# Aung San Suu Kyi.. The Fall of a Human Rights Icon..

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Bells, Sep 15, 2017.

1. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
17,541
It will be interesting to discover the final outcome of the report tabled in the UN by the Independent Advisory Commission on Rakhine state, headed by the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and commissioned by Aung San Suu Kyi's government.

“We welcome the release of the comprehensive report of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine state and take note of its emphasis on issues related to identity and citizenship, particularly its call for freedom of movement for all people,” said UN Spokesman Stéphane Dujarric at today's regular press briefing in New York.
He also acknowledged its endorsement “to address the root causes of violence and reduce inter-communal violence.”
(24/08/2017)
====
The report is the outcome of more than 150 consultations and meetings held by the Advisory Commission since its launch in September 2016. Its members have travelled extensively throughout Rakhine state, and held meetings in Yangon and Naypyitaw, Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh and Geneva.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=57408#.WctKW9Fx2Uk

The final report:
see attachment

#### Attached Files:

• ###### FinalReport_Eng.pdf
File size:
373 KB
Views:
2
Last edited: Sep 27, 2017

3. ### BellsStaff Member

Messages:
22,192

The problem with the Commission is that she appointed the members and limited the scope of their investigation and the commission itself.

And even with those restrictions in place, it found that the restrictions of movement, the marriage laws, the laws that restricted birthrates of the Rohingya, the refusal to allow them to regain their citizenship, constituted violations of their rights and that the Myanmar Government had to address these. The report also stated that violence against them and other minority groups must end and if it continued, would just make things worse.

Obviously neither her Government, the military or she herself have taken note of that report. Instead, since that report was released, the military has launched vicious attacks on the Rohingya, she has defended military action, denied their ongoing operations, spread propaganda against the Rohingya.

Was her request for the report just for show? Given that at the start of this year, she refused to provide visas for UN investigators to investigate crimes committed against the Rohingya (just as the Annan commission were denied the right to investigate human rights violations), I do not expect her to do anything to alter the situation for the better. Instead, as her speech indicated recently, she and her Government intend to continue with the same laws that Annan's commission advised against - by which I mean the citizenship laws as a prime example.

It is safe to say that she is a great disappointment. Her Government and her NLD Party have even taken to using the same laws that she once decried, laws which allows the Government to sue and imprison any who criticise her or her Government.

The NLD’s parliamentary majority gives it the ability to amend and remove oppressive laws, including the notorious 66D clause in the telecommunications law that has been used to jail scores of people for Facebook posts critical of the government and army. But, instead, senior NLD officials began using it with an order to pursue some of the cases against critics coming from the highest levels of government.

By the start of 2017, at least 38 people had been charged with online defamation, some unrelated to the NLD, including two men who allegedly went on a drunken rant about Aung San Suu Kyi and one who called her puppet president, Htin Kyaw, an “idiot”.

To quote Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr... "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.."

5. ### pjdude1219screw watergate i want to know about zaragateValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,685
yes at least i view it as such

7. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
34,751
[#Rohingya]

I wonder to what degree this is really about us, who are just watching and judging from afar.

On Sept. 19, Suu Kyi condemned rights abuses in Rakhine state and said violators would be punished. While Western diplomats and aid officials welcomed the tone of her message, some doubted if she had done enough to deflect global criticism.

Dan Smith, the director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize might even have harmed the Rohingya.

"She has an aura," he said of Suu Kyi, adding that maybe her stellar international reputation "masked the true awfulness" of abuses over many years of the Rohingya.

"When she responded to questions about the Rohingya by saying 'why are you focusing on them, not on other issues?', people were inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt."

The interesting thing about Fouche and Doyle's↱ consideration of the Suu Kyi question for Reuters is the pressing anxiety seeking a way to let her escape the burden:

Suu Kyi was the rare winner, like Nelson Mandela, to rise from political prisoner to national leader. Mandela stepped down after five years as South Africa's first black president with his reputation largely unblemished, but some of his allies from the apartheid-era liberation movement faced scandals in office.

"Maybe it's this move from the image of the bold, heroic defender of human rights and ordinary people ... into what is inevitably a more grubby world of politics where compromises are made" that tarnishes reputations, said Smith.

