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

[Quantum Quack]

The current fledgling democracy came to elected power in 15- 03- 2016 (Suu)
that is only approx 1.5 years ago.
The nation is considered one of the least developed in the world.
The economic diversity is extreme with the military holding most of the wealth.
Government provided services (health education) beyond military are virtually non existent for all ethic groups not just Rohingya.

Bells you really need to get you head around the incredible mess that was and is Myanmar.

As a web designer I put together a pro bono web site, some years ago, for a British based charity that helped provide education materials for orphanages on the Burma Thai border. I with drew from the project mainly because the charity wished to publish military installation location (maps) to protect it's workers. I felt it would place the orphanages at risk.

I found out then, as part of research, that the militia in Burma were all prevalent and utterly ruthless. Extremes well beyond what we in the West may imagine.

To over simplify the situation in Myanmar and expect international norms to exist is ridiculous.

Bells naivety is the sort of naivety that may get an awful lot of people butchered. ( not just Rohingya)

Suu is not kidding when she says that it is not safe for journalists etc.

 

[spidergoat]

Journalists know it's not safe, she's hiding from them under the pretext of phony concern for their welfare. And poverty is no excuse for murder.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Journalists know it's not safe, she's hiding from them under the pretext of phony concern for their welfare. And poverty is no excuse for murder.

why do you think she is hiding anything?

I don't think she is all that concerned about the safety of journalists, ( Not caring so much if they end up slaughtered) but more concerned about the safety of local communities that would be threatened by the presence of journalists. The militia would consider any communication with journalists to be betrayal and react accordingly.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Currently IMO there is no genocide however:
the potential for a massive genocide is extreme.
And that is the main problem Suu is facing...and attempting to avoid.

This is how the UN (world) can help.
Help Suu prevent genocide...but exactly how is the big question.

 

[Tiassa]

... claimed genocide is taking place in Rakhine State in numerous posts in this thread with out any evidence to support it. There is no evidence of genocide.

Okay, so, Yale Law School doesn't lend it's name lightly. To the other, perhaps you have your reasons for disdaining the Loweinstein Clinic's↱ paper asserting to find "strong evidence that genocide is being committed against Rohingya" (1), and "strong evidence that the abuses against the Rohingya satisfy the three elements of genocide" (64; qtd. in #77↑ above), but perhaps you might explain in more detail, that people might actually know what it means, that, "There is no evidence of genocide." I mean, I get that you think there is no evidence, but, well, that's the thing.

Meanwhile, why does Aung San Suu Kyi get plausible deniability↑? Heads of state are generally expected to answer certain notions of accountability. Donald Trump need not order certain stupidity in his own Department of Justice, but if he violates his oath by refusing to intervene when the devices of his administration that should be protecting constitutional rights are, in fact, attacking them, then he has violated his oath.

Let us try a blunt phrase, please. I actually had to learn this lesson over the last couple years because it's been gnawing at me more and more in our American political discourse. But it is true that, in these United States, for instance, "a black man has the same right to be a racist dumbass as a white man". See, the problem was the idea that, having suffered injustice, a black man should be more sensitive toward other people's injustice. Or, once again, the black man must be better than everyone else. The black woman even more so. Nonetheless, we all still reserve the right to question those who participate in supremacism against their own existential classification, such as Ben Carson or Alan Keyes pitching against black people for the satisfaction of Republicans, or Michele Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, or Virginia Foxx pitching against women for the satisfaction of Republicans. And, yes, there really are authors like Janet Bloomfield and Wendy McElroy, who make their living pitching against women for the satisfaction of men. And, yes, we reserve the right to wonder what the hell is up with that, too.

Where does Aung San Suu Kyi fit into that sort of idea? How does that work when the whole world has thrown down for a person regardless of sex or ethnicity or religion? Furthermore, how does that work when that person is now a head of state?

And, you know, it's really hard to prove a negative:

She has often spoken out against human rights abuses in her country. She has never spoken out against human rights abuses against the Rohingya. And I say this because she has been very clear of speaking out against the human rights abuses of the Burmese. Her party's platform has never recognised the Rohingya as being Burmese and she has never, not once, recognised them as being Burmese, nor has her father or any of the so called democratic groups in Myanmar.

Demonstrating the postive in response would be a start. It would place specific finite boundaries on the negative. It should be easier to find record of her humanitarian respect for the Rohingya than it has been. And that's part of the problem in our moment, here; while you're looking at this in terms of what Bells has to say, the rest of the world is wrestling with this issue in extraordinarily painful terms, and what really kind of sucks about it is that everyone is so dazzled by the fall of Aung San Suu Kyi that nobody really knows what to do for the Rohingya. To the other, it's not really because they're so dazzled. That is to say, it is not really because they are dazzled. It is, in fact, spectacularly dazzling and disorienting; everyone is scrambling to figure out what they missed. And what they missed was the part that none of them ever cared about, anyway, i.e., the Rohingya, a bunch of fuckin' Muslims in a back corner of the world.

