I really pity Daw Suu more than ever. She is now over 70-year-old and she has sacrificed so much her entire life for her country and fight for the people. Hadn't she endured enough already? Now, some people from Burma called her "Muslim-Lover" and some from outside Burma called "Anti-Muslim", some called to strip off her Noble prize, whatever. She couldn't do much in this current situation without the support of Arm forces and she can't say things like we do. I think she believes there are some juntas who like to reform and work with her for the country. Only then Burma can reach to the path of democracy road and peace among ethnic groups, all Burmese people hoping for.
1
If the Nobel committee is going to get in the stripping business, there are many over the years would deserve to have their Nobel prize for peace taken away not just Aung San Suu Kyi. International pressure has to be briught on the Myanmar's government to ensure the safety an dignity of its minorities. Having unshackled Myanmar from the brutal military junta, Aung San Suu Kyi achieved the impossible for which she deservedly received the Nobel peace prize now to take the next step to protect rights of minorities will be a challenge that she must overcome. It takes years to develop a constitution that will preserve the rights of religious minorities. Look at India, after almost 70 years of independence and a brutal partition that divided the country into 2, it is still to achieve perfection with regard to minorities but overall it remains an outstanding model for reasonable level of religious harmony and shared prosperity. Gandhi had to lay down his life to begin the process of building a thriving secular India that will one day economically surpass the colonial power that colonized it. That day has arrived and someday it will for Myanmar and Aung can do more for that cause without being humiliated by becoming the only laureate to be stripped of her well deserved prize.
4
I am surprised that one thing most readers didn't notice about is that it is Burma Military Junta's calculative move on politics. Since 1988 democracy revolution in Burma, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has received support, love, admire, and hope from people all over Burma. The junta tried everything to stop her but failed. Now, they put religion & nationalism as a weapon against her and trying to gain popularity from people.
2
All pro-Muslim community want Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to speak and defend on the current situation. It's better to think about the outcome. Let's say she did speak about it and condemn to the Burma Military Junta action (don't forget arm forces are not under her command), what will happen next? The Muslim community will praise her and she will be put under house arrest again. The killing will still continue by the junta to gain popularity from Burmese. No productive result will come out. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has already commissioned former UN chief Kofi Annan to lead the investigation and find out the solutions. Don't forget many years of conflict, it won't be solved by overnight.
2
It has been shocking to witness the silence of the West over the systematic persecution of the Muslim minority in Myanmar, and the collusion of the government and Aung San Suu Kyi, who had been elevated to a saintly status. This is not how saints behave.
this woman suffered under a military tyranny for two decades.she may not be up
to the demands of leadership, but her Nobel
Peace Prize was well merited and should not
be revoked under any circumstances.
as far as I understand,the Myanmar military
is answerable only to it's chain of command
and not to her.
I wish her the best in what appears to be a
thankless job.
to the demands of leadership, but her Nobel
Peace Prize was well merited and should not
be revoked under any circumstances.
as far as I understand,the Myanmar military
is answerable only to it's chain of command
and not to her.
I wish her the best in what appears to be a
thankless job.
3
"at the very least she has a moral duty to call out the human-rights violations that she herself campaigned to stop."
True, she's behaving now as a regular politician who’s intoxicated with the power she finally secured and doesn't want to part with it. If she doesn't toe the line with military, she may be rearrested, even. But as a Nobel laureate that’s expected of her.
It maybe difficult to strip her of the Nobel prize, but this sort of criticism is certainly appropriate.
True, she's behaving now as a regular politician who’s intoxicated with the power she finally secured and doesn't want to part with it. If she doesn't toe the line with military, she may be rearrested, even. But as a Nobel laureate that’s expected of her.
It maybe difficult to strip her of the Nobel prize, but this sort of criticism is certainly appropriate.
1
Why not strip Obama of his Nobel prize. He did little or nothing to promote peace before he received it--and dropped a good number of bombs after receiving it.
Oh. But you might say that his peace effort was that of a black man being elected President. But the Nobel peace prize was not conceived in this way.
Oh. But you might say that his peace effort was that of a black man being elected President. But the Nobel peace prize was not conceived in this way.
4
Evil knows no sex, religion or party. The Nobel Prize should be revoked, but has that ever been done before?
2
Buddhists. I thought that was supposed to a "peaceful" religion. I guess not. I'm a dope. I don't know much about religions but they are all about the same.
3
You misunderstand Buddhism and its teachings which are mainly refined and reinterpretation of teachings of Sanatan Dharma aka Hinduism. Let me quote a Sanskrit shloka(not a commandment) to explain:
Ahimsa Parmo Dharma,
Dharma Himsa Tathev Cha
The above shloka means: Non-violence is the highest and ultimate dharma, but so too is righteous violence in the service of Dharma.
i.e. Peace is relative not an absolute state. Peace can only exist when unjust violence doesn't exist. When all peaceful means to restore peace are extinguished, one must resort to righteous violence to restore peace. This is also highest form of Dharma(responsibility) and Karma.
So at times Righteous violence (Police, Army) is required to end tyranny of Unjust Violence(Killers, Rapists, Jihadi Terrorism) and to restore peace.
This is what all Sanatan Dharma's is all about including Buddhism. Without adequate defense mechanism adherents of Buddhism and Sanatan Dharma will vanish at hands of unjust violence and with them Buddhism and Sanatan Dharma.
Ahimsa Parmo Dharma,
Dharma Himsa Tathev Cha
The above shloka means: Non-violence is the highest and ultimate dharma, but so too is righteous violence in the service of Dharma.
i.e. Peace is relative not an absolute state. Peace can only exist when unjust violence doesn't exist. When all peaceful means to restore peace are extinguished, one must resort to righteous violence to restore peace. This is also highest form of Dharma(responsibility) and Karma.
So at times Righteous violence (Police, Army) is required to end tyranny of Unjust Violence(Killers, Rapists, Jihadi Terrorism) and to restore peace.
This is what all Sanatan Dharma's is all about including Buddhism. Without adequate defense mechanism adherents of Buddhism and Sanatan Dharma will vanish at hands of unjust violence and with them Buddhism and Sanatan Dharma.
2
The Nobel Prize is a ridiculous one: it is given "for nothing done", like the Obama's case: just a book "with good wishes"; that is all. There are other examples like Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia, Al Gore, Koffi Annan and others: Really!
The other prices are given for excelling in some field of science or literature. It is about time to cancel such "prize."
The other prices are given for excelling in some field of science or literature. It is about time to cancel such "prize."
1
If Aung San Suu Kyi's Nobel Peace Prize should be stripped because she has done nothing to stop atrocities against Rohingyas then Malala Yosufzai's Nobel Peace Prize also needs to be stripped because she has done nothing to stop Pakistan's atrocities toward Balochis.
This story is a distraction.
This story is a distraction.
4
If you're going to get in the business of "stripping Nobel Peace Prizes" away, you might want to start with Henry Kissinger...
3
Wait, what, "Buddhist militias" - isn't that an oxymoron? Sadly Buddhism is a religion for some (not all) & we know what happens once we get religious...out come the guns & the self-preservation...shameful.
Myanmar is a black mark against Buddhist ideals, proving that any religion can be used as a tool for destruction.
2
I am surprised that the NY Times would publish such an inflammatory editorial from a graduate student doubling as a journalist.
First the Nobel Peace Prize is given for accomplishment and does not predict future behavior. Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize without even pausing the wars on two continents. Extrajudicial drone killings and turning a blind eye to Syria not even included.
The President of Mynamar has limited power. It has long been a military ruled country. When this journalist/grad student matures into his thirties and forties, he will realize that compromises (including looking away) are inevitable. Let us hope the NYT will publish more thought out opinions, lest we have every teenager writing in.
First the Nobel Peace Prize is given for accomplishment and does not predict future behavior. Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize without even pausing the wars on two continents. Extrajudicial drone killings and turning a blind eye to Syria not even included.
The President of Mynamar has limited power. It has long been a military ruled country. When this journalist/grad student matures into his thirties and forties, he will realize that compromises (including looking away) are inevitable. Let us hope the NYT will publish more thought out opinions, lest we have every teenager writing in.
5
One imagines the Rohingya conflict to be an opportunity for a Nobel Peace Prize recipient to showcase his/her skills as a peacemaker. Alas, that is not the case here.
I got stuck on the comment about rohingya not being allowed to vote. that's a red flag right there, that a long-standing community is denied the right to participate in the political process.
Our information is always incomplete and in this case we know next to nothing. And that's what we should say.
3
The silence of Aung San Suu Kyi's government is deafening. Those in positions of power who do not speak out against inhumanity, racism, rape, violence and murder are themselves complicit in it. I agree with the author that the Nobel Peace Prize should be rescinded and the Burmese leader publicly shamed.
However the real power in the country lies with the gun. The military, through sheer force and suppression, dominates the country. Su Ki is just a politically palatable figurehead. Only those who themselves are armed can defy the military junta, and there are many. Burma has dozens of ethnic minorities, full of grievances against Buddhist majority. The Pa’O, Wa, Ta’ang, Intha, Akha, Danu, Lisu, Lahu, Kayah, Kachin, Kokang and many others vulnerable minorities oppose the Bamar dominated military. A full 1/3 of the country is controlled by ethnic militias who are far more civil, humane, democratic and just than the ‘official’ military. Many of these autonomy movements started right after independence and have been going on for 50+ years.
State’s rights, like in the American Constitution, would solve many of these conflicts. But the Buddhist run military does not want peace, they want domination. The U.S. should work to break up Burma into more natural national boundaries, where everyone group has a government (and army) to protect them. Arm the Kachin and Karen Christian militias, then the new Rohingya Muslims rebels; its the only way to bring lasting peace.
However the real power in the country lies with the gun. The military, through sheer force and suppression, dominates the country. Su Ki is just a politically palatable figurehead. Only those who themselves are armed can defy the military junta, and there are many. Burma has dozens of ethnic minorities, full of grievances against Buddhist majority. The Pa’O, Wa, Ta’ang, Intha, Akha, Danu, Lisu, Lahu, Kayah, Kachin, Kokang and many others vulnerable minorities oppose the Bamar dominated military. A full 1/3 of the country is controlled by ethnic militias who are far more civil, humane, democratic and just than the ‘official’ military. Many of these autonomy movements started right after independence and have been going on for 50+ years.
State’s rights, like in the American Constitution, would solve many of these conflicts. But the Buddhist run military does not want peace, they want domination. The U.S. should work to break up Burma into more natural national boundaries, where everyone group has a government (and army) to protect them. Arm the Kachin and Karen Christian militias, then the new Rohingya Muslims rebels; its the only way to bring lasting peace.
In the 21st Century, we are witnessing a repeat of the horrific ‘Trail of Tears’ of 19th Century America, but only worse. Students of history will recall that in the 1830s, Native Americans were forcibly removed from their traditional lands in Southeastern United States to march to reservations in Oklahoma, a journey of 1,000 miles. About 5,000 of the relocated 17,000 Cherokees perished along the way.
In Mayanmar now, history is repeating itself but with a genocidal twist. Rohingya Muslims, considered the world’s most persecuted minority, have lived for centuries in Myanmar’s far western Rakhine state. Denied citizenship by the military junta since 1982, they have been stateless and without the most basic human rights, thus prey to indiscriminate rape, torture and killing by security forces, militants and civilians alike.
In recent days, however, eyewitness accounts of mass rape, killing and ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims has horrified the world. Hundreds of thousands of Rohingyas are streaming into neighboring Bangladesh after trudging through treacherous ravines and jungles, many falling along the way.