Inevitability is as inevitability will; the inevitability of a grubby world of politics where reputations are tarnished is what it is, but what does it mean compared to the new discussion about reduced migration?

The flood of Rohingya refugees into Bangladesh has come to a virtual halt, Dhaka officials said Saturday, almost a month after violence erupted in Myanmar's Rakhine State and sent nearly 430,000 people fleeing across the border.

Officials gave no reason for the dramatically reduced numbers. But Rohingya Muslim leaders said it could be because villages located near the border in Myanmar's Rakhine state were now empty.

Bangladesh Border Guard commanders said hardly any refugees are now seen crossing on boats coming from Myanmar or trying to get over the land border.

Because this is also the inevitability of a grubby world of politics witnessing mass murder, sends thousands of refugees on dangerous flights for slightly less dangerous safety, and leaves the villages located near the border empty.

Some days the distinction 'twixt ethnic cleansing and genocide seems a question of how many intended targets escape; compared to history, this is insufficient. The question of the Rohingya as the new Palestinians, for instance, presents an interesting assessment of the ummah, but only reminds that whatever else, the grubby world of politics is not yet prepared to ... er ... ah ... okay, why must it be Iran?

Seeking more action to defend the Rohingya, Iranian Second Deputy Parliament Speaker Ali Motahari called on Muslim-majority countries to raise a Muslim-led expeditionary force to go rescue the fleeing Rohingya. Iran's chief rival—Saudi Arabia—tweeted its condemnation. "Acting upon [our] responsibility as leader of the Islamic Ummah, Saudi Arabia has called for a resolution to condemn the atrocities and human rights violations."

That is to say, at least someone is thinking on their feet; unfortunately, it's Iran, and when it comes right down to it, the world will line up with Saudi Arabia's responsibility as ... oh, for the love of ....

Never mind. Point is, Iran has an idea, and whether it's the best or not is a very interesting consideration compared to the dearth of similarly potentially useful alternatives.

While the rate of new arrivals has declined, the U.N. says it has received reports of more people trying to cross the border from Myanmar. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs says the scale of the emergency is far greater than previously anticipated.

Officials say they are revising their initial response plan, which calls for anywhere from $77 million to$200 million to meet urgent needs over the next six months. U.N. refugee spokesman Adrian Edwards says the massive influx of people seeking safety is outpacing the ability of aid agencies to respond.

He told VOA the needs of the Rohingya are huge and aid must be increased urgently.

"If we do not see an urgent stepping up, people are not going to get what they need. The health risks are going to become all the more acute there. The ability to deal with people will not be sufficient. Shelter needs will not be sufficient. The number of latrines there will not be sufficient, which relates to the health and other needs. And, overall, people are going to suffer."

(Schlein↱)
____________________

Notes:

Agence France-Presse. "Bangladesh says the Rohingya migration has slowed to a halt". Public Radio International. 23 September 2017. PRI.org. 27 September 2017. http://bit.ly/2wX0LhP

Considine, Craig. "The Rohingya Are the New Palestinians". Foreign Policy. 26 September 2017. ForeignPolicy.com. 27 September 2017. http://atfp.co/2xGrRxq

Fouche, Gwladys and Alister Doyle. "War and the prize: how some Nobel laureates turn away from peace". Reuters. 27 September 2017. http://reut.rs/2xLOLUm

Schlein, Lisa. "UN: Rohingya Refugee Crisis Could Turn Into Disaster Without More Help". Voice of America. 26 September 2017./ VOANews.com. 27 September 2017. http://bit.ly/2wWF5XV

8. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
17,541
and there appears to be a problem building as reported by our ABC news team here in Australia.

Due to the Refugees seemingly working towards the idea of staying in Bangladesh due to as one refugee is quoted as responding to questions about the permanency of the camp they are currently building:

It gives you the sense that the Rohingya Muslims who have fled here expect to be staying a while, and certainly that's true of every refugee with whom the ABC has spoken in recent weeks.
"Why would we return to be slaughtered?" they invariably respond when asked if they would to go back to Myanmar."

Which supports my earlier assessment that the Rohingya do not necessarily wish to return... well certainly not yet.
Don't worry I do not expect an apology for being slammed for suggesting such a thing by other posters to this thread.

