Perhaps we should look at what our Abrahamic dogmas have done to the humanity.
5
Personally I think the leadership of Facebook should be on trial as well - it’s well documented that their platform facilitated the massacres
6
"My enemies enemy is my friend (for now)". This applies to Aung San Suu Kyi in her delicate balancing act between the military and the buddhist community. I am sure she is abhorred by what happened to the Rohingya Muslims but understands the pressing need is to bring a win for Myanmar and get concessions to crawl back from isolation for the ongoing genocide and military action against insurgents (some who have also committed war crimes, there are no saints on either side of the conflict, just casualties)
The real test will be if she will be able to make reconciliations between the buddhists and muslims in Myanmar happen in her lifetime.
Anything short of that goal will be the sacrifice of yet another minority population in yet another country where inequality reigns.
The West is very familiar with its own dark history of inequality and treating other humans as "lesser beings". Although it may be less about religious following and more about economic inequality in the West, it is inequality that is at the heart of this matter world wide. When the human race makes the world unsustainable, it will be the ones at winning side of inequality that ensure they make it and the others go the way of the Rohingya Muslims.
The tragedy playing out in Myanmar will play out around the world soon unless we can enforce accountability and ensure transparency around the world. So we want Myanmar to behave? Why don't we start at home first.
3
I know that Aung San Sui Ki has been viewed as a saint in the West, but what do we really know about her? The military can crush her in a moment, and a noble speech in defense of the Rohinga could lead to her death. I'd like to know what all the self righteous critics who have sprung up all over the place would do in her position?
8
Two things to note here. A one time Nobel Peace Prize winner supports a diabolic military regime. A peaceful religion, Buddhism, has become a religion of hate towards an Islamic group. Both these outcomes are hard to imagine and speak volumes about how the tide can turn towards a minority group,
Sadly bastions of human rights are falling by the wayside with prejudice and hatred. Right now a similar hatred is being spread in India towards its minority Muslims. Here in the good old USA, Trump and the GOP is spreading hate towards Hispanics and people of color. The list goes on and on.
In a time (of Xmas) where peace, love and happiness should be spread we are finding just the opposite. Maybe instead of handing out presents, everyone should make a promise to just love one another and remove any hatred in our hearts and minds.
4
One need only look at the vicious and war-mongering rhetoric of Wirathu—the monk leading the anti-Rohingya charge—to understand the heinous nature of this slaughter. To him, the UN itself is "bought and paid for" by "Islamists." Suu Kyi has indeed tarnished her once great reputation, and the ICJ at The Hague should make that explicitly clear.
14
I saw the movie Beyond Rangoon with Patricia Arquette that portrayed the military in Rangoon as corrupt and evil and Aung San Suu Kyi as a savior of the oppressed. Now I am seen that she, the Nobel prize winner is now as corrupt at the military she now defends.
11
Sadly, it seems the world, instead of becoming more tolerant, is becoming divided, using religion as the cover. Just like medieval times!
China's 'clamp down' on Muslins and Buddhists, discord in India on religion, the middle east Shia vs Sunni, on and on. It was very sad to the Buddhists in Burma so violent, where as the Buddha was a man of nonviolence and compassion. Very sad, indeed.
4
Her father was a political turncoat as well, quickly shifting allegiance from Japan to Britain as the tide turned during WWII.
4
The Rohingya were mostly brought there as laborers by the English so the English should be responsible for them.
3
Why has the Nobel Committee not revoked Ms. Kyi's prize and demanded return of funds? There can be no doubt that she is a blight on the Prize as well as an absoulte disgrace to humanity and civility.
16
Truly admire Gambia for taking her to The Hague. It’s a shame other powerful countries did not step up and show interest or courage.
8
Suu Kyi never hoodwinked anyone.
The media hoodwinked themselves—especially journalists like Nicholas Kristof who turned her into a Christ-like figure. And the media—in turn—hoodwinked the world.
In contrast to the Western media's deification of her as the next Gandhi, Suu Kyi was always a cold-hearted pragmatist who would stop at nothing to attain power. The Tatmadaw elites grasped this facet of her personality quite well.
As the daughter of Major General Aung San, Suu Kyi has always been a Machiavellian schemer, and she will die as one. Nothing more; nothing less. So why did the Western media portray her otherwise? Why did they deify her?