It is in the American character to serve the suffering, although president Trump is trying his best to prove otherwise. It is beyond our power to control the fury of nature, as Hurricane Harvey showed, but surely we can come together as civilized human beings to do something about the deadly violence against the Rohingya Muslims we are now witnessing.
In Mayanmar now, history is repeating itself but with a genocidal twist. Rohingya Muslims, considered the world’s most persecuted minority, have lived for centuries in Myanmar’s far western Rakhine state. Denied citizenship by the military junta since 1982, they have been stateless and without the most basic human rights, thus prey to indiscriminate rape, torture and killing by security forces, militants and civilians alike.
In recent days, however, eyewitness accounts of mass rape, killing and ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims has horrified the world. Hundreds of thousands of Rohingyas are streaming into neighboring Bangladesh after trudging through treacherous ravines and jungles, many falling along the way.
It is in the American character to serve the suffering, although president Trump is trying his best to prove otherwise. It is beyond our power to control the fury of nature, as Hurricane Harvey showed, but surely we can come together as civilized human beings to do something about the deadly violence against the Rohingya Muslims we are now witnessing.
1
So sad. The Nobel is not nearly as important as Aung San's surrender to barbarity. It is so easy to smash icons these days.
It is very unfair opinion to punish Daw Aung San Suu Kyi who is trying to solve the problems of illegal immigrants with the help of Mr. Kofi Annan. One can’t imagine how she has been walking on a tight rope dealing with the military top-brass who ruled the country for over fifty years. In the morning of August 25, the terrorists called Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army attacked 30 police stations and an army base killing 13 security forces, two government officers, 14 civilians and wounding scores. Since then there were nearly 100 battles. According to reports, 41 terrorists injured in the fights against Burmese soldiers have been getting medical treatments in Chittagong hospital now.
Before that, violent anti-government Muslim elements, taking the cover of night, dragged about 70 Muslim village administers including even librarians and killed them only because they were seen talking to government authorities.
If the Burmese are cruel and suppressing Muslims, one will see only malnourished people among escapees. Everybody can see that all Muslim adults and children are well fed. There are more than three million Sunnis and Shiites living in Burma proper peacefully and about 1.1 Muslims living in Rakhine State who have been accused of being illegal immigrants.
Before that, violent anti-government Muslim elements, taking the cover of night, dragged about 70 Muslim village administers including even librarians and killed them only because they were seen talking to government authorities.
If the Burmese are cruel and suppressing Muslims, one will see only malnourished people among escapees. Everybody can see that all Muslim adults and children are well fed. There are more than three million Sunnis and Shiites living in Burma proper peacefully and about 1.1 Muslims living in Rakhine State who have been accused of being illegal immigrants.
1
Nobody ever writes about how the Muslims came to be populations of millions in Myanmar and elsewhere. Hint- the expansion of Islam from Saudi Arabia east to Morocco, west to the Indian subcontinent, and north to Central Asia was anything but peaceful. The Buddhists of Burma/Myanmar have long memories and decided enough is enough. What's the birthrate of the Rohingya? Is it sustainable in a historically impoverished country where everyone has always scrounged for resources? How many Muslim countries are there, and how many Buddhist ones? Crucially, how have religious minorities fared in most Muslim majority countries?
However it may upset those who advocate for globalism and open borders the reality is that pushback is inevitable in the real world. And with the population continuing to surge in most of the 3rd world combined with climate change, these stories are going to become far more common.
However it may upset those who advocate for globalism and open borders the reality is that pushback is inevitable in the real world. And with the population continuing to surge in most of the 3rd world combined with climate change, these stories are going to become far more common.
2
The big mistake that supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi outside of Burma (including myself) made during the years of military rule was that she was a saint, like Mahatma Gandhi. In fact, she is nothing but a politician, though probably not worse than the leaders of many of America's "democratic" allies, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. Because of overwhelming military power inside Burma's political system, as defined in the constitution of 2008, she has limited choices: either go along with the hardline men in uniform or lose power and influence entirely. Perhaps if she were a better person, she would have stood up to oppose persecution of the Rohingyas. But that kind of courage, which she seemed to possess before 2012, is rarely possessed by politicians of any stripe.
In retaliation for the Rohingya persecution, one thing the US should not do is go back to the old sanctions regime. It will accomplish exactly what US sanctions have accomplished in the past: hurting ordinary people while leaving the leaders untouched.
In retaliation for the Rohingya persecution, one thing the US should not do is go back to the old sanctions regime. It will accomplish exactly what US sanctions have accomplished in the past: hurting ordinary people while leaving the leaders untouched.
At least we don't have to pay attention to talk of the superior virtue of Buddhists and Buddhism anymore, as if that were possible after the atrocities that the Buddhist majority perpetrated in Sri Lanka. What is happening to the Rohyngya is wicked, as are those who order and implement it. It seems that people of every faith tradition will engage in ethnic cleansing if it suits their purposes. Evil is as evil does, no matter who does it.
6
I don't think it is actual Buddhists who talk about having superior virtue. I think it is naïve Westerners who only know about the Dalai Lama.
A king said to a Zen master, "I have promoted Buddhism throughout my kingdom. I have built statues and temples everywhere. I have donated riches to those who teach it. What kind of merit and virtue have I accumulated by doing this?"
The Zen master said, "No merit or virtue whatsoever."
A king said to a Zen master, "I have promoted Buddhism throughout my kingdom. I have built statues and temples everywhere. I have donated riches to those who teach it. What kind of merit and virtue have I accumulated by doing this?"
The Zen master said, "No merit or virtue whatsoever."
1
The criticism of Aung San Suu Kyi is justified. Saying her behavior now is far from in line with what we expected of her, as a putative champion of democracy is justified.
Linking it an attempt to strip her of the Nobel is distracting -- it just leads to side issues. Stay focused.
Linking it an attempt to strip her of the Nobel is distracting -- it just leads to side issues. Stay focused.
1
Taking back the award would stigmatize the Nobel Peace Prize for all time as a temporary honor at best, subject to negation if the Committee decides (under political or populist pressure?) that a recipient is no longer worthy.
Such a move would be, in my opinion, an unacceptable diminution of an otherwise useful, worthy, validation of a person's contributions to mankind.
So no, let her keep it. Just cancel her debit card so she can't get the money.
Such a move would be, in my opinion, an unacceptable diminution of an otherwise useful, worthy, validation of a person's contributions to mankind.
So no, let her keep it. Just cancel her debit card so she can't get the money.
3
I guess we all have to look back at the history, the ultimate culprit is British. It is such a complicated issue, but I wish both sides could settle and try not to let people get hurt, especially women and kids. A good example to take a look is Korean live in Northeastern part of China, how Japanese took them in, and how China handled to incorporate them into country after 1945. Of course, Korean are more or less the same as Han Chinese and so the religion, so to speak. What's happening in Burma is probably the combination of both religions and skin colors. That's my take.
1
You are correct in noting colonial history in places like Burma contributed heavily to the divisions on such places, with the conquerors redrawing boundaries between previously independent nations.
1
There seems to be a kind of moral confusion here where ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Buddhists is being compared with Obama's fight against the Taliban.
But the Taliban are actually engaged in ethnic cleansing now, trying to get rid of the Hazaras, an ethnic minority in Afghanistan, who are also Muslims. They began this campaign prior to 9/11 by sending troops to villages with Hazaras, rounding them up, shooting them, and burying them in mass graves. Just like the Serbs did to the Bosnian Muslims in the 90s..
You can complain about civilian casualties committed by our side, but we don't target civilians intentionally. We don't round up entire villages and kill everyone with the wrong ethnicity.
The Taliban are still trying to get rid of the Hazaras, so if you're against genocide, try mustering up some anger towards them too, and stop making Obama sound like he's "just as bad."
But the Taliban are actually engaged in ethnic cleansing now, trying to get rid of the Hazaras, an ethnic minority in Afghanistan, who are also Muslims. They began this campaign prior to 9/11 by sending troops to villages with Hazaras, rounding them up, shooting them, and burying them in mass graves. Just like the Serbs did to the Bosnian Muslims in the 90s..
You can complain about civilian casualties committed by our side, but we don't target civilians intentionally. We don't round up entire villages and kill everyone with the wrong ethnicity.
The Taliban are still trying to get rid of the Hazaras, so if you're against genocide, try mustering up some anger towards them too, and stop making Obama sound like he's "just as bad."
7
The head of the Nobel Institute said it was not possible for Nobel laureates to be stripped of their prizes after they had been bestowed.
“Neither Alfred Nobel's will nor the statutes of the Nobel Foundation provide for the possibility that a Nobel Prize — whether for physics, chemistry, medicine, literature or peace — can be revoked,” he said. “Only the efforts made by a laureate before the attribution of a prize are evaluated by the Nobel committee.”
So what is he saying, that you can commit all manner of heinous crimes against humanity and everything else as a Nobel Peace prize laureate and they have no authority to denounce or do anything about that status. Not even a doping athlete asterisk after the award.
“Neither Alfred Nobel's will nor the statutes of the Nobel Foundation provide for the possibility that a Nobel Prize — whether for physics, chemistry, medicine, literature or peace — can be revoked,” he said. “Only the efforts made by a laureate before the attribution of a prize are evaluated by the Nobel committee.”
So what is he saying, that you can commit all manner of heinous crimes against humanity and everything else as a Nobel Peace prize laureate and they have no authority to denounce or do anything about that status. Not even a doping athlete asterisk after the award.
2
I am ashamed and saddened that a country, supposedly Buddhist, which has more outward shrines and statues than almost anywhere, can espouse the murder and maltreatment of a minority in their country. I agree that Aung Sun Suu Kyi bears significant responsibility for these atrocities against fellow human beings.
17
As a small non-native minority, the Rohingya have no legal or moral right to exist in Myanmar.
Aung San Suu Kyi has done the right thing this time in standing up for ethnic nationalism against an increasingly darkening world of equality. While the refugees may suffer, it is a temporary suffering, a small price to pay compared to the endless ethnoreligious conflict that future diversity would have brought to Myanmar. In pushing them out, Aung San Suu Kyi has shown greater wisdom than almost every western leader on the world stage today. In the long run, the Muslims will find a happier home in Bangladesh.
However, there IS a reason for her to throw away the Nobel prize. It is an ideologically tainted reward given out by the West to disrupt domestic politics in other countries. For if the Nobel Peace Prize represents democracy, equality, and western "values", then it is worth nothing and should be discarded as trash.
Aung San Suu Kyi has done the right thing this time in standing up for ethnic nationalism against an increasingly darkening world of equality. While the refugees may suffer, it is a temporary suffering, a small price to pay compared to the endless ethnoreligious conflict that future diversity would have brought to Myanmar. In pushing them out, Aung San Suu Kyi has shown greater wisdom than almost every western leader on the world stage today. In the long run, the Muslims will find a happier home in Bangladesh.
However, there IS a reason for her to throw away the Nobel prize. It is an ideologically tainted reward given out by the West to disrupt domestic politics in other countries. For if the Nobel Peace Prize represents democracy, equality, and western "values", then it is worth nothing and should be discarded as trash.
5
Small non-native minorities "have no moral rights to exist" in other countries??? that's a horrendous thing to say.
While we play the hypothetical nobel revocation game, what about the prize to an even greater supporter of murderous regimes and violence against innocents - kissinger?
5
Alas, the ultimate tragedy of extremism is on display in Myanmar, as it is wherever it rears its head, and under whatever nominal belief. Virtually all faiths have spawned violent outliers that claim to speak for their birthright.