The Rohingya asylum seekers are displaying incredible resilience and adaptability to their tragic and stateless circumstances. IMO

The fear though is that local Bangladesh civilians may decide to persecute the Rohingya in the desire to send them back to Myanmar, creating an impossible catch 22 situation.

I mentioned earlier also that if the UN leased the land for the settlement and invited locals to supply services and goods thus improving the value of the situation by generating jobs and local wealth to the Bangladesh Government and people a more sustainable solution may be found. There needs to be a business solution (commercial) as well as a humanitarian one IMO.
====
Unless the world wishes to force regime change upon Myanmar, as Bells is advocating, Aung San Suu Kyi is their only hope... IMO

I am looking forward to seeing some sort of contribution to the topic from you pjdude1219!
I know you are smart enough to add value to this thread....

=========================================
As I am being heavily moderated I ask:

Is this post trolling?
Is this post on topic?
Is this post appropriate content?

Last edited: Sep 28, 2017
9. ### BellsStaff Member

Messages:
22,192
Well they cannot return right now, considering the Burmese are currently in ethnic cleansing and genocide phase.

Until the Burmese Government reinstates their citizenship and their safety and protection as human beings is guaranteed, they are in no position to return. To wit, if they returned right now, they would be slaughtered.

Which is why Rohingya diaspora group agenda and aims demand that their citizenship be reinstated as a start, QQ.

Some of them will not want to go back, which is understandable, but at present, they cannot return, not just because the Burmese Government has made it impossible for them to return, but also because if they do return, they would be returning to a country that is actively pursuing an agenda of genocide and ethnic cleansing against them.

They cannot and will not return until Myanmar's laws and Government and military policy towards them changes, such as the citizenship laws, allowing them freedom of movement again, marriage law changes, etc.. They cannot return until this is addressed, because failure to address these human rights issues will just see a continuation of the violence they have already endured.

10. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
17,541
Then the settlements (camps) being created will most likely be there for a long time.
Even under urgent need laws take ages to change in a functioning democracy. In this case we have a government that has a large number of military .
• Peoples assembly : 440, 110 of which are nominated by the military
• The House of Nationalities: 224, 56 of which are nominated by the military.
src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Myanmar
( I am not confident about what I have posted - more research needed)
The amount of intimidation the military nominees would be applying also needs to be considered.

The chances of major law reform in the immediate to short term are pretty slim I would think.

There is a significant problem about citizenship that is not going to be easy to resolve at all...

It is, regardless of causation and history of persecution etc an inability of any one whether Myanmar Government or other, impossible to determine the issue of citizenry with out resorting to individual verbal testimony.
For many legal reasons this would be unacceptable.
It is true that the past governments have been responsible for the destruction of it records but how are they going to fix the mess they have deliberately created other than offering amnesty and nation wide citizen rights to any one who wishes to make a claim for it?

An intractable and virtually impossible situation ....IMO

Do you have any ideas about how a person with out any identity records or documents can be granted citizenship other than by starting afresh as if they have never lived their to begin with?

Perhaps they can rely on the documents/identity cards the Bangladesh Government is creating?

Last edited: Sep 28, 2017
11. ### BellsStaff Member

Messages:
22,192
It's not so much being created as it has just developed. They are lacking in everything, the Rohingya who have recently arrived there have set up camp with what they managed to bring with them and donations. They are not allowed to leave those zones and their movements are again restricted. It is a disaster in the making.

The military makes up a portion of the Government, but Aung San Suu Kyi's NLD party makes up the majority of their parliament. In other words, the citizenship laws that stripped them of their citizenship could easily be overturned if the NLD Party decided to vote on it.

The insidious nature of what they are doing though, makes that unlikely. When Aung San Suu Kyi stated a few weeks ago, that those who could prove their status as Burmese would have a right of return, harked back to those laws, which determine that Rohingya who can prove they were there from the 1800's, can be granted citizenship.. That means less than 1% of Rohingya are eligible.

I say it is insidious because her Government (and she, in her recent speech) was very sneaky about it. Prior to her winning the general election, she and the majority of her party won by-elections a few years prior. After the Rohingya had their citizenship stripped from them in the early 80's, they were given what are called 'White Cards', which are ID cards. But prior to the general election, the Rohingya were ordered to turn in their 'White Cards' and all registration of new births and whatnot, stopped.