I have read all of Suu Kyi's books. As she often says: "Show me where I ever said any of the silly things about protecting human rights which the media claimed I said." Believe it or not, she's correct. Go read her books and notice her words.
Most of Suu Kyi's books are surprisingly xenophobic, militantly sectarian, and unabashedly nationalist. Did any of her Manhattan yuppie fans even bother reading her works? Apparently not. Did any of the journalists in the Eighth Avenue tower actually read her books? Apparently not.
21
Kissinger also won the Peace Prize for giving South Vietnam to the Communists
3
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is evil. She is a Nobel Peace Prize winner that defends her government sponsored mass murder, ethnic cleansing, internment/concentration camps, genocide, genocide denial, mass rape - obscenely calling it “fake rape” instead.
Her Nobel Peace Prize should be revoked. She should be personally tried in the International Criminal Court along with Myanmar’s generals, that she defends, that have committed mass atrocities and genocide against the minority Rohingya Muslim population.
The first Noble Peace Prize winner tried in the ICC for genocide.
10
How it started...Can we have truth on this episode.. These rohingyas are even not accepted in nearby muslim country like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia etc...the question is why? When every islamic country talks about brotherhood. The fact of matter is that these rohingyas did raped , killed innocents and they were forcing to convert people to Islam. They butchered thousands of Hindus...Why human right not talk about innocents killed by them. Why Ang san suu kyi is silent ? She knew the fact. We should look on truth of both sides.
5
What’s the source of this nonsense? The BJP? Wonder if the recent sectarian action by the Indian government to strip native born Indian Muslims of citizenship is based on similar line of ‘reasoning’. Bigotry and hatred are quickly turning the largest democracy in the world into a hotbed of violence. Mahatma Gandhi has already turned in his grave.
3
@Sanjay: As someone who grew up in this part of the world, I have NO knowledge about the allegations you make about the Rohinga (and very much suspect that you have none either - pure fabrications!) Regardless of fabrications/allegations of SOME of these people, for you to lump ALL Rohinga as murderers is simply OUTRAGEOUS! This kind of talk encourages mindless hatred for people (by default innocent) of another group leading to the 'ethnic cleansing' that the Rohinga in Myanmar have suffered..
4
@Victor
The Rohingya Muslims absolutely did slaughter hundreds of innocent Myanmar Hindus. Look it up. They are not all the innocent victims they pretend to be.
3
Is there a precedent for having a Nobel Peace Prize removed? Having a recipient support a genocide demeans the prize.
6
It is a shame and disgrace for the once champion of human rights turning into a genocide killer. Hope the lawyers for prosecution make her a laughing stock in the world.
2
It is disheartening to see an icon for peace turn into an apologist for ethnic cleansing. It is even sadder to see the support she has in Myanmar where people have chosen to applaud her actions and look away from the suffering of the Rohingya minority. This has echoes of the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews while the Germans applauded Hitler and the world looked away until it became impossible to ignore.
3
If she does this, please take away her Noble prize and put her on the sanction list with Kim, Maduro and Khomeni.
2
It is disappointing the New York Times insists on providing Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi with the "Daw" honorific. She is undeserving of that title.
3
This will not end well for the Rohingya or for any of us who are appalled and horrified at what we're seeing. That's because the international system is not designed to stop genocide or hold its perpetrators accountable. The system is designed to support the status quo. They desire to *contain* genocide, not to stop it. As long as the genocide is in one region of one country and does not affect international markets, the current international system will not help.
The UN was created as a successor to the League of Nations, itself a spiritual successor to the Congress of Vienna. The UN is supposed to prevent another WWII, the League was supposed to prevent another WWI, and the Congress was supposed to prevent another Napoleon (and the republican ideals which created his power). The Congress was an instrument of the conservative, monarchist status quo. The League tried to maintain the status quo by allowing Hitler and Mussolini to do as they pleased as long as they remained within (or near) their borders. The UN and the international court system serve a similar function: prevent violence from affecting the international markets.
And what is the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize? They gave it to Obama before he showed them he was just as much a war criminal as Bush was, and now the headline apologist for a genocidal regime's got one sitting on her shelf.
