3 ms·

meh. she's been less than ideal on the Rohingya issue.

freeburma 6y ago
- ASSK has no power over military operations or Rohingya. Elected civilian government has no legal power over military. - Only outcome of not defending military at UN would be sanctions or civilian government losing some of the little power they have, which would only harm situation more. - ASSK does not want genocide or anything like that. She is slandered by ignorant press.
- pmontra 6y ago
  > ASSK does not want genocide or anything like that. She is slandered by ignorant press. Isn't failure to educate international press still a (big IMHO) failure? Personally the result for me has been that she was once a kind of freedom hero, than became a kind of mass murderer and should have her Nobel prize revoked. Then I read today that she's been almost a hostage of the military for all this time and she's getting some of my sympathy back again. However the trade she accepted to do feels bad and the signaling of being a hostage was totally missing.
  - freeburma 6y ago
    Currying favor with international press at expense of relations with military doesn’t help her party’s situation, or the people of Burma. What is she supposed to do? Come out and denounce the military publicly, effectivey destroying what little relationship and understanding they’ve built with the military? That doesn’t accomplish anything. She already did that and sat in prison for 15 years. Nobel peace prizes and moralizing westerners don’t help Burma. There’s little reason for her to care about what they think. She’s been public about her strategy. She’s always said the only way forward is to build understanding and relationship with military. To work with the scraps given to them. To work through peaceful means. It’s either that or nothing. Rising up won’t really work, they tried that in 1988 and the military just murdered and jailed people until they stopped.
computing 6y ago
why am i getting downvoted? she's the leader of the govt and has not helped address the issue. whether or not it's in her power is besides the point. she did the politically convenient thing and pretended that nothing was wrong.
- freeburma 6y ago
  She is the leader of civilian government, which has no control of military. The military is not within civil control, legally. Civilian government has no power to order the military to do anything. She had two choices: 1) Say publicly that military are bad people, and erode what little power military affords NLD and fragile relationship between civilian government and military. Or 2) Have the press hate her for not saying words, and maintain the fragile understanding and peacemaking process with military. She chose the least bad option, in support of civilian rule, democracy, and peace building. Publicly condemning military for Rohingya doesn’t accomplish anything for anyone.
  - refurb 6y ago
    You seem to be glossing over her actions. "In 2012, she told reporters she did not know if the Rohingya could be regarded as Burmese citizens." "However, she said that she wanted to work towards reconciliation and she cannot take sides as violence has been committed by both sides." "State crime experts from Queen Mary University of London warned that Aung San Suu Kyi is "legitimising genocide" in Myanmar." "Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a fellow peace prize holder, also criticised Suu Kyi's silence: in an open letter published on social media, he said: "If the political price of your ascension to the highest office in Myanmar is your silence, the price is surely too steep" "In early October 2018, both the Canadian Senate and its House of Commons voted unanimously to strip Aung San Suu Kyi of her honorary citizenship." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi
    - freeburma 6y ago
      I’m not glossing over anything. She has been trying to build relationship with generals, and is not going to publicly denounce them just to achieve some kind of moral pageantry. Angering the military so she can appease people who don’t do anything for Burma is pointless. If ASSK was in charge Rohingya situation would not happen. But she’s not in charge. Holding her to some impossible ideal is ridiculous. Blaming her for genocide is offensive. It’s just part of a game western academics, journalists, and moralizers like to play. Her actions are completely understandable if you understand the political situation, and its history. And for most Burmese the lack of support for her fledgling civilian government by the nations and journalists that condemn her has created deep resentment. Nobody here cares at all what they think. Imagine how it feels to have people, who don’t even know the name of the generals, how the government works, or where Myanmar is on a map, tell us how evil ASSK is. The person who has sacrificed her whole family and life for peace and reconciliation.

- ASSK has no power over military operations or Rohingya. Elected civilian government has no legal power over military. - Only outcome of not defending military at UN would be sanctions or civilian government losing some of the little power they have, which would only harm situation more. - ASSK does not want genocide or anything like that. She is slandered by ignorant press.

pmontra 6y ago
> ASSK does not want genocide or anything like that. She is slandered by ignorant press. Isn't failure to educate international press still a (big IMHO) failure? Personally the result for me has been that she was once a kind of freedom hero, than became a kind of mass murderer and should have her Nobel prize revoked. Then I read today that she's been almost a hostage of the military for all this time and she's getting some of my sympathy back again. However the trade she accepted to do feels bad and the signaling of being a hostage was totally missing.
- freeburma 6y ago
  Currying favor with international press at expense of relations with military doesn’t help her party’s situation, or the people of Burma. What is she supposed to do? Come out and denounce the military publicly, effectivey destroying what little relationship and understanding they’ve built with the military? That doesn’t accomplish anything. She already did that and sat in prison for 15 years. Nobel peace prizes and moralizing westerners don’t help Burma. There’s little reason for her to care about what they think. She’s been public about her strategy. She’s always said the only way forward is to build understanding and relationship with military. To work with the scraps given to them. To work through peaceful means. It’s either that or nothing. Rising up won’t really work, they tried that in 1988 and the military just murdered and jailed people until they stopped.

computing 6y ago

why am i getting downvoted? she's the leader of the govt and has not helped address the issue. whether or not it's in her power is besides the point. she did the politically convenient thing and pretended that nothing was wrong.

freeburma 6y ago
She is the leader of civilian government, which has no control of military. The military is not within civil control, legally. Civilian government has no power to order the military to do anything. She had two choices: 1) Say publicly that military are bad people, and erode what little power military affords NLD and fragile relationship between civilian government and military. Or 2) Have the press hate her for not saying words, and maintain the fragile understanding and peacemaking process with military. She chose the least bad option, in support of civilian rule, democracy, and peace building. Publicly condemning military for Rohingya doesn’t accomplish anything for anyone.
- refurb 6y ago
  You seem to be glossing over her actions. "In 2012, she told reporters she did not know if the Rohingya could be regarded as Burmese citizens." "However, she said that she wanted to work towards reconciliation and she cannot take sides as violence has been committed by both sides." "State crime experts from Queen Mary University of London warned that Aung San Suu Kyi is "legitimising genocide" in Myanmar." "Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a fellow peace prize holder, also criticised Suu Kyi's silence: in an open letter published on social media, he said: "If the political price of your ascension to the highest office in Myanmar is your silence, the price is surely too steep" "In early October 2018, both the Canadian Senate and its House of Commons voted unanimously to strip Aung San Suu Kyi of her honorary citizenship." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi
  - freeburma 6y ago
    I’m not glossing over anything. She has been trying to build relationship with generals, and is not going to publicly denounce them just to achieve some kind of moral pageantry. Angering the military so she can appease people who don’t do anything for Burma is pointless. If ASSK was in charge Rohingya situation would not happen. But she’s not in charge. Holding her to some impossible ideal is ridiculous. Blaming her for genocide is offensive. It’s just part of a game western academics, journalists, and moralizers like to play. Her actions are completely understandable if you understand the political situation, and its history. And for most Burmese the lack of support for her fledgling civilian government by the nations and journalists that condemn her has created deep resentment. Nobody here cares at all what they think. Imagine how it feels to have people, who don’t even know the name of the generals, how the government works, or where Myanmar is on a map, tell us how evil ASSK is. The person who has sacrificed her whole family and life for peace and reconciliation.