This little moment in this little corner of the internet is hardly the only part of this experience. Or, as noted↑ earlier in this thread:

What you're unlikely to find in Suu Kyi's history is any specific statement on the Rohingya, affirming their place as fully human or as part of Myanmar. Turns out that on the Rohingya, she has always been silent. Why should we be suddenly shocked if it turns out she acquiesces to – or even shares – the views of the people who voted for her? She never really promised us otherwise. Perhaps she was most instructive when she said "I do not hold to non-violence for moral reasons, but for political and practical reasons". If you're expecting otherwise, I suppose you're bound to feel betrayed.

(Aly↱)​

What everybody wants, right now, is a way to let Aung San Suu Kyi out of this bind; people are desperately seeking some way to keep their hero glittering, even as they call her out. And the problem so far is that there isn't really anything left for that endeavor. Simply pretending this isn't happening doesn't work; that's how the rest of civilized society gets into these nasty conundra in the first place.

In the end I ask as I do because you seem to keep asking questions, and since it's hard to tell what is unsatisfactory about the discourse presented because it's mostly just denial and demand.

Because—

Currently IMO there is no genocide however:
the potential for a massive genocide is extreme.
And that is the main problem Suu is facing...and attempting to avoid.

—you are quite wrong.

The problem she faces is how to hold onto power. Her way out is to step out, declare Myanmar ungovernable, explain that she simply cannot stop this, and seek refuge abroad as self-imposed exile to symbolize her blame of the military and declare that her position, as such, leaves her unsafe in Myanmar.

But doing that would surrender what political power she has, and it would also help the Rohingya. While the world would like to believe only one of those points is problematic in Aung San Suu Kyi's outlook, we have no reason to, and an increasing stack of evidence she seems to find the latter unacceptable.

This is how the UN (world) can help.
Help Suu prevent genocide...but exactly how is the big question.

You cannot at this time demonstrate she has any intention of preventing genocide.

And that's the problem.

That's the signal the world is waiting for.

And we should probably get over it and just set about helping the Rohingya.
____________________

Notes:

Aly, Waleed. "What if Aung San Suu Kyi is being true to form?". The Sydney Morning Herald. 14 September 2017. SMH.com.au. 21 September 2017. http://bit.ly/2xlnENB

Lindblom, Alina, Elizabeth Marsh, Tasnim Motala, and Katherine Munyan. Persecution fo the Rohingya Muslims: Is Genocide Occurring in Myanmar's Rakhine State?. Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic. October, 2015. FortifyRights.org. 21 September 2017. http://bit.ly/2xy1eLq

 

[Quantum Quack]

The problem she faces is how to hold onto power. Her way out is to step out, declare Myanmar ungovernable, explain that she simply cannot stop this, and seek refuge abroad as self-imposed exile to symbolize her blame of the military and declare that her position, as such, leaves her unsafe in Myanmar.

I think most of the answers we seek rests in what we feel may happen if she does indeed step down and do what was offered to her years ago... leave the country and never go back.

So, as a thought experiment, imagine today she actually hops of a plane and announces from the Bahamas that the seat is vacant as she believes the country is ungovernable.
What do you think would happen?
btw thanks for you post...I am still digesting it...

 

[Quantum Quack]

The problem with the word genocide is that it requires an orchestrated, organized and co-ordinates act to wipe out a particular ethnic group.
There appears to be no specific evidence that links the militia, military and government in a way that demonstrates that degree of inter-fraction agreement and planning. IMO
The so called genocide is maybe a "popular" action taken by various collections of militia and army units , which is why so many have managed to escape and continue to escape.

just thoughts

 

[Tiassa]

The problem with the word genocide is that it requires an orchestrated, organized and co-ordinates act to wipe out a particular ethnic group.

In the U.S., before, we have encountered the problem with the word "rape" that has to do with not using a penis to commit the sex crime; we also occasionally ran into a weird barrier where the problem with the word "rape" was that the definition seemed to exclude the proposition of raping a man.

Furthermore, I can only reiterate the Lowenstein Clinic analysis, and point out that three blind mice can still carry plague, so to speak.

On a related note, though, I might also point out that I am an American, and we have tried genocide before. Indeed, we even tried racism as political prison: Chasing them out of the country wasn't good enough. No, we needed to haul them back and keep them on the Reservation.