2
It is disheartening to see Aung San Suu Kyi, an icon for peace become an apologist for ethnic cleansing. It is sadder to see the support of the people of Myanmar for this woman while the Rohingya minority continues to endure mass murder and rapes. This has echoes of the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis while the German people supported Hitler's criminality. It is about time for the world to expose these criminal acts in Myanmar and the role Aung San Suu Kyi has played in defending them.
1
Time to take back that Nobel...
2
Power corrupts even good people.
3
I think people here don't appreciate the difficulty of her position. The military still controls the country by controlling the armed forces, the police, and a large part of the economy; she mostly controls civil policy matters like public health and education, etc.
So on this issue, she only has two options: 1) Be a martyr and do a symbolic fight, and then wait for a military coup to happen again and go to prison until she dies; or 2) Work within the system to slowly erode the military's power while building Myanmar's economy and society. She chose option #2, which frankly helps a lot more people.
If she chose option #1, the military dictatorship will be back and they will once again destroy everyone's lives and the military might crack down on the Rohingya even harder. Option #1 = every one loses; Option #2 = almost every one wins except the Rohingya, but over time Myanmar becomes a more stable and prosperous country.
If you do it by the number of people you help, Option #2 is the obviously better moral choice.
PS if Gambia or the West really care about this issue instead of just enjoying being sanctimonious, they could issue refugee visas to all the Rohingya and make them residents or citizens.
11
@NYCresident
I think you don't appreciate the difficulty of the position of the Rohingya. Aung San Suu Kyi has shown repeatedly that she does not care about the plight of the Rohingya and would prefer if the issue were to just go away.
Your first option (that she should fight a losing battle with the military) is what she should do. That's what she's expected to do, being a recipient of the Peace Prize (which seems to mean nothing now).
If she chose option 1 and the military became dictators again, she'd be in the same position she was when she had integrity. There's no loss there. It's also not likely to happen. By choosing option 2, she sends a message to everyone: the Rohingya do not deserve human rights because *I* want to be in control.
Issuing refugee visas to the Rohingya would be a way to demonstrate callous, ignorant indifference to their situation. The Rohingya are in their home country, which is where they ache to stay. To separate them from their homes because we won't do anything to help them stay where they have a right to would add injury and insult to insult and injury.
When you talk about "the West", I hope you can differentiate between our evil capitalist overlords (seriously, I wish I could help with that) and people who believe genocide is wrong.
2
I lived in the Rohinga refugee camp for two months in spring 2019. I have heard the stories. I have seen the conditions in the refugee camp. No one would flee to that camp with just the things they can carry unless the attacks were real. There have been large, coordinated attacks against the Rohinga.
45
@Geoff
Please share more about your experiences if you're able. People need to know. A letter to the editor of the Times would be likely to get published.
5
Easy to criticize. Step back and ask: in Aung San Suu Kyi's position, what is the best way to affect change? From the inside? Or as a martyr. I think she's had a belly full of being a martyr. And recognizes that martyring herself for this cause would achieve nothing. Except to make westerners praise her, for a news cycle or two, then move on.
She is enormously popular in Myanmar. I spent a week there two years ago. Her picture is everywhere. Young people in particular look to her as a figure who can lead their country to a better place.
But hers is a soft power; the military still has the ultimate control. She has limited degrees of freedom to accomplish her vision. The fate of her country relies on her ability to walk a fine line. She has chosen to work within her reality and watch her ability to positively affect change increase. Incrementally. And over time, be in a position to lead more forcefully.
She has become a pragmatist.
From a world away, where people provide advice on comment pages without actually saying her name - because more than likely, they do not actually know it - it's easy to advise her. But following that advice would make Aung San Suu Kyi as effective as other well intentioned outsiders. Which is not effective at all.
18
I agree about the soft power analysis, but there is unfortunately no excuse for defending genocide. She could have claimed she had a cold and had to stay home, or tweeted out a moral cry, I’m sorry I just can’t defend genocide. Now she looks like she played the martyr just as a power grab.
12
@Dred
In the meantime, let the army continue their ethnic cleansing of a suffering minority that have zero power to defend themselves? This is what you call pragmatism, I call it criminal, unconscionable and similar to what many Germans did as the Jews were exterminated in concentration camps, just pretend it is not happening and/or look away.