Proof of citizenship, the first requirement, is a status Rohingya had denied to them from 1982 by law. National Registration Certificates were cancelled and White Cards ordered to be surrendered in the lead-up to the 2015 election.​

This was one of the conditions that was in place, which raised many flags of a likely genocide and ethnic cleansing was in the works.

This type of thing shows long term planning.

Because you do not force a persecuted minority, one that has already been stripped of its citizenship, to turn in their White Cards for no reason.

Those who fled Myanmar prior to the last election, still have those ID papers. Those who fled since the election and with the latest bout of ethnic cleansing, do not. Ergo, those hundreds of thousands of people, cannot prove that they are from there, because they no longer have their White Cards and seeing how they had to flee with just the clothes on their backs, they are unlikely to have stopped to pick up any papers they may have had. Combined with the fact that the military then burnt down all of their houses and villages and they were thorough to ensure nothing was left, they will have nothing to prove their ancestry.

All we have is the registration the Bangladesh Government, military and human rights groups and the UN have set up for those who just arrived over the border and those who were pre-existing diaspora from around the world, who have their papers.

So when Aung San Suu Kyi got up on that podium and said they could return, under the proviso that they can prove their identity and their origin, she did so with the full knowledge that they would not be able to do that. But hey, it sure sounded good, didn't it?

The only option now is to refer to the registration of new arrivals over the border. There would be things like primary school records, or any medical records, but they are more than likely destroyed. Given the destruction of mosque's, schools, town halls, businesses owned by the Rohingya, the Government and military wanted to ensure that this time, they forced out and/or killed as many as they could.

The solution is to review the 1982 law, and reinstate their citizenship. There are records, such as the registration of those who just arrived over the border, as one example. That is the first step. The second step is to ensure their protection upon their return. The Bangladesh people do not want them in Bangladesh, because they are Burmese. They have no real ties to Bangladesh. Which is why I had suggested what I had at the start of this thread. UN Peacekeepers is vital at present, to ensure their return and safety, allow them to rebuild their lives, reverse the citizenship, marriage and movement laws, close the IDP camps which are tantamount to slave labour camps and are like concentration camps because the are being starved to death in there, allow UN investigators to investigate human rights crimes and violations and the people who did this have to be held accountable and brought to justice. That is when the country can heal. That will mean people who spread propaganda, including the armed wing of the Buddhists who have bused people in, spread propaganda, who incited violence, they should also be held accountable. They are just as guilty as the members of the military and Government who ordered these acts against the Rohingya, but who worked to facilitate it and yes, sadly, that includes Aung San Suu Kyi and members of her NLD Party.

At the end of the day, this is a crime. A gross violation. And until something can be done to not only stop it, but ensure it does not happen again (reinstating their citizenship is a huge step in that direction), they cannot go back. And they have nowhere else to go. The longer it takes, the harder it will be to prove their status as Burmese.

12. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
34,751

—is nothing short of amazing.

Furthermore, who ever could have guessed that was the problem?

Yes, I'm certain you can point to the post in which you appropriately made that point, as well as explained the logic supporting it.

Don't worry, though, you probably shouldn't expect an apology. That is to say, I was being sarcastic; I'm pretty sure you can't point to the post.

13. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
17,541
Given that any UN action would also face the problem of identity and citizenship, perhaps the mere fact that they are fleeing from Burma could be sufficient to say that they have come from Burma and there for are able to qualify for citizenship of Burma...? ( from a UN perspective and obviously not from a current Myanmar Government perspective)

The loss of documentation effects both the refugee and the Government. Can the government prove that a person was not a resident? Due to poor record keeping and deliberate destruction of government documents the government is also unable to verify the authenticity of any claim for citizenship.

So perhaps it is merely the act of fleeing that can be used to generate a solid case for repatriation and this may very well be the best that they can ever do.
The asylum seeker can at least prove that they are fleeing Myanmar by their very presence in the camps in Bangladesh.