As for Aung San Suu Kyi, only history will be able to judge for sure (if at all) what role she has played in the Buddhist violence against her nation's Muslim minority. In any case, it is always a tragic mistake to condemn an entire people for the extremists among them.
It may be that all the extremism shared by various populations of humanity will lead to a new revolution in thought about religion generally and inspire an update and corrective to the erroneous assumptions that our current human societies share about their own heritage and its current effectiveness in leading a modern life.
Until that happens, at the very least, we need to recognize the trap that we are all helping to spring by casting hasty blame for all of our apparent evils. Instead, we need to seek a vision for what will help us all, first to survive, then to thrive in a world that seems all too close to self-annihilation. It starts with empathy for the plight of others, no matter where they live and from wherever they come.
There but by another's Fate, go I.
As for Aung San Suu Kyi, only history will be able to judge for sure (if at all) what role she has played in the Buddhist violence against her nation's Muslim minority. In any case, it is always a tragic mistake to condemn an entire people for the extremists among them.
It may be that all the extremism shared by various populations of humanity will lead to a new revolution in thought about religion generally and inspire an update and corrective to the erroneous assumptions that our current human societies share about their own heritage and its current effectiveness in leading a modern life.
Until that happens, at the very least, we need to recognize the trap that we are all helping to spring by casting hasty blame for all of our apparent evils. Instead, we need to seek a vision for what will help us all, first to survive, then to thrive in a world that seems all too close to self-annihilation. It starts with empathy for the plight of others, no matter where they live and from wherever they come.
There but by another's Fate, go I.
Instead of all these nonsensical talks about stripping the award, it is better for the Nobel committee to state that award decision was made based on good faith and the candidate's behavior at the time, and mistakes may be revealed in the future when the winner's behavior change.
Then you would have to go back to a few other Nobel Peace recipients and take the prize away from them, too, for failing to live up to the standard. Barack Obama, for a recent example. received the prize for no justifiable reason, though I would argue he was an excellent president and I campaigned and voted for him twice...But Nobel Peace prize? I can't imagine why.... either before he got it, or thereafter.
7
So Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has turned out to be a goddess with feet of clay ; and my false belief that the Buddhists had never killed in the name of religion was sadly wrong . The world has gone truly mad .
9
A Buddhist teacher I once listened to said: "A parrot can recite the mantra of great compassion millions of times while at the same time killing insects with its claws." I am afraid that the spirit and teachings of Buddhism have been lowered to the level of that parrot.
5
Sri Lanka is also a place where Buddhists kill Moslems in the name of religion.
I'm a Buddhist but any religion can be used for destructive ends. It is wrong to think any religion is above it, although possibly Jainism (because of its emphasis on nonviolence) and Bahai/Universalism (because of their emphasis on universal truth of religions) have a better claim.
On the other hand, Nixon was a Quaker and they are supposed to be pacifists at all costs.
It seems to me that religious people who focus on contemplation/meditation/introspection rather than outward rituals are the ones who have true religion and are less likely to be caught up in nationalist mania.
I'm a Buddhist but any religion can be used for destructive ends. It is wrong to think any religion is above it, although possibly Jainism (because of its emphasis on nonviolence) and Bahai/Universalism (because of their emphasis on universal truth of religions) have a better claim.
On the other hand, Nixon was a Quaker and they are supposed to be pacifists at all costs.
It seems to me that religious people who focus on contemplation/meditation/introspection rather than outward rituals are the ones who have true religion and are less likely to be caught up in nationalist mania.
2
what goes around comes around...maybe not in this lifetime (HA! lifetime is like seeing, and is the equivalent of a meteorite burning itself out in the night sky). buddhist view:action, words and thoughts driven by intention leads to future consequences of equal intention...sometime somewhere...life truly is dream...
Please, everybody, forget the Western coffee-shop brand of Buddhism. Buddhism, complex to begin with, has as many sects and as long a history as any major religion. And it has as many different political dynamics as there are places and people in which Buddhism plays a role. Buddhism has been involved in violence for as long as it has existed, which is to say for longer than Christianity or Islam, religions which also preach peace -- but which place a low priority on it depending on all the whens, wheres and whos. Fanatic clergy, sworn to the Commandments, were nonetheless among the most depraved and bloodthirsty of Crusaders, Conquistadors and of course Inquisitors. Likewise, most Buddhists are not cute bald people who commune with butterflies and rescue elephants any more than most Christians are St. Francis. They are normal people with normal people's failings. The central failing here is that religion and ethnicity are at once conflated and at odds, as anywhere else.
The venerable Dalai Lama, whom I admire, represents Buddhism only as much as the Pope (whom I admire) represents Christianity. Which is to say: he only represents one sect of Buddhism, and at that, he does not necessarily represent the popular interpretation of that particular doctrine or the ends to which it is turned. Buddhism's exotic commodity in the West may have blinded us to the fact that the Buddhist world is basically like the rest of the world: complicated, and rife with conflict.
The venerable Dalai Lama, whom I admire, represents Buddhism only as much as the Pope (whom I admire) represents Christianity. Which is to say: he only represents one sect of Buddhism, and at that, he does not necessarily represent the popular interpretation of that particular doctrine or the ends to which it is turned. Buddhism's exotic commodity in the West may have blinded us to the fact that the Buddhist world is basically like the rest of the world: complicated, and rife with conflict.
5
Great comments. The Wests and especially the lefts fawning over Buddhisms supposed benign enlightenment and peaceful nature has long struck many of us as a crock. They show the same dishonesty and bad tendencies of anybody who thinks they have a corner on moral certitude.
2
As Geoge notes, there are a lot of variations of Buddhism, some so far removed from the original council so to be unrecognisable as much and there's a lot of politics that have intertwined with Buddhism. It's Buddhism in name only. But if we are to stereotype whole populations, I'd argue that Buddhism is ONE of the least violent religions, even normalised for population, across its 2500+ year history.
Thailand is Buddhist country. They've engaged in violence. Nepal is a Buddhist country. They've engaged in violence. Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country. They've engaged in violence. You get the idea. Yes, people are people but if everyone were Buddhist, there'd be far less violence in the world than if everyone were certain other religions. But everyone being the same would be boring.
Thailand is Buddhist country. They've engaged in violence. Nepal is a Buddhist country. They've engaged in violence. Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country. They've engaged in violence. You get the idea. Yes, people are people but if everyone were Buddhist, there'd be far less violence in the world than if everyone were certain other religions. But everyone being the same would be boring.
1
Buddists and ethnic cleansing -- how does that work? That's pretty confusing to me, an American who has only seen Buddhism promoted as a path towards non-violence. I would like to hear more about violence in Buddhist countries. What text in their religion supports this?
Nothing. See George's comments above. There are a lot of variations of Buddhism, some so far removed from the original council so to be unrecognisable as much and there's a lot of politics that have intertwined with Buddhism. It's Buddhism in name only. But if we are to stereotype whole populations, I'd argue that Buddhism is ONE of the least violent religions, even normalised for population, across its 2500+ year history.
Thailand is Buddhist country. They've engaged in violence. Nepal is a Buddhist country. They've engaged in violence. Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country. They've engaged in violence. You get the idea.
Thailand is Buddhist country. They've engaged in violence. Nepal is a Buddhist country. They've engaged in violence. Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country. They've engaged in violence. You get the idea.
This is certainly not her shinning moment for sure but what little power she has is what is allowed by the junta. If she started criticizing she could spend her remaining years on house arrest but that should not stop her. The Rohingya are a stateless people and have been so forever, Why is that, is it because that is the path they chose? I think that because many Muslims refuse to integrate into the society is a part of the problem.
3
If Henry Kissinger, who helped orchestrate the 1973 military coup in Chile, leading to the murder of Salvador Allende, the then freely elected president of Chile, has not been strip of his fraudulent Nobel Peace Prize, Aung Sun Suu Kyi won't be stripped of hers. Kissinger's dispicable machinations led to the brutal dictatorship of Chilean war criminal Augusto Pinochet, who murdered over three thousand Chileans, and tortured thousands. Aung Sun Suu Kyi's bears significant responsibility for the Rohingya holocaust
23
Why this prize given?
1
You say Rohingya, they say Muslim extremists. You are a second year college student, so maybe you do not know about the giant Buddha's on the spice road destroyed by Muslim extremists. I could go into an international terrorists laundry-list of murder and ethnic cleansing, but it goes without saying the mass majority are carried out by Muslim extremist. Muslim extremists are a constant threat to civilized society and need to be wiped out one way or another. I know very little about Myanmar, but I trust Bono, I trust the Nobel Committee and I have extreme lack of trust to anyone who thinks they know the intent of God through cultist practices, otherwise known as religion. Muslim extremest have made it imperative to wipe them out or they wipe us out. Sorry, I side with modem civilization and Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi.
12
What a stupid title! Did you request the Nobel Price Committee to strip Obama's peace prize? I love our 44 but he did have his faults and continued bombing Iraq and Afghanistan, left Syria alone even when thousands died.
Aung San Suu Kyi may be part of the problem but please remember that Myanmar is still under military rule and the military holds the real power not her.
How about you do a little more research and name those in the military who continue to allow and actually encourage what is happening in Myanmar? I would like to see more of that!
Aung San Suu Kyi may be part of the problem but please remember that Myanmar is still under military rule and the military holds the real power not her.
How about you do a little more research and name those in the military who continue to allow and actually encourage what is happening in Myanmar? I would like to see more of that!
20
Revoking Nobel Prized? Pandora's box, don't you think?
2
Yes, please do strip her of her Nobel prize.
2
Looks like she is a bigot, just like so many other deceptive leaders around the world. We now know the real person. Take the prize away from her. Shame!
2
I'm in favour of this, but if your going to take Aung San Suu Kyi's away for her shameless apology for ethnic cleansing, how come Obama gets to keep his after his indiscriminate drone attacks killed thousands of women and children across the Middle East?
ASSK's covering up for Burmese Army atrocities is disgusting, but as far as I know she never sat in her office with the head of her country's intelligence services, like Obama boasted he did with Brennan, picking names of people off a list to have killed...
ASSK's covering up for Burmese Army atrocities is disgusting, but as far as I know she never sat in her office with the head of her country's intelligence services, like Obama boasted he did with Brennan, picking names of people off a list to have killed...
2
Those drone attacks are never indiscriminate. They are targeted at known terrorists. Sometimes the information is wrong. That's bad. And a lot of women and children are killed because Taliban and ISIS commanders can't even boil water for tea by themselves, they need their multiple wives to do it for them, and with multiple wives come lots of children. So it's pretty hard to find an ISIS or Taliban commander in a situation where he is not surrounded by women and children.
Because of this fact, we do commit civilian casualties, that is true. But look at what ISIS and the Taliban do -- they target civilians deliberately. They plan deliberate attacks on civilians. They're not going after opposing combatants and accepting the inevitability of collateral damage. They plan attacks on civilians deliberately -- because in their mindset, they're in a religious war, and so civilians do not really exist.
Because of this fact, we do commit civilian casualties, that is true. But look at what ISIS and the Taliban do -- they target civilians deliberately. They plan deliberate attacks on civilians. They're not going after opposing combatants and accepting the inevitability of collateral damage. They plan attacks on civilians deliberately -- because in their mindset, they're in a religious war, and so civilians do not really exist.
1
By the way, nobody in any real military force keeps their wives and children by them in combat zone while planning attacks on an enemy.
Our military does not allow the commanders' wives and children to serve as support staff to their war effort. The only people allowed to make food for soldiers in a combat zone are other soldiers. That's because we don't want families of soldiers put in harm's way.