7
@Dred
It is wrong to try to work within a system when that system is carrying out genocide. It is wrong to be a pragmatist when your compromise involves allowing the perpetrators of genocide to continue their war.
Your argument that her actions are okay because people support her is facile. You ever see Hitler's polling numbers? Outstanding support.
If you believed the Rohingya were human people, you would not be able to hold this position.
7
I think we in the West always saw what we wanted to see in her, rather than for what she really is: a religious partisan. It’s always tempting to project one’s own hopes and desires onto another, and I think we as a society have done that with her. Now we just need to adjust our perceptions to match reality.
56
@Greg Yes, like Modi. They pretend to be good people while they hate and attack others based on their religion telling them jihad is good.
4
@David I may be wrong, but Modi is not a divider but a uniter (perhaps too keen a pragmatist but not an ideologue!). He is no Mahatma Gandhi, but I would not equate him with the low-grade that Aung San Suu Kyi appears to now be!
How could she got corrupted so easily? But I am unsurprised- most of the south asia becoming more and more intolerant.
5
@chakumi :Sadly, so has most of the world. What's encouraging is the amount of protesters in so many countries around the world against these corrupt regimes. I thought I missed out on the societal and cultural upheavals of the 1960s, the decade in which I was born. Now, not so much.
8
@chakumi - perhaps she hadn’t been corrupted. Perhaps many people saw what they wanted to see, and didn’t see what was right in front of their noses.
7
@stevevelo I'm not sure it was right in front of our noses. She played the part of a tortured soul fighting her country's oppressors and being suppressed for it.
What we missed because she hid it very well, that she only opposed who was in charge of the oppressors. As long as it was her, she embraced their methods and agenda which was in fact her own.
3
Not to simply be contrarian, but maybe she knows what she's talking about? Easy to consider how horrible someone's reaction appears, without taking into account what lead up to it.
12
@JonathanM
The International Court of Justice does not take cases lightly. The ethnic cleansing of Rohingya people -- including mass murder, infanticide, torture, mass rape, and the deliberate burning of entire towns -- has been documented by dozens of independent aid groups and journalists from many countries.
49
@JonathanM: Really? Genocide against a people because that group has radicals fighting for more freedom? I never agree with violence unless used in self-defense. but persecuting an entire people for a few bad apples is horrifying.
23
@JonathanM Have you ever actually spoken to someone from the region? I've taught many refugee children who are Rohingya muslims and the stories they recount about the ways they were treated in Myanmar still haunt me.
14
Sadly, it seems like we never knew her at all.
24
I struggle to think of anyone who has risen so high in the moral universe of human admiration, and fallen so far, so swiftly.
We all make mistakes. What makes us human is not some shield of infallibility, but rather the chance—the grace—to see our mistakes and to move in a different direction.
But simply to put one’s foot down and defend the utterly indefensible is unaccountable. I literally find myself unable to see the same person who once attracted the adulation of the whole world.
That it is race and religion—the same toxic mix we are facing in the United States with white conservative evangelical support for Trump—is all the more disturbing.
I am a Christian. But I do not believe that Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, or anyone, have the right to legally establish their religion, and exclude others. Freedom of religion is basic to the US Constitution, basic to the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and in my view basic to the gospel.
The use of religion to exclude and ultimately to hurt and destroy is a blasphemy of God’s holy name.
32
@Paul C. McGlasson - another possibility is that your view of humanity is not accurate. With the exception of psychopaths, most people are both nice and nasty, kind and cruel. The closer they are to others, the more likely they are to be nice, but it’s not guaranteed. Religion doesn’t make people nice - in most cases it’s a rationalization of deep hereditary impulses to strengthen group boundaries and solidarity (all primates do this, but we’re the ones that talk about it). Many of the foulest behaviors of society (the Inquisition, the Holocaust, medieval religious wars, etc.) were driven by religion.
8
The real tragedy here is the loss of trust. Thousands believed in organizations like Amnesty International, or bands like U2 who championed for her (Most of U2’s 2009 Tour was dedicated to her) and now feel like we were taken for a spin. Next time, will people blindly believe again?
28