Last edited: Sep 28, 2017
14. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
17,541
Actually I can, and true I don't expect an apology, nor really do I believe I am entitled to one... not really...really

post#31
And before there is a hue and cry about how if the laws were changed etc... my post was not just about a hostile government but a very hostile population. Change the law as much as you like, if the majority ethnic population is hostile nothing will change.
So fixing the problem is not just about the laws but more about the people. IMO

Last edited: Sep 28, 2017
15. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
17,541
From what I have been reading lately the situation is even worse than that.

It appears that there is no darker place in the world than Myanmar at the moment. The degree of corruption, depravity, violence, torture, slavery, human trafficking, child exploitation, and things I wont even attempt to label here is beyond compare. Even the years of the Cambodian insurrection, Vietnam etc appear tame compared to the sheer brutality that is wide spread across Burma affecting all ethnic groups including the majority Buddhists. The Rohingya that have managed to flee may consider them selves the lucky ones. It is the population that remains, not just Rohingya, that is the biggest tragedy yet to be fully revealed. IMO

One could even suggest that if the Rohingya Muslim community lived according to their religious values - Sharia ( due to the lawlessness surrounding them) they would be probably the nicest of all the ethnic groups in Burma by many orders...

Last edited: Sep 28, 2017
16. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
34,751
#notreallyatrap | #butstill

Like I said, appropriately. Still, thank you. Maybe you wouldn't be surprised how many people can't do that, or, at the least, won't try. And I am sorry to have challenged you so directly, though I confess you did also give me something I was after: They face genocide. Which raises the question, can you show us where you were slammed specifically for making the obvious point? After all, for the record, you're catching a lot of shite, right now, because your arguments are subordinate to your postulation of complicity↑ as ... er ... ah ... well, it really does read like some manner of justification.

And that's why I'm amused at your suggestions about an apology. That is to say, pointing out that human beings don't like to walk into obvious danger is not what you're catching shite about. It's your middling equivocations in defense of complicity.

And also, just for the record—

—yeah, you know, track record, such as speculating in defense of complicity—that is to say, speculating complicity as best justification for behavior that includes specific supremacist bigotry—sometimes erodes those, "I personally don't see this as valid but many would", bits. Honestly, society hears such argument once removed about a rather quite striking range of behaviors and justifications, to the point that one can, in fact, behold this sentence as implying hyperbole. Still, though, that's the point; I probably shouldn't have to recall the time someone explained the idea that another might debate this or that unspeakable issue in ways that could be rather convincing even though the person telling me personally didn't see it as valid but many would given this, that, and the other.

17. ### BellsStaff Member

Messages:
22,192
The expectation is that they will all be allowed to return home, safely and the persecution will stop. After all, these people rushed across the border and were registered as they entered Bangladesh. But she does not want them back. It isn't just the military. She does not want them back. People need to accept that she is racist and a bigot. Her fall from grace in the eyes of the international community.. It is a struggle to recognise her for who she is.

The issue is that without drastic intervention to stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide, that expectation will never amount to anything more than that.

Aung San Suu Kyi's Government, and she herself, are complicit in what has happened and what is currently happening. As I noted at the start of the thread and as all have noted, no one expects her to stop the military. But as the leader of the Government, with her party holding the majority of the seats in their Parliament, they are in a direct position to speak out, to reinstate their citizenship and to literally cancel out the laws that have caused so much pain and suffering to ethnic minority groups in Myanmar. She has steadfastly refused to do so.

She has the tools in place to stop it through pressure from the outside. The reason I say that is because if she spoke out for ethnic minority groups, if she recognised them as being Burmese, if she spoke out against the military, with overwhelming support for her and her party in Myanmar, and most importantly, with overwhelming support from the UN and the international community, she is in a position to effect positive change. The military would not be in a position to stop her in that regard. To the one, they benefit directly from the international community, from arms sales and deals, to training exercises and from the influx of tourists that started to visit the country when she was released. She has the clout to bring about change. If she spoke out for true equality in Myanmar, she would have had the backing of the international community. She has deliberately chosen not to. And that is what is telling.

As I linked numerous times throughout this thread, those who know her well, those who fought for her release and who helped her during her imprisonment and after her release, have basically said that the reason she will not bring about this sort of change is because she herself does not believe in it. That she has openly shown her disdain for ethnic minority groups in Myanmar and has openly shown her racism towards ethnic minority groups who have brown skin, or are, as they say in Myanmar, 'Kala'. It should say a lot that in the lead-up to the last general election, she and her party removed all Muslims from their party platform across the country. Suffice to say, she was never interested in unifying all ethnic groups in Myanmar, it was never a part of her election platform.