There is no such concern among ISIS or Taliban commanders. That is why these kinds of casualties occur in drone attacks on terrorist commanders. These guys do not seem to care one bit about keeping their family members out of harm's way.
Our military does not allow the commanders' wives and children to serve as support staff to their war effort. The only people allowed to make food for soldiers in a combat zone are other soldiers. That's because we don't want families of soldiers put in harm's way.
There is no such concern among ISIS or Taliban commanders. That is why these kinds of casualties occur in drone attacks on terrorist commanders. These guys do not seem to care one bit about keeping their family members out of harm's way.
5
Patricia. Will it still be ok to vaporize civilians when DJT starts doing it in earnest? It's going to put a lot of Obama apologists in a tough spot when it turns out that trump has just as itchy of a trigger finger.
1
While we are in the business of stripping people off Nobel prizes, Mr. Judah, let's go after Mr. Obama's Nobel prize too.
7
First, let's strip Yassir Arafat and Le Duc Tho, homicidal maniacs, a terrorist and a warmonger, of their "Peace" prizes. Then, we'll start thinking about Aung San Suu Kyi.
7
The two you mention are not here any more. Ms. Suu Kyi is very much here and calling the shots.
No, she does not call the shots. The generals do. Read the Myanmar constitution.
1
What is the body count of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi versus Barack Hussein Obama? Let us try to be consistent.
3
Which ethnic group did Obama drive out from America using armed force? If you can name that ethnic group, then we can start counting bodies.
1
She is between a rock and a hard place. She knows that after two decades of military rule, during which the nation was exposed to Nazi like ultra-nationalist propaganda, if she speaks out against the military's campaign she could be ousted by a coup. Her people's hard won freedoms would disappear, together with the Rohingyas. I just love liberal western hypocrites who chastise her, but would never sanction the use of US forces to ensure a coup does not take place. Talk is cheap people, as long as liberals think every issue can be resolved by jaw-jaw, and that war-war is never justified, they should shut up.
6
I never understood why she was given the prize in the first place. But the Nobel aside, western governments always love a champion from the third world who is standing up against the old culture despots/theocracies, etc.
Su Kyi was one of those. Spoke English with a British accent. She wanted to rule Burma only because she felt entitled to it as her father's daughter, ala Indira Gandhi. That alone should have discredited here.
Its not like a grassroots hero coming to change their country for the better. More like a princess who is pissed that somebody took her throne.
She never gave any indications of showing sympathy to the Rohingya. Not from the beginning. So this is no surprise where we are today.
Su Kyi was one of those. Spoke English with a British accent. She wanted to rule Burma only because she felt entitled to it as her father's daughter, ala Indira Gandhi. That alone should have discredited here.
Its not like a grassroots hero coming to change their country for the better. More like a princess who is pissed that somebody took her throne.
She never gave any indications of showing sympathy to the Rohingya. Not from the beginning. So this is no surprise where we are today.
2
What you have written is utterly ridiculous. She has never felt entitled to be a ruler of Burma. When she was begged by Burmese intellectuals to lead a movement, she very reluctantly accepted the historical obligation while taking care of her dying mother. She has to sacrifice tremendously for about three decades and was elected only about two years ago to lead the country. However, she wasn't allowed, according to the constitution, to become a head of state/government.
She always and also very recently promised to take care of everybody in the country whether they are citizens or not. She has never harmed those illegal immigrants, so-called Bengalis/Rohingyas, instead she was trying to solve the decades-long conflicts with the help of international figures like former UN Secretary-General Mr. Kofi Annan. It was those interlopers who are harming the populace, violently attacking security forces, leave alone civilians, and spread fake news as if they have been persecuted. Most of the people who fled to Bangladesh were driven by terrorists from the same ethnic group. The reason is they wanted to show the world that they have been attacked and they need a safe zone curved out of Arakan State. They have tried to occupy it with the help of Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah and with a Mujahid rebellion before but to no avail. These violent thugs have even killed their own people if the latter was caught talking to government authorities.
She always and also very recently promised to take care of everybody in the country whether they are citizens or not. She has never harmed those illegal immigrants, so-called Bengalis/Rohingyas, instead she was trying to solve the decades-long conflicts with the help of international figures like former UN Secretary-General Mr. Kofi Annan. It was those interlopers who are harming the populace, violently attacking security forces, leave alone civilians, and spread fake news as if they have been persecuted. Most of the people who fled to Bangladesh were driven by terrorists from the same ethnic group. The reason is they wanted to show the world that they have been attacked and they need a safe zone curved out of Arakan State. They have tried to occupy it with the help of Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah and with a Mujahid rebellion before but to no avail. These violent thugs have even killed their own people if the latter was caught talking to government authorities.
1
Part 3 of my response
- Author should know that illegal immigration is a grave concern faced by countries such as Myanamar and India. It not only tramples upon resources and rights of native citizens but also threatens internal security because illegal muslim immigrants are known to use violence to displace native land owners. Does thr author know that India has estimated 20 million illegal Bangladeshi immigrants and that they have severly damaged security and peace in eastern states of India. Thanks to Muslim appeasement politics of some political parties in India for vote bank such as Congress, CPI , CPM, TMC (Mamata Banerjee Chief Minister of Bengal), these illegal Bangladeshis have spread in major eastern states and caused massive damage to resources and peace tranquility. Majority of riots in eastern states of India has ocvurred due to violence used by Bagladeshi Muslims to displace native people from their ancestral lands. Some of these illegal Bangladeshi immigrants have been arrested or killed due indulging in terrorist activities against India. Just 3 years back the then Indian government of Congress shamelessly illegally allowed 40000 Rohingya Muslims into India again for vote bank politics. Whatsmore all illegal Muslim Bangladeshis in India resort to illegal procurement of identity documents in India.
- Author should know that illegal immigration is a grave concern faced by countries such as Myanamar and India. It not only tramples upon resources and rights of native citizens but also threatens internal security because illegal muslim immigrants are known to use violence to displace native land owners. Does thr author know that India has estimated 20 million illegal Bangladeshi immigrants and that they have severly damaged security and peace in eastern states of India. Thanks to Muslim appeasement politics of some political parties in India for vote bank such as Congress, CPI , CPM, TMC (Mamata Banerjee Chief Minister of Bengal), these illegal Bangladeshis have spread in major eastern states and caused massive damage to resources and peace tranquility. Majority of riots in eastern states of India has ocvurred due to violence used by Bagladeshi Muslims to displace native people from their ancestral lands. Some of these illegal Bangladeshi immigrants have been arrested or killed due indulging in terrorist activities against India. Just 3 years back the then Indian government of Congress shamelessly illegally allowed 40000 Rohingya Muslims into India again for vote bank politics. Whatsmore all illegal Muslim Bangladeshis in India resort to illegal procurement of identity documents in India.
7
Not real surprising. True Nobel peace prize winners are tough to come by these days. I remember the near frenzy to give one to BHO when he had done basically nothing except to not be "W". As it turned out, he was far better at using drones than making peace. I guess it's the times we live in, but olive branches and doves aren't as effective as blowing bad guys up or in this case people you don't know what to with.
1
Strip Obama's first. He has a longer track record of raining death on innocents and his own citizens. He couldn't even close Gitmo.
3
I've always said that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was a "fake good girl". I've never agreed with her nobel prize. Her father supported Japanese aggression and Japanese atrocities in Burma during World War II. I was sure she was going to do the same when rising to power. That's what's happening. She's supporting something typical of Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, the most prominent Serb war criminals of recent history. The only difference is that she has the face of a good girl. Just this.
2
Who knew?
I've heard of Muslim extremists, Catholic extremists, even Jewish extremists, but Buddhist?
THis planet will never, ever see peace until the hypocrisy of religion is removed from daily life.
I've heard of Muslim extremists, Catholic extremists, even Jewish extremists, but Buddhist?
THis planet will never, ever see peace until the hypocrisy of religion is removed from daily life.
3
Part 1 of my response
The author should know following facts before questioning Burma and Aung Sun Kyi
- The crackdown on Rohingya started when their Terrorist groups attacked military posts in response to nationwide identity verification. Author doesn't raise even slight alarm when it comes to terrorism originating from Rohingyas. Even if they face deportation, their is absolutely no justification of jihadi violence that illegal immigrants indulge in. Imagine this happening in USA OR European country...how will they react to such security threat? In fact author deliberately ignores the fact that thousands of Buddhists and Hindus were attacked by Rohingya Muslim terrorists in which many were killed and many of them are forced into Jungles and also ran to areas of Bangladesh
The author should know following facts before questioning Burma and Aung Sun Kyi
- The crackdown on Rohingya started when their Terrorist groups attacked military posts in response to nationwide identity verification. Author doesn't raise even slight alarm when it comes to terrorism originating from Rohingyas. Even if they face deportation, their is absolutely no justification of jihadi violence that illegal immigrants indulge in. Imagine this happening in USA OR European country...how will they react to such security threat? In fact author deliberately ignores the fact that thousands of Buddhists and Hindus were attacked by Rohingya Muslim terrorists in which many were killed and many of them are forced into Jungles and also ran to areas of Bangladesh
12
Part 2 of my response
- No western author cares to share Origins of Rohingyas. Not because they dont know it but because it doesnt suit their agenda. They are simply bengalis of Bangladesh who had illegally immigrated to Burma during 60s and some in 70s during Indo-Pak war that converted East Pakistan become Bangladesh. Rohingyas native language is Bengali and most of them donot speak Burmese language its dialects and other Sino Tibetan languages. Native language of Myanamar is Burmese spoken by over two third population i.e 35 million. Aside from Myanmar (Burmese) and its dialects, the hundred or so languages of Myanmar include Shan (Tai, spoken by 3.2 million), Karen languages (spoken by 2.6 million), Kachin (spoken by 900,000), various Chin languages (spoken by 780,000), and Mon (Mon–Khmer, spoken by 750,000).[1][3] Most of these languages use the Myanmar (Burmese) script. However Bengali is an Indo European language with very different script than Burmese. Therefore all this proves that Rohingyas are illegal bengali immigrants from Bangladesh and therefore Myanamar has legitimate right to deport them.
- No western author cares to share Origins of Rohingyas. Not because they dont know it but because it doesnt suit their agenda. They are simply bengalis of Bangladesh who had illegally immigrated to Burma during 60s and some in 70s during Indo-Pak war that converted East Pakistan become Bangladesh. Rohingyas native language is Bengali and most of them donot speak Burmese language its dialects and other Sino Tibetan languages. Native language of Myanamar is Burmese spoken by over two third population i.e 35 million. Aside from Myanmar (Burmese) and its dialects, the hundred or so languages of Myanmar include Shan (Tai, spoken by 3.2 million), Karen languages (spoken by 2.6 million), Kachin (spoken by 900,000), various Chin languages (spoken by 780,000), and Mon (Mon–Khmer, spoken by 750,000).[1][3] Most of these languages use the Myanmar (Burmese) script. However Bengali is an Indo European language with very different script than Burmese. Therefore all this proves that Rohingyas are illegal bengali immigrants from Bangladesh and therefore Myanamar has legitimate right to deport them.
9
Folks there is a genocide in progress in Myanmar whose leader a Nobel Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi doing nothing to stop it. The world must first become aware and must act together to STOP GENOCIDE. Firstly at UN teh world must act in unity to stop the killing. Innocent people are being killed and forced out of their homes they are far a a way from the West and they are not christian but they are human beings.
Sure, and let that odious Kissinger keep his prize? This smacks of nationalism, racism and everything hypocritical.
