sympathy for the Rohingya’s plight.
For Suu Kyi, the only risk of not criticizing the genocide is suprisingly limited international condemnation. Myanmar was an isolated country under the military junta, so sanctions are less harmful. The minimal soft power that other countries have over Myanmar limits the diplomatic consequences of committing genocide.
The extent of blame that should be placed on Suu Kyi must consider the role she has to play as a politician, leader, and humanitarian. On one hand, the negative reaction to the collapse of “The Lady” is based on the unexpected shift in Suu Kyi’s reaction to human rights violations. On the other hand, ‘The Lady” is a product of the Western ideals and stereotypes that were forced on a reluctant figure. The barrage of criticism she has faced is founded on foreign expectations of who she should be.
She stated in an interview in 2015 that “I am just a politician. I am not quite like Margaret Thatcher, no. But on the other hand, I am no Mother Teresa either. I have never said that I was.” By attaching labels and expectations, critics have ended up lambasting an image they created themselves. Meanwhile, as Suu Kyi bears the brunt of the anger, the military has quietly continued its unconstrained rule from the shadows.
Kyaw Min, the president of the opposition Democracy and Human Rights Party, explains that "our hope was that she can make the country a peaceful country, a democratic country, which is good for all people. But in practice, when she came into power, we found a different Aung San Suu Kyi." However, she is just one example of a freedom fighter-turned-dictator. From Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe to Pol Pot of Cambodia, many revolutionaries become authoritarian once they are in power.
It's overly simplistic to view Suu Kyi's fall from grace as an example of power corrupting revolutionaries. In her case there are better explanations: revolutionaries often have a hard time building institutions and governments. Further, while they tend to use unwavering morals and brash aggression to attain victory, politicians need the ability to compromise. Suu Kyi may still be attempting to follow the ideals of her past self, but she is constrained by Myanmar’s undemocratic institutions.
Suu Kyi's motivation will not change her image in the international community. But the perception of her as the authoritarian xenophobe, the calculating strategist, or the powerless defender of democracy will not alter the end result of genocide. Although she certainly is partially responsible for the violence, as the leader of the majority party and a renowned national hero, the spotlight on Suu Kyi distracts the international community from focusing on the direct perpetrators of the genocide, and the Rohingya people.