Rohingya and other ethnic minority groups who are persecuted have taken to selling themselves into sexual slavery to escape the country. The biggest group affected by it are the Rohingya, but they are literally willing to go into slavery to escape persecution, violence and ethnic cleansing. And her Government has done nothing to stop the persecution, but has instead, implemented more changes to ensure that it continues. People who speak out about this in Myanmar, who criticise her and her Government end up in prison. She has taken to suing people who post negative things about her and her regime on Facebook.

Prior to the 2012 uprising, Buddhists and Muslims in the Sittwe town/region lived peacefully, they lived next door to each other, they had businesses next door to each other. They co-existed. In 2012, a young Buddhist woman was raped. They blamed the Rohingya. Nearly a dozen Muslim men were brutally murdered, after a make-shift trial that was basically a kangaroo court. Then radical Buddhist clerics, the local Government, police and military increased the anti-Rohingya rhetoric, incited violence, demanded violence, people were bused in to commit acts of violence, with the Government and military providing them with transport, weapons, food, shelter to enable them to commit these acts of ethnic cleansing. Rohingya, who are made up of Muslims and Hindu, were forced to flee the area surrounding areas of Sittwe as the massacre of Rohingya began. It was brutal. Those who could not flee the town, were forced into these camps, where they were systematically starved to death. They are denied healthcare, women who were pregnant or have fallen pregnant, are denied any sort of care whatsoever. It is a form of population control to bring about their end. Those who managed to escape, did so by endangering their lives or becoming victims of human traffickers to escape the country. After that uprising, Rohingya are no longer allowed to walk on the streets of Sittwe. Their businesses, places of worship were all destroyed, as were their homes. If you read even the restricted Annan report, he documents how these camps have to close and these people allowed their freedoms and allowed to return home.

Aung San Suu Kyi was seen as their hope. As you can imagine, that hope went out the window not long ago after the election. She has sided herself firmly with the radical Buddhists who are systematically targeting ethnic minorities by repeating the same propaganda and inciting hatred. She has failed to lift any of the laws that attempt to control the population of ethnic minority groups, she has failed to do anything to alleviate their suffering despite being in a position to do so and having a majority in Government to bring about said change. News of the mass rapes and killings.. She calls it "fake rape" and "fake news". Those who criticise her in Myanmar are jailed. She was in a position to bring about change and she has chosen not to.

They live like everyone else does. They just want to live peacefully and free from persecution. They weren't radical.

Frankly, I am surprised they are not fighting back more forcefully. After generations of persecution, no one would forgive them for truly fighting back. An attack on a police outpost with handmade clubs and sticks, after so much pain and horror and the response to that is increasing the genocidal violence by the military. They pinned their hopes on her. What a disappointment she has turned out to be, and a deadly one at that.

Quantum Quack likes this.
18. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
17,541
as an example of misunderstanding... your comment "They weren't radical" suggests that you think that I thought that they were. If this is a true impression then possibly this may be ( maybe not ) because I discuss Sharia law? or is it something else I have written.
The point may be that all devout Muslims follow Sharia law to various levels of intensity. ( According to local discussions here)
Following Sharia law does not necessarily mean radical or ultra conservative or anything really...

A Muslim friend from Ethiopia said the other day when I asked him about Sharia law in the context of Myanmar's apparent lawlessness, that:
"Sharia is a law you can fall back to when there is nothing else". In other words it is a way of life that is encoded that allows individuals to live in reasonable harmony with or in the absence of authoritarian rule by police, military or Governments. Quite an admirable survival attribute IMO especially when a nations Government is struggling to maintain law and order.
It is indeed surprising... perhaps their particular Sunni interpretation of Islam places more emphasis on pacifism? ( I am looking for research material but as yet..no luck.)