7
I was always suspicious of Aung Suu Kyi.. Equally, this shows how far the West is from the real world. They praised and glorified her. Yet, she was a devil incarnate.
You knew Myanmar's leader was a fraud when she posed for cutsies with Hillary Clinton -- when Ms. Aung/San/Suu/Kyi (pick one) went on her world victory tour. All politics is fiction. All leaders of nations have feet* of clay. See: history.
* Minds, too, sometimes.
* Minds, too, sometimes.
Aung San Suu Kyi was elected by the people of Burma. Not by noncitizen Rohinga nor liberal media nor echo-chamber Muslim lobbies who demand and condemnation are the result of what it takes to protect Burma from slow Muslim invasion to turn the Arakan state into Arakanistan which would close the gap between Malaysia-Southern Thailand and Bangladesh becomes the Muslim Cresent in South Asia. The Wahhabi Saudi Arabia is secretly funding the Madrassas and Mosques to the past and current troubles in Arakan state. The ARSA (Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army) its leader another Arakan Muslim in Saudi and funded by the Saudi.
Aung San Suu Kyi herself said that she is not Mother Theresa nor Britain Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher but she would be called Burma Iron Lady after she repulsed this general attack by Muslim lobbies, leftist liberal media, and from Saudi back pocket organization such as UNHCR, HRW in this internal
Arakan state affair. The people of Burma is strongly behind her and other outsiders demand or condemnation is the proof of the right thing to do for her country.
Aung San Suu Kyi herself said that she is not Mother Theresa nor Britain Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher but she would be called Burma Iron Lady after she repulsed this general attack by Muslim lobbies, leftist liberal media, and from Saudi back pocket organization such as UNHCR, HRW in this internal
Arakan state affair. The people of Burma is strongly behind her and other outsiders demand or condemnation is the proof of the right thing to do for her country.
7
These types of pro-muslim opinions by "second-year students of economics" about Burmese Nobel Prize winner are not helpful at all. In fact, these are extremely corrosive and inflammatory types of opinions obscuring the real issue and confusing public. Please consider that Aung San Suu Kyi very clearly rejected all forms of violence in the region - not only the violence against muslims who are pouring to Burma from Bangladesh but also violence against local population that sometime takes place due to inevitable ethnic tensions. The answer is not in condemnation of Burmese leaders but in proper reporting of entire (rather complex) situation. These Bangladeshi muslims have no place to go (India will not take them, they are ready to shoot on the border) so, they go towards Burma where border is more porous. Regional politicians should discuss this issue and I am sure they are. Meanwhile, Western tabloid writers (so called experts) should meanwhile try to not aggravate situation with their idiotic miss-informations. Cheers, Karl.
9
And strip Obama of his while you're at it.
He did nothing to earn it in the first place.
And did nothing to deserve it afterward.
He did nothing to earn it in the first place.
And did nothing to deserve it afterward.
2
So much for "The Lady".
As much as I admired Ms. Suu Kyi's strength and commitment to democracy during her 21 years of house arrest, I am puzzled by her silence in the face of the outrages against the Rohingya people. Her Nobel Peace Prize seemed a fitting honor for her stand against the military dictatorship that took away her rights to live and speak freely and openly in her own country. She was long separated from her children and English husband and, as I recall, she never left her home confinement to visit him in England as he was dying of cancer because she believed that she'd not be permitted to re-enter Myanmar. The political assassination of her father may have taught her some lessons in democracy that she seems now to have forgotten.
I would agree that unless and until Ms. Suu Kyi takes a firm stand against the horrendous killings and expulsions of the Rohingya people and against the successor military establishment that seems as awful as the one that arrested and silenced her, her Nobel Peace Prize is in jeopardy.
I would ask the Nobel Prize Committee to issue a warning to ALL Peace Prize Laureates that their subsequent behavior that is in opposition to the goals and aims of honoring them warrants revocation of the Prize. If a Gandhi turned into a Hitler, would that new Gandhi deserve to retain the honor of Peace Prize Laureate? Olympic sports winners have their medals taken away when a fraud is discovered. We can and should expect the Nobel Prize Committee to do no less.
I would agree that unless and until Ms. Suu Kyi takes a firm stand against the horrendous killings and expulsions of the Rohingya people and against the successor military establishment that seems as awful as the one that arrested and silenced her, her Nobel Peace Prize is in jeopardy.
I would ask the Nobel Prize Committee to issue a warning to ALL Peace Prize Laureates that their subsequent behavior that is in opposition to the goals and aims of honoring them warrants revocation of the Prize. If a Gandhi turned into a Hitler, would that new Gandhi deserve to retain the honor of Peace Prize Laureate? Olympic sports winners have their medals taken away when a fraud is discovered. We can and should expect the Nobel Prize Committee to do no less.
9
The Rohingyas are literally the most persecuted people on earth - having been declared as illegal foreigners in their own country. Suu Kyi's Nobel prize should certainly be taken away but we should look beyond that. The problem that the Rohingyas face is huge. It is not just the Myanmar military which wants them to leave Myanmar, from all evidence it appears that so do the majority Buddhist population. Years of negative propaganda have convinced the majority population that the Rohingyas are out to destroy their civilization. The two big countries that could have had any influence on Myanmar, China and India, are trying to outbid each other to curry favor with the Myanmar govt and military - Myanmar is a resource rich poor country, and both the Chinese and Indians are looking forward to getting access to their natural resources. The rest of the world is overwhelmed with middle eastern and African refugees. The Rohingyas thus have very litte to look forward to, unless the international press continues to report on their misery.
Events happen in a context. The Rohingya do have a long relationship with the other peoples of Burma. Unfortunately, it has been a mostly negative relationship since they turned the weapons provided them by the British (to resist the Japanese invaders in WWII) on the Burmese people, killing thousands, burning villages and temples and demanding an autonomous state be carved out for them. They even approached Jinnah during the India partition to join the newly forming East Pakistan. The humanitarian cry about the killing of women and children is always correct. It is never "ok". But to cast the the Burmese people as villains and the Rohingya as blameless victims is to ignore history and the reality on the ground. Suu Kyi appears to be pushing back on well funded Islamic terrorism, doing her job in protecting the people and culture of Myanmar. The well managed media campaign to frame the Rohingya as innocent victims needs to be challenged.
23
I suppose the villagers and those among them now being massacred are somehow responsible for the sins of their fathers? We should care about oppressed peoples now, and not allow history to be repeated - but against them this time.
I notice that your last complaint about the Rohingya dates back to the Partition in 1947. A person old enough to be considered morally responsible in 1947 would be 90 years old today. Anyone younger had no real say in those events, which does make them innocent.
The individuals who are suspected of being terrorists should be investigated and tried as individuals. If they are proven guilty, then put those individuals in jail.
By the way, how does due process work in Myanmar for Buddhists? Does the concept even exist in the country at all?
The individuals who are suspected of being terrorists should be investigated and tried as individuals. If they are proven guilty, then put those individuals in jail.
By the way, how does due process work in Myanmar for Buddhists? Does the concept even exist in the country at all?
What "well managed media campaign to frame the Rohingya as innocent victims..." are you talking about? We have a genocide in the works here and the world doesn't seem to care and is doing absolutly nothing to stop it, including Ms. Suu Kyi.
The simple truth is that muslim Rohingyas are being collectively punished for the outrageous behaviors of ISIL, which is grossly unjust. Now, if the Rohingya were Buddhist and were being slaughtered by Muslim Burmese, than we'd be looking a very different situation.
The simple truth is that muslim Rohingyas are being collectively punished for the outrageous behaviors of ISIL, which is grossly unjust. Now, if the Rohingya were Buddhist and were being slaughtered by Muslim Burmese, than we'd be looking a very different situation.
"Buddhist militias"? Isn't that an oxymoron? Has the world gone completely mad? This report makes my heart ache.
4
Myanmar is right, for once. A lot of terrorists have entered their country under cover of the Rohingya and are prepared to use the Rohingya as human shields if the Myanmar government attacks them. Aung San Suu Kyi is not prepared to have her country commit suicide by sheltering these people. Good for her!
8
Stripping Aung San Suu Kyi of the status of a Nobel laureate would send a clear message to anyone holding the title in the name of human rights that they forfeit the titler reserved only for one who is an embodiment of holder of the sacred trust for all the times.
1
The following by Russel Goldman appeared in the NYT 2 days ago:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/world/asia/myanmar-rohingya-suu-kyi-.... :
"The Nobel Committee, all Norwegian citizens appointed by the country’s Parliament, has never rescinded a prize and will not in Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi’s case either, said Gunnar Stalsett, a former committee member.
A peace prize has never been revoked and the committee does not issue condemnations or censure laureates,” said Mr. Stalsett, a former politician and bishop who was a deputy member of the committee in 1991, when Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi received her award. “The principle we follow is the decision is not a declaration of a saint,” Mr. Stalsett said. “When the decision has been made and the award has been given, that ends the responsibility of the committee."
So with all due respect to the arguments of Mr. Judah, there is no chance that anybody's prize will be taken away.
Perhaps is time to stop awarding a prize that often turns out to be a joke:
"They have healed also the hurt of My people lightly, Saying: 'Peace, peace', when there is no peace." (Jeremiah 6:14 et alia).
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/world/asia/myanmar-rohingya-suu-kyi-.... :
"The Nobel Committee, all Norwegian citizens appointed by the country’s Parliament, has never rescinded a prize and will not in Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi’s case either, said Gunnar Stalsett, a former committee member.
A peace prize has never been revoked and the committee does not issue condemnations or censure laureates,” said Mr. Stalsett, a former politician and bishop who was a deputy member of the committee in 1991, when Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi received her award. “The principle we follow is the decision is not a declaration of a saint,” Mr. Stalsett said. “When the decision has been made and the award has been given, that ends the responsibility of the committee."
So with all due respect to the arguments of Mr. Judah, there is no chance that anybody's prize will be taken away.
Perhaps is time to stop awarding a prize that often turns out to be a joke:
"They have healed also the hurt of My people lightly, Saying: 'Peace, peace', when there is no peace." (Jeremiah 6:14 et alia).
4
Noble Committee should take back Aang San Sun Kyi's noble prize. Her hands have blood of innocent Rohingya. Where is another giant Buddhist leader Dalai Lama to speak up against this genocide. I do not understand that Buddhists do not eat meat because they think it is cruel to kill animal and fish. How the monks are involved in killing innocent human beings? The Myanmar government are directly involved in the killing spree. Silence on our part is like to collaborate with the crime.
1
Ashraff,
I would like to correct you on your comment. Buddhists do eat meat, not all Buddhists are vegetarians, that is a minor point. But you are also wrong on Dalai Lama. He did speak on this issue,more than once. This is what he said on June 14,2016, that is more than a year ago:
"Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi has a moral responsibility to try to ease tensions between majority Buddhists and minority Rohingya Muslims, her fellow Nobel laureate, the Dalai Lama, said "
Source: Reuters | Washington | Published:June 14, 2016 8:27 am
I would like to correct you on your comment. Buddhists do eat meat, not all Buddhists are vegetarians, that is a minor point. But you are also wrong on Dalai Lama. He did speak on this issue,more than once. This is what he said on June 14,2016, that is more than a year ago:
"Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi has a moral responsibility to try to ease tensions between majority Buddhists and minority Rohingya Muslims, her fellow Nobel laureate, the Dalai Lama, said "
Source: Reuters | Washington | Published:June 14, 2016 8:27 am
Utter nonsense1 The first thing first --did the ISI trained terrorists amongst these Rohingyas killed the Myanmari security forces. The trend today is to put the Islamic Terrorists under the carpet, and talk about "so-called human rights" of the terrorist ladden communities. For once, let Myanmar decide on the issues vital to that nation and the people concerned. Too much of leeway has already been granted to religious nonsense and religious terrorists at the cost of ordinary citizens of the world.
7
No civilian should ever be fired upon by rogue militias. Men in the military should never burn civilian homes to the ground, rape women and girls, or otherwise terrorize unarmed people. And, life is rarely as easy as good/bad, black/white. I agree that the Rohingya largely have an abysmal existence on the Burmese-Bangdladesh border. And they're not citizens of Burma, for whatever that worth.
Picture Mexican citizens living on the Mexican/American border. Had they lived there for dozens or even hundreds of years, they still would not become American citizens. Even as they led occasional uprisings against America, armed themselves against the American military, and demanded rights as American citizens, they still would not become Americans simply because they set up camp on the border. The situation with the Rohingya is much the same. Even as they want to become citizens of Myanmar, a Buddhist country, it does seem that, since life is intolerable for them on the border, it would be much better in Bangladesh, a muslim country.
Since the Rohingya may see Aung San Suu Kyi as evil, they may then see Abdul Hamid as their savior who will no doubt welcome them with open arms, support and fellow feeling. Why, one wonders, has not Bangladesh come to their aid in the hundred years they've camped out on the border? Things aren't rarely as simple as they appear to be.
Picture Mexican citizens living on the Mexican/American border. Had they lived there for dozens or even hundreds of years, they still would not become American citizens. Even as they led occasional uprisings against America, armed themselves against the American military, and demanded rights as American citizens, they still would not become Americans simply because they set up camp on the border. The situation with the Rohingya is much the same. Even as they want to become citizens of Myanmar, a Buddhist country, it does seem that, since life is intolerable for them on the border, it would be much better in Bangladesh, a muslim country.
Since the Rohingya may see Aung San Suu Kyi as evil, they may then see Abdul Hamid as their savior who will no doubt welcome them with open arms, support and fellow feeling. Why, one wonders, has not Bangladesh come to their aid in the hundred years they've camped out on the border? Things aren't rarely as simple as they appear to be.
2
Except a horde of Burmese/Buddhist nationalists and gullible Westerns to descend on this forum defending this ethnic cleaning and genocide or playing it down. The evil that religion, particularly organized religion is capable of does not vary with the identity of the religion - look at what Hindu extremists in my homeland of India are up to. These thugs make Trump sound like a moderate!
2
It is sad to see this author supposedly pursue justice by tearing down Suu Kyi. The author uses his attack on Suu Kyi to draw attention to his cause about the plight of Rohingya. Stripping Suu Kyi of her Nobel Prize would not help the Rohingya in any way, and would be misguided. Gandhi's India still persecuted certain groups, especially Muslims; Obama's America still practiced war, persecution of certain groups (especially blacks), death of civilians, and many other deviations from humanitarianism and peace. This sanctimonious crusade against Suu Kyi (who truly earned her Nobel Prize) got the author an opinion piece in the NY Times, which is nice for him, but his effort would have been better spent actually helping people.
17
Kindly get your facts right about India. India is the only country which has braved 700 years of Islamic invasions and still managed to survive and gold onto its native Sanatan Dharma aka HInduism.
An estimated 5000+ Hindu temples were either destroyed or converted into mosque by Muslims. If you go through history of Islamic invasion in India, Islam has been most genocidal towards Hindus killing our ancestors(men, women, babies) and converting them through sword. Pakistan and Bangladesh are nothing but those converted Hindu populations and were once part of Greater India which included even Afghanistan and Myanamar at one point in time in addition to current Indian territory. There is no other country except India who understands how Islam works against Infidels.
Many of present day Muslims in India are peaceful but few of them do have Jihadi violence tendencies and have indulged in bomb explosions in various cities and killed our police and armed force. It is completely legitimate to for India to crackdown on such violent jihadi elements. To say then that Muslims are persecuted is a biggest lie because India is the only country where Muslims are safest
An estimated 5000+ Hindu temples were either destroyed or converted into mosque by Muslims. If you go through history of Islamic invasion in India, Islam has been most genocidal towards Hindus killing our ancestors(men, women, babies) and converting them through sword. Pakistan and Bangladesh are nothing but those converted Hindu populations and were once part of Greater India which included even Afghanistan and Myanamar at one point in time in addition to current Indian territory. There is no other country except India who understands how Islam works against Infidels.
Many of present day Muslims in India are peaceful but few of them do have Jihadi violence tendencies and have indulged in bomb explosions in various cities and killed our police and armed force. It is completely legitimate to for India to crackdown on such violent jihadi elements. To say then that Muslims are persecuted is a biggest lie because India is the only country where Muslims are safest
Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi is no Ghandi, nor is she anywhere close to being on the same plane as Nelson Mandela. Her credentials in earning the Nobel Prize have now been exposed to be phony. Ultimately, I think she lacks the courage to confront her generals over their mistreatment of an entire ethnic group because of religious bigotry. I say, take away her Nobel Prize.
7
The author of this article is a student. Yes, he interviewed refugees and heard horrible stories. But he has failed to demonstrate that this genocide is actually her fault. More information, please, about her role in the governement, find out who has ordered these crimes, and why, and what she could realistically do about it.
5
If they strip her of the Nobel prize, they should do the same for Obama, because there was nothing in his past performance or his performance as President that would suggest he was a champion of peace. Let's face it, the Nobel Peace prize is more a political statement than an honor for things actually achieved. Perhaps the Prize should be based more on real deeds, or eliminated all together.
2
Disappointment is inadequate to describer Aung San Suu Kyi's actions in Myanmar toward the Rohinga. We have cancelled our long awaited trip to that country as we don't want to participate in any way toward supporting her actions. Shame on her! The world certainly expected better of her!
it is simply a case of being caught out one more time. you might have thought that the nobel group might have learned that any recipient given power will use that power and rarely for the benefit of mankind in general. look how that group were blind sided by obama(as lots of were) for one. if they have to give out these meaningless trophies then doing it posthummously may be the bester way to go.
I'd take away Henry Kissinger's first.
2
Simply end the Peace Prize. it is ironic at best. Arafat, Kissinger, Suu Kyi are not, never were and never will be promoters of universal peace. The Nobel Prize is diminished by including this weed amongst an otherwise spectacular garden.
16
And Begin, Obama, ...
You have no appreciation. Kissinger has given us with sleep problems a remedy. Just listen to one of his speeches for awhile and, Voila, merciful sleep.
Let's not forget Menachem Begin, who shared the Peace Prize with Anwar Sadat and Jimmy Carter and then went on to make war, illegal settlement and ethnic/religious oppression his calling card.
1
Agreed. What Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has done to the Rohingya -- or what she hasn't done to protect them from Buddhist nationalism run amok in Myanmar -- is unworthy of a Nobelist.
1
Absolutely, equating these refugees with terrorists and accusing the reporters (some evidently fron The NY Times) of misinformation just how far her own DEPRAVITY goes.
I'll always view the Nobel Peace Prize with deep suspicion should she keep it. While it claims not to honor saints, that's in effect what it does. The prize is NOT given posthumously I presume so the awardees can benefit from it while they are still alive. Well then, if they can benefit from its awarding they should be punished by its revocation.
I've resisted the urge to travel to Myanmar despite being an avid traveler (30 countries in 3 years) and living very nearby (Vietnam). The reason? I could not indirectly support a government that so blatantly refused to protect and in fact assisted in the persecution of a blameless minority. After hearing what she had to say, I'm glad I haven't gone to this trendy new destination. (And of course I didn't go when it was ruled by the military junta, but at least they seemed to oppress everyone equally)..
[The operative word here is "blatant". There are many places, like the country I reside in, Vietnam, where people are "oppressed". But, by and large, unless you go out of your way to resist, the authorities leave you alone. Sad but true in a world where 85% of the world doesn't live in a democracy.]
I'll always view the Nobel Peace Prize with deep suspicion should she keep it. While it claims not to honor saints, that's in effect what it does. The prize is NOT given posthumously I presume so the awardees can benefit from it while they are still alive. Well then, if they can benefit from its awarding they should be punished by its revocation.
I've resisted the urge to travel to Myanmar despite being an avid traveler (30 countries in 3 years) and living very nearby (Vietnam). The reason? I could not indirectly support a government that so blatantly refused to protect and in fact assisted in the persecution of a blameless minority. After hearing what she had to say, I'm glad I haven't gone to this trendy new destination. (And of course I didn't go when it was ruled by the military junta, but at least they seemed to oppress everyone equally)..
[The operative word here is "blatant". There are many places, like the country I reside in, Vietnam, where people are "oppressed". But, by and large, unless you go out of your way to resist, the authorities leave you alone. Sad but true in a world where 85% of the world doesn't live in a democracy.]
1
Kissinger still has his Nobel Peace Prize. For those of us old enough to remember Kissinger's actions, the Peace Prize is forever cheapened. But at least Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi did something to deserve hers. By the time of her earning the prize, Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi had done a lot of good and not caused tens to hundreds of thousands of needless killings - unlike Kissinger!
1
Wednesday when Aung San Suu Kiye attributed the killings
to terrorists she was with Modi, Prime Minister of India.
It is quite likely that Modi told her to play the terrorist card.
Modi does it in Kashmir by calling campaigners for
independence as "terrorists". USA and Europeans
are obsessed with terrorism to make it an acceptable
narrative. Good to see this column telling the truth.
By not withdrawing Nobel peace prize, Norway
would dilute its prestige.
to terrorists she was with Modi, Prime Minister of India.
It is quite likely that Modi told her to play the terrorist card.
Modi does it in Kashmir by calling campaigners for
independence as "terrorists". USA and Europeans
are obsessed with terrorism to make it an acceptable
narrative. Good to see this column telling the truth.
By not withdrawing Nobel peace prize, Norway
would dilute its prestige.
The author, unlike those commenting on this piece, is in Bangladesh among the Rohingya--and he has seen the result of Aung San Suu Kyi's silence and inaction first-hand. Those commenting on this piece and sitting in the safety of their comfortable lives cannot really pretend to know more about the situation and claim that Suu Kyi's really has noble sentiments. Instead of focusing on and arguing about stripping Suu Kyi of her Nobel Peace Prize, perhaps it would be more productive for the NYT, the media, and commentators to keep the spotlight on what is going on in this region. Perhaps it will shame some, including Suu Kyi, into doing the right thing.
A glance through the list of the individual recipients suggests that the Nobel Peace Prize is often awarded in response to actions, not given out as certification of unimpeachable character. If her actions as of 1991 were shown to be morally reprehensible, or if she did not in fact do those things specified in the award, then yes, it should be taken away. To rescind it for what she does (or in this case, does not do) 26 years later implies that the human suffering which those earlier actions addressed was not significant.
Let's not forget that others who have received the Prize have checkered histories. Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat come to mind, and one could even argue that some of Barack Obama's actions as president belied the promise that his 2009 prize acknowledged. Aung San Suu Kyi's status as Nobel Laureate should certainly be brought to bear on her current actions, and she should be pressed, hard, on her responsibility to live up to the honor bestowed upon her.
If rescinding the prize (from anyone) is a possibility, it should at least be done posthumously. For what if she does, in fact, speak up to condemn the military? Would she be reinstated? But what if she then did something equally reprehensible two years down the road?