Last edited: Sep 28, 2017
19. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
17,541
ahh you beat me to it... thanks..
One of the reasons I am not personally upset by what has transpired in this thread and in PMs etc ( thread deletions and all of that stuff) is that obviously there has been a terrible misunderstanding from the get go.
I originally entered this thread for a number of reasons.
• To kick it off so that a worth while topic could be acknowledged and expanded thanks to Bells.
• To argue that the case being made against Aung Suu may not be fully appreciative of the incredibly severe situation faced by all Myanmar people including and especially the Rohingya.
• To work towards understanding the problem thus finding a solution.
I have maintained this position consistently I feel, even though others have considered I am being an apologist for Aung Suu's apparent turning a blind eye routine.
the first post I made was

and you get the picture...
I personally do not know Aung Suu. She has been one of those people that pops up in the media every now and then. I didn't even really know she won the Nobel. So I can not really comment on integrity or character other than what has been published and I have found out since.

However, I am not judging this situation based on Aung Suu but more on the fact that I knew of Kofi Annan and the Nobel PP he shared with the UN in 2001 is enough for me to take confidence in his confidence in Aung Suu.

From what I knew and have come to see lately, Kofi Annan has been instrumental in many major Government reforms including and not limited to the eventual evolution of independence of the Republic of the South Sudan. ( another violence blighted region of the world )
In other words Aung's decision to commission and mostly fund the advisory committee to discover the root cause of the problem in Myanmar and head that commission with Kofi Annan, to be rather telling of Aung's actual political situation as distinct from that which is portrayed in the media.

Basically if Kofi Annan has confidence in Aung Suu then I shall also.

Sure there have been errors of judgment on my part along the way, heated exchanges and well.. you know... this is sciforums after all and so here we are...

Last edited: Sep 28, 2017
20. ### BellsStaff Member

Messages:
22,192
Heh.. Mr Annan..

Kofi Annan, when advised by UN observers and peacekeepers that a genocide was imminent in Rwanda (by which a paper trail existed of the plans to exterminate the Tutsi, to Government policy which followed said plan), did diddly squat and failed to pass the reports on to the UNSC. He also willingly did nothing as the Clinton Government, along with several EU nations, stymied any effort to stop the genocide. He held back UN peacekeepers from intervening to stop it, just as he held back efforts to send aid to the country to help the fleeing Tutsi who managed to survive.

They, the UN soldiers on the ground, were denied the right to defend the victims of the genocide, even as it was ongoing, because Annan advised Dallaire the UN soldiers there on the ground were told to just observe. He denied the UN soldiers access to weapons and arms they could have used to defend the Tutsi from genocide. Dallaire requested a few thousand soldiers to prevent the imminent genocide and to stop it once it began. Kofi Annan refused to give him any.

More than 800,000 Tutsi were massacred in 100 days and he refused to do anything to not only prevent it, but to do anything to stop it as it was ongoing. The only thing he was truly concerned about was the lives of Westerners in Rwanda and ordered the UN Peacekeepers who were there to oversee their evacuation and to provide aid to the French and Belgian soldiers who arrived to evacuate their expat's and diplomats from the country. When Dallaire requested that those soldiers combine with the UN Peacekeepers would have been enough to end the killing, Annan refused.

In the end, Dallaire did what he could and refused to ask for permission from Annan and the UN. He opened up the UN compounds to take in as many Tutsi as he could fit, and the ill-equipped and badly trained soldiers tried to protect them. When Dallaire asked for transport to evacuate Tutsi refugees, when he asked for the use of the transport vehicles that the French and Belgians were using to evacuate their expats and which they were leaving behind, he was told no by Annan. That the only priority were the Westerners and UN Peacekeepers.

He begged for forgiveness for his complicity in lack of action years later. I don't think the Rwandans have managed to forgive him yet.

So his confidence in Suu Kyi doesn't really mean much.

I guess it is why they have such a good rapport.

Last edited: Sep 28, 2017
21. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
17,541
Do you think Kofi Annan would be wanting to repeat his mistakes in Rwanada?
Would you rather travel with an experienced driver or a novice?

22. ### BellsStaff Member

Messages:
22,192
To the one, Aung San Suu Kyi is a novice.

Kofi Annan's actions speak for themselves in Rwanda. Anything he says about it now is too little too late. It's easy to say sorry after nearly a million people are slaughtered in 100 days. 10 years after the genocide, he released a 5 step program to prevent a future genocide.. Guess how many his good friend Suu Kyi implemented in Myanmar?