Let's not forget that others who have received the Prize have checkered histories. Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat come to mind, and one could even argue that some of Barack Obama's actions as president belied the promise that his 2009 prize acknowledged. Aung San Suu Kyi's status as Nobel Laureate should certainly be brought to bear on her current actions, and she should be pressed, hard, on her responsibility to live up to the honor bestowed upon her.
If rescinding the prize (from anyone) is a possibility, it should at least be done posthumously. For what if she does, in fact, speak up to condemn the military? Would she be reinstated? But what if she then did something equally reprehensible two years down the road?
A 'Buddhist' that is completely intolerant isn't really a 'Buddhist' at all.
That is why organized religion is a crime against humanity. The Buddha would not approve of his name being used to engage in hatred or hostile behavior toward anybody. The Buddha practice peace and understanding.
That is why organized religion is a crime against humanity. The Buddha would not approve of his name being used to engage in hatred or hostile behavior toward anybody. The Buddha practice peace and understanding.
Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi and her generals are perpetrating shocking crimes against humanity. She clearly warrants being stripped of her Nobel Peace Prize. I find it startling that her ideas about freedom and dignity include only her corelgionaries.
1
I'm not sure J Jencks is correct in referring to the military as "the military rulers" since Burma or Myanmar (although many there still refer to their country as Burma) has been able to somewhat escape the domination of the armed forces since the "revolutions" of 2007 and 2010. But the Burmese armed forces still control 25 percent of the seats in Parliament, and exercise influence in many other ways, so it is clear there are severe limits on her power. I am not expert but it sounds like it's the Burmese military that is behind the horrible attacks. Their claim as I understand it (I visited Burma last February) is that most of the Rohinga are the descendants of undocumented immigrants who crossed over into the country from Bangladesh. But that doesn't make it any less a tragedy or less of a blight on the country. And it is a double-edged tragedy because it is taking attention and strength away from Aung San's valiant efforts to make Burma into a modern democracy. Likely to hurt tourism, too, which in recent years has been helping Burma finance further development.
Aung San Suu Kyi might not be responsible for the military or have control over them. But she has had multiple occasions to raise her voice and oppose this genocide, and she has not. Furthermore, characterizing the news on the military raids as "misinformation" or attributing the violence to "terrorists" is quite revealing of her real position on the subject. Someone who abets a genocide should never be a Nobel laureate; and yes, mostly because of the drone attacks carried by the US, Obama should return his prize too.
Yes, I understand most of the Rohingya were brought into Burma by the British, to work in sparsely populated areas in the west because there was very little local population. Most of the Rohingya in that area now are 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants from Bangladesh.
It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.
.....
.....
10
Black-Billed Cuckoo: A distinction without a difference.
1
Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi holds power in Myanmar solely because the Myanmar military, who held her under house arrest for so long, permits her to do so. Should she become openly critical of them or attempt to restrict their actions, she would quickly find herself deposed-- or worse-- and once more in peril herself. I am not saying this in any way morally justifies her stance on the Rohingya, but it goes some way toward explaining her actions-- or inactions-- on this matter. Personally, I feel sorry for her. In a a very real sense, she is still a prisoner, this time of her own situation.
30
By lying about what's happening and providing that cover for the military, she becomes complicit. At the very least she should have remained silent on the issue.
She has an obligation to all of us; but mostly to herself.
First, Suu Kyi was not elected, party was.
Second, she is not allow to hold that office under the constitution.
Third, she is not in charge of the army.
The generals are letting her lead the country as good will gesture to the International community, that is it, see reasons above.
I can go on and on of all the reasons why she can't do or say anything about the Rohingya. She is hoping to outlast these generals and by starting with elections with some form of a democracy, 20 years from now it will be a true democracy. I won't hold my breath for this, their neighbour, Thailand is still under the control of the military.
If she decide to speak her mind, she would be arrested and jail, not house arrest. She is the defacto leader not elected.
Stop asking the lady to comment.
Second, she is not allow to hold that office under the constitution.
Third, she is not in charge of the army.
The generals are letting her lead the country as good will gesture to the International community, that is it, see reasons above.
I can go on and on of all the reasons why she can't do or say anything about the Rohingya. She is hoping to outlast these generals and by starting with elections with some form of a democracy, 20 years from now it will be a true democracy. I won't hold my breath for this, their neighbour, Thailand is still under the control of the military.
If she decide to speak her mind, she would be arrested and jail, not house arrest. She is the defacto leader not elected.
Stop asking the lady to comment.
11
You are correct that Suu Kyi is not at the top of the power hierarchy. However, this fact did not stop her from "speaking her mind" when it came to demanding democracy and human rights for her people; for which she was arrested but also honored with a Nobel Prize. Now that her nation is commiting genocide, she seems to have lost her voice.
Suu Kyi may not be a Hitler, but she's also no Mandela.
Suu Kyi may not be a Hitler, but she's also no Mandela.
She was willing to endure house arrest before. What's different now? Oh right, she's not Rohingya. She's a coward. Silence = complicity.
Truly heart-breaking. Maybe she feels she cannot afford to speak truth to the military, but such calculations are unworthy of someone who maintained a non-violent resistance for so long, so well. The inspiring figure is caught by her feet of clay - we all have them, but they obscure the shine of the Nobel.
8
If the honor of a Nobel Prize was worth so much to begin with why do they have to give people a million dollars to go along with it? Because maybe those who get one really know the truth about it and wouldn't pick it up otherwise? Now I'm disappointed in Bob that he even wrote them a lecture. And we all see the good it did with Obama. Norwegians should just be content with supplying the world with lutefisk, they can just add the word Peace somewhere on that little wooden box the lutefisk comes in.
1
Did the committee rescind Wilson's award from 1919? Wilson announced a 14 Point peace plan and called for "open covenants openly arrived at" only to swing his support behind the brutal Treat of Versailles that led directly to the rise of Nazism and World war II
Did the committee rescind Kissinger's share of the 1973 award after the world discovered the many unethical and arguably illegal actions Kissinger supported such as bombings and incursions in Cambodia and Laos and the deliberate undermining of the government in Chile?
Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi's reluctance to take on the military is not the kind of courageous and self-sacrificing act that we might have expected of her when she won the award over 25 years ago. Perhaps having a position of political power after decades of house arrest has turned her into a politician. That's sad, but it doesn't merit revoking the award that recognized her actions at a very different time in her life.
Did the committee rescind Kissinger's share of the 1973 award after the world discovered the many unethical and arguably illegal actions Kissinger supported such as bombings and incursions in Cambodia and Laos and the deliberate undermining of the government in Chile?
Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi's reluctance to take on the military is not the kind of courageous and self-sacrificing act that we might have expected of her when she won the award over 25 years ago. Perhaps having a position of political power after decades of house arrest has turned her into a politician. That's sad, but it doesn't merit revoking the award that recognized her actions at a very different time in her life.
13
Myanmar's military is abusive to no end insofar the Rohingya predicament is concerned. As to why Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi remains silent, and looking the other way, while this human rights crisis is taking place is incomprehensible. Should we condemn her now, or await for her response, if any? If the benefit of the doubt is given, ought we find out if she is being muzzled, unable to speak? The genocidal intent seems evident. Are the Buddhists in connivance (complicit) with the Military? On religious grounds? Intolerance seems the driving force, not unheard of but always hateful and with disastrous results.
4
Even the greats among us, including Nobel Prize winners, are far from perfect. Remember how these Nobel awards came about? Enough said.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
2
There is no mechanism or precedent for withdrawing a Nobel Prize. In fact, once you have it, no one can make you give it back. Aung San Suu Kyi is simply one more failed politician whose struggle was once inspiring, but who has now become just like the people who oppressed her. Only rarely does a hero remain a hero after the revolution. The best heroes are killed or die shortly after the revolution, people like Gandhi and Mandela. Thus, they have no time to ruin their legacy.
1
There seems to be a mistaken belief that Suu Kyi is either responsible for what is happening to the Rohingya or has some power to stop it.
Neither is the case. She, as president, has no such power. The military junta, when they agreed to change the constitution and allow elections, wrote the new constitution in such a way as to preserve their power over their own budget, policing and national defense.
Suu Kyi can do nothing about the situation of the Rohingya. To focus criticism on her is counter-productive because it takes the focus away from where it should be, on the military rulers.
Neither is the case. She, as president, has no such power. The military junta, when they agreed to change the constitution and allow elections, wrote the new constitution in such a way as to preserve their power over their own budget, policing and national defense.
Suu Kyi can do nothing about the situation of the Rohingya. To focus criticism on her is counter-productive because it takes the focus away from where it should be, on the military rulers.
36
She could speak about it. She could say it is wrong. She could at least admit it is happening even if she doesn't want to stop it.
She is responsible for not standing against it which is a form of approval of it the military is using.
She is responsible for not standing against it which is a form of approval of it the military is using.
18
All of what you said is true and none of it contradicts my main point, which is that she has no real power in the situation and it is misguided effort on our part to try to pressure her. The pressure needs to be on the military leadership.
She could very well do what you say. But in going up against the military leadership in public she would quickly lose any influence she currently has.
She could very well do what you say. But in going up against the military leadership in public she would quickly lose any influence she currently has.
1
This relativism is so pervasive and nefarious. Poor Aung San Suu Kyi, she is one of the most powerful figures in Myanmar, but she can't do anything in favor of the Rohingya. Just like saying that US citizen can-t do anything against Trump and his actions. People can always do things. In the case of Aung San Suu Kyi, she could speak, denounce, demand, like she did in the past. Seems like she now has become too complacent in power. In the case of US citizens, we can 1) VOTE and 2) speak, denounce, complain, support alternatives. This position of "we can't do anything" is completely untenable.
We can do much. It just takes will.
We can do much. It just takes will.
The prize is given for the accomplishments up to the time of the prize. What’s going on now is controversial. History will judge each Nobel recipient.
I don’t believe there is any mechanism for “stripping” Nobel prizes. Linus Pauling (and a number of others) went a bit bonkers in their dotage, but certainly retained their prizes for the original contributions they made.
Criticize Aung San Suu Kyi if you will, but she earned her Nobel.
I don’t believe there is any mechanism for “stripping” Nobel prizes. Linus Pauling (and a number of others) went a bit bonkers in their dotage, but certainly retained their prizes for the original contributions they made.
Criticize Aung San Suu Kyi if you will, but she earned her Nobel.
34
Exactly. People goes with emotions. Without research anything. Can Aung San Suu Kyi exercise power 100%??
Burmese general will listen what she order to do??
Military still holding power 100% of defence and Internals affair with Immigration.
Jacob Judah has absolutely no knowledge about Myanmar's constitution.
Both sides have own stories. What did they do wrong with Rohingya? They brought arms and terrorist lately.
Burmese general will listen what she order to do??
Military still holding power 100% of defence and Internals affair with Immigration.
Jacob Judah has absolutely no knowledge about Myanmar's constitution.
Both sides have own stories. What did they do wrong with Rohingya? They brought arms and terrorist lately.
4
"What's going on now is controversial."???
To whom? You can earn respect and lose it. The Nobel is more than the watch you receive at retirement, it is a testament to you as a person, a testament you are supposed to live up to and maintain. I don't really think President Obama should have been given one and I don't think Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi deserves hers any longer.
To whom? You can earn respect and lose it. The Nobel is more than the watch you receive at retirement, it is a testament to you as a person, a testament you are supposed to live up to and maintain. I don't really think President Obama should have been given one and I don't think Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi deserves hers any longer.
Pauling won a prize for a scientific endeavor, not for they way he treated people.
It is interesting that when outside world calls her 'anti Muslim" the Buddhist nationalists are calling her " a Muslim lover". Obviously she is upset over what is happening in her Buddhist country where there is little sympathy for the Rohingya Muslims who are identified with Bangladesh. However, you cannot deny that Buddhist nationalism has taken over the country. Buddhist monks are preaching hatred against the Rohingya Muslims associating them with Islamic terrorism and promoting the belief that Islam is penetrating the country to install sharia law.( just like some Americans believe about the Syrian refugees) Aung San Sui is obviously afraid that she would lose the elections for favoring Muslims and she believes that she needs to be in government to deal with the backlash before she strongly expresses her opinions against Buddhist nationalism. That is not a justification for her silence but she only knows what is more important to her, keeping the Nobel prize or winning the elections.
21
"While Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi herself is not directly responsible for the military’s actions — in Myanmar, the military is answerable only to its own high command." These may be the most significant lines in this piece. The ruthless military ran the country for many years. If Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi were to condemn the military, what would happen to her? and to the country? It would revert to total military control, as it was before, with many more than the Rohingya in danger.
With her in nominal control, tourism has increased and with it, the economy and the standard of living for many Burmese. What is happening to the Rohigya is truly tragic. Blaming a woman who brought some balance to the country after sacrificing her freedom for more than 15 years seems a bit misogynistic, since the military command is responsible for the atrocities.
With her in nominal control, tourism has increased and with it, the economy and the standard of living for many Burmese. What is happening to the Rohigya is truly tragic. Blaming a woman who brought some balance to the country after sacrificing her freedom for more than 15 years seems a bit misogynistic, since the military command is responsible for the atrocities.
41
I feel exactly the same as you do.
You have more1000 times knowledge than Jacob Judah.
You have more1000 times knowledge than Jacob Judah.
2
Nobel prize confers a near deification on the recipient, the equivalent of secular sainthood. Regardless of what the committee thinks about their self-defined mission they cannot escape the fact that the recipient attains enormous moral authority as well as universal good will as a direct result of the prize. That is a form of political power conferred on the recipient by the committee. The committee has moral obligation to act, as without the prize Daw Aung San Suu Kyi would have not been sitting on the perch where she can look the other way as slaughter of innocent is carried out.
2
The Nobel Committee is hardly likely to withdraw the prize, but she will be remembered in history as little more than just another opportunist politician with all implied thereby.
15
The Nobel Peace Prize, often as not, is more an expression of hope than a "declaration of a saint," as one member of the board puts it. Aung San Suu Kyi is not the first laureate who falls short of those hopes. Refer to the Peres-Arafat-Rabin award. Whatever good work they may have accomplished, it was apparently not enough, and even at that time there serious doubts about whether all or any deserved the recognition. The award was given in the hope that it would encourage the best in them, and in the people who looked up them. Mr. Obama's award, famously, almost entirely reflected the aspirations he represented but had not -- and as yet has not -- achieved.
Aung San Suu Kyi, among others, weakens the value of the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, among the laureates there are some saints. But the most famous recipients do not necessarily represent the purpose or meaning of the prize. It is important for the international community to recognize the continuity, change, disappointments and aspirations that make human history; it is doubly important to recognize that good works, justice and progress cannot rely wholly on latter-day saints. There are vanishing few, if any. Humans, even the best of them, are complex.
The institution should set no precedent for rescinding a Nobel Prize. Instead, the public must challenge its assumptions about what the Peace Prize means: specifically, that it is meant to reflect the best hopes at the time it is given, based on what is then known.
Aung San Suu Kyi, among others, weakens the value of the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, among the laureates there are some saints. But the most famous recipients do not necessarily represent the purpose or meaning of the prize. It is important for the international community to recognize the continuity, change, disappointments and aspirations that make human history; it is doubly important to recognize that good works, justice and progress cannot rely wholly on latter-day saints. There are vanishing few, if any. Humans, even the best of them, are complex.
The institution should set no precedent for rescinding a Nobel Prize. Instead, the public must challenge its assumptions about what the Peace Prize means: specifically, that it is meant to reflect the best hopes at the time it is given, based on what is then known.
14
The policy of the Nobel Committees is that awards are given to honor past achievements and do not constitute a continuing endorsement of the future activities of the recipient.
It is fortunate that this is the case. We live in a time of strong emotions and universal advocacy. Disapproval of the actions of any prominent figure are met instantly with widespread public vilification and vociferous calls for the most extreme sanctions. If the Nobel Committees did have provisions for revoking Prizes, they would be at the center of never-ending public turmoil.
It is fortunate that this is the case. We live in a time of strong emotions and universal advocacy. Disapproval of the actions of any prominent figure are met instantly with widespread public vilification and vociferous calls for the most extreme sanctions. If the Nobel Committees did have provisions for revoking Prizes, they would be at the center of never-ending public turmoil.
44
I can think of all sorts of pressure that could be put on the Myanmar state to modify it's behavior toward the Rohinga, but I fail to see what good at all pulling the Nobel could do. Shouldn't the aim be to somehow improve the situation?
In what way would withdrawing the prize and isolating Aung from the Western community of sympathizers make anything better? Anyone have any better ideas?
In what way would withdrawing the prize and isolating Aung from the Western community of sympathizers make anything better? Anyone have any better ideas?
26
As a contemporary at university of Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi and a fellow alumnus, I am deeply embarrassed by her silence. She is betraying all those who supported her for so long.
p.
p.
66
Quite right, too, but it's worth remembering that Aung is to some extent still the prisoner of the military, upon whose tolerance she depends. It still does not make sense to me to cast her from the ranks of the virtuous and yet expect her to regain her virtue.
1
I am also deeply embarrassed. I am deeply embarrassed by the display of ignorance and lack of critical thinking in this and so many comments. I suspect that those who are screaming loudest "strip her of the award" and "throw her from the pedestal" could a few years ago not hold back their pride and praise of brave ASSK as she seemed to be one of them and after all educated in Oxford. This is the arrogance of arm chair moralists in the West who obviously feel, "we made her, we can break her".
This article of a "helicopter expert" and second year student is reflecting the ever same narrative that we read for years about the Rohingyas in op-eds without ever scratching the surface. Single issue advocacy groups have been pushing the debate about ethnic cleansing and genocide since 2009/2010. That's when the money rolled in from the Organization of Islamic Countries. We have to ask who has interest in prolonging this crisis?
Northern Rakhine is a shatter belt. The crisis developed over so many decades (and actually goes back to the reckless colonial capitalist and free immigration policy of the British(!) in the region starting in 1824. Btw. why are so many Brits so ignorant about their utterly immoral, colonial past and the disasters that they have caused?).
ASSK is a late comer to this whole mess. She is certainly overwhelmed by the sheer complexity. But before throwing mud at her, I would start to use critical thinking skills and read up.
This article of a "helicopter expert" and second year student is reflecting the ever same narrative that we read for years about the Rohingyas in op-eds without ever scratching the surface. Single issue advocacy groups have been pushing the debate about ethnic cleansing and genocide since 2009/2010. That's when the money rolled in from the Organization of Islamic Countries. We have to ask who has interest in prolonging this crisis?
Northern Rakhine is a shatter belt. The crisis developed over so many decades (and actually goes back to the reckless colonial capitalist and free immigration policy of the British(!) in the region starting in 1824. Btw. why are so many Brits so ignorant about their utterly immoral, colonial past and the disasters that they have caused?).
ASSK is a late comer to this whole mess. She is certainly overwhelmed by the sheer complexity. But before throwing mud at her, I would start to use critical thinking skills and read up.
4
Aung San Suu Kyi has abdicated her role as the defacto head of the government. She has brought shame unto herself for her self-serving comments and complete inaction against the horrors, catastrophic damage and purges being perpetrated by the ruthless military against the Rohingya, her people.
The Rohingya, who were prohibited from voting by the vicious junta, nonetheless supported her when she was running for election in the hope she could effect change.
She has colossally failed them and others who believed in her.
She must be stripped of her Nobel Prize.
The Rohingya, who were prohibited from voting by the vicious junta, nonetheless supported her when she was running for election in the hope she could effect change.
She has colossally failed them and others who believed in her.
She must be stripped of her Nobel Prize.
14
She has failed, yes, but she has abdicated nothing. Whatever power she has is given to her by the military, and whatever power she doesn't have is withheld by the military. This is in accordance not with her demands, but with the people's demands, and it is not news that the people (namely, the ethnic Burmese supermajority) hate the Rohingya.
Aung San Suu Kyi represented the hope of true democracy, but make no mistake: Myanmar is not yet a democracy. I'm in no hurry to defend her silence, but people should understand that democracy, her ultimate prerogative, is a fifty-year dream: which the people, by the junta's design, poorly understand. To defy the junta now may mean the end of that dream. This now-international tragedy, and this tragic personal failure, serve as a lesson to all about the dire challenges facing a hermit nation entering the world stage, developing a modern progressive politic, and in defeating the ancient and powerful forces of ethnonationalism...And remember that many older, better-off democracies have also had atrocious first chapters, including my own.
Aung San Suu Kyi represented the hope of true democracy, but make no mistake: Myanmar is not yet a democracy. I'm in no hurry to defend her silence, but people should understand that democracy, her ultimate prerogative, is a fifty-year dream: which the people, by the junta's design, poorly understand. To defy the junta now may mean the end of that dream. This now-international tragedy, and this tragic personal failure, serve as a lesson to all about the dire challenges facing a hermit nation entering the world stage, developing a modern progressive politic, and in defeating the ancient and powerful forces of ethnonationalism...And remember that many older, better-off democracies have also had atrocious first chapters, including my own.
6
Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi has certainly shown herself to be unworthy of this honor. Stripping her of the prize would not only be the honorable thing to do, but such a dramatic gesture would call public, worldwide attention to the genocide being committed against the Rohingya. I hope that other Peace Prize laureates will echo this call for rescinding the award.
28
How tragic that two symbols of tolerance would fall together.
The Nobel laureate and Buddhist religion had both been held as paragons of peace and tolerance.
No wonder Salman Rushdie is no longer interested in writing magic realism or any kind of fiction for that matter.
The times we live for in call for a return to clear thinking
and the firming up of moral values and behavior.
The Nobel laureate and Buddhist religion had both been held as paragons of peace and tolerance.
No wonder Salman Rushdie is no longer interested in writing magic realism or any kind of fiction for that matter.
The times we live for in call for a return to clear thinking
and the firming up of moral values and behavior.
46
I guess you missed the advance publicity on Rushdie's brand new novel. And you seem to imply that magical realism somehow runs contrary to "clear thinking" and "moral values and behavior." The history of that genre among those who deploy it artfully feeds both.
5
There's nothing wrong with Buddhism but your interpretation of it.
2
A writer can run out of gas for many reasons. We'll see whether Salman Rushdie can produce good work within the tight confines of non-fiction or strict social realism. That was how writers were controlled in the Soviet Union. Non-fiction or social realism -- the same thing you're calling for now. That was why Brezhnev put two Soviet science fiction writers in a labor camp for five years each for the crime of publishing science fiction in France because it was banned in the Soviet Union.
I don't see a man with Rushdie's richly hyperactive imagination subjecting himself to Soviet-style self-censorship.
And it disturbs me enormously to see you arguing for Soviet-style confines on writers now here in America, after they abandoned those types of controls on the imagination of Russian writers in Russia because it was a blind alley that led nowhere.
I don't see a man with Rushdie's richly hyperactive imagination subjecting himself to Soviet-style self-censorship.
And it disturbs me enormously to see you arguing for Soviet-style confines on writers now here in America, after they abandoned those types of controls on the imagination of Russian writers in Russia because it was a blind alley that led nowhere.