You know what we never did? We never tried chasing the Nez Perce out of the country on the grounds that they were foreigners from somewhere else. We did what we did because we wanted the land, and nobody has ever explained what was so goddamn important about dragging their asses back to the Res. But we sure as hell never pretended they were from somewhere else. Sure, we flirted with that, centuries later, as supremacists wrangled with notions of evolution and plate tectonics, but, really, that part has nothing to do with anything except reminding that we've still been on about it into my lifetime. The U.S. government has contrived running disputes with the Oglala Sioux in recent years, and went after the Menominee, Achomawi, and other tribes even more recently; can you imagine President Trump trying to deport them to Palestine, or sending law enforcement to chase them across national borders, on the grounds that these precolonial peoples were somehow foreigners from somewhere else? Now, then, what if Trump and Sessions merely sit back while armed posses and National Guard units roam the states to terrorize the tribes? No specific evidence linking posse, militia, and federal government in a way that satisfies your standard?

Parsing 'twixt ethnic cleansing and genocide sometimes comes down to Von Clausewitz accusing the start of the war; if only the defenders had given over to the invaders and not defended, there would not have been a war. That is to say, if enough people get out of the way before they are murdered, hey, we can pat ourselves on the back and say there wasn't a genocide on our watch. It is, I confess, not a vantage I find comfortable, reliable, or even safe.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Okay, so, Yale Law School doesn't lend it's name lightly. To the other, perhaps you have your reasons for disdaining the Loweinstein Clinic's↱ paper asserting to find "strong evidence that genocide is being committed against Rohingya" (1), and "strong evidence that the abuses against the Rohingya satisfy the three elements of genocide" (64; qtd. in #77↑ above), but perhaps you might explain in more detail, that people might actually know what it means, that, "There is no evidence of genocide." I mean, I get that you think there is no evidence, but, well, that's the thing.

note the date of the paper October 2015
There is no doubt that the Rohingya have been persecuted for centuries. In 2015 over 12 months before Suu won the election maybe there was a strong case as published then.

Meanwhile, why does Aung San Suu Kyi get plausible deniability↑? Heads of state are generally expected to answer certain notions of accountability. Donald Trump need not order certain stupidity in his own Department of Justice, but if he violates his oath by refusing to intervene when the devices of his administration that should be protecting constitutional rights are, in fact, attacking them, then he has violated his oath.

perhaps she simply doesn't like acting on gossip and media hype, that she simply doesn't know the things she needs to know to make an informed comment. In such an impoverished and conflicted nation any genuine investigation is difficult.

• The act against the police stations that triggered the situation only occurred in August this year.
  
• The funding for the investigation has probably not even been allocated yet. ( what funds...?)
  
• As far as they are concerned they have a Islamist terrorist threat happening in the from of the Arakan Rohingya National Organization (ARNO) who are seeking self determination of the Rohingya people ( succession, statehood?)

Now we all know how easy it is to throw the terrorist claim .... but really did those police stations really get attacked and did the ARNO claim responsibility or is it some Government Military make believe imagination as an excuse to do what they have been itching to do for centuries and do so every 20 years or so...ethnic cleansing and/or genocide!

 

[Bells]

A question you really need to ask Bells
So far he has claimed genocide is taking place in Rakhine State in numerous posts in this thread with out any evidence to support it. There is no evidence of genocide.

I have provided several links and explanations of just how what is happening in Myanmar is a genocide. Did you not bother to read them? Or do you think you know better or more than the various NGO's and experts who have been studying the going's on there?

So far he has conflated the issue of guilt due to silence. I suppose he thinks Suu supports Trumps Presidency due to her silence also.

Just her silence? I take it you failed to watch the videos posted or the links provided about what she has said in the past and present that directly point to her complicity. And does she support Trump? She has certainly taken to parroting his comments, but I don't know if that amounts to support. She does a great job of imitating though.

He fails to take what has been said by Suu on face value and fails to consider that what she has said may actually be what she genuinely believes and thinks.

That's the problem. I do believe she is being genuine when she denies ethnic cleansing or acts of violence against Rohingya civilians because doing so, buys them time to hide the evidence of ethnic cleansing and genocide. I do believe she is being genuine and she truly believes that the Rohingya are not Burmese and as a result, are not worthy of their fundamental human rights protection under the "rule of law" as she has repeatedly reiterated.

At the moment the inflammatory rhetoric he is a shining example of is generating a lot of angst in surrounding predominantly Muslim nations. "A rallying point for Muslim leaders around the world" who are looking for any excuse to also agree that genocide is taking place when in fact there is no evidence of genocide. Quite the contrary, over 400000 persons have managed to escape to Bangladesh. 200 million Muslims in Indonesia alone...could indeed lead to a genocide of Myanmar Buddhists.

What you are deeming "inflammatory rhetoric" is actually what people are enduring, QQ. The people who are actually spreading propaganda against ethnic minorities in the region is literally Aung San Suu Kyi, her office and the Myanmar Government. And you are complaining that describing what these people are going through is generating the angst? Astonishing really.

"A rallying point for Muslim leaders around the world"..? This quote comes from where, exactly? You keep posting these quotes without any link or reference to where it is from. People around the world, Muslim and otherwise, do not need any excuse to agree that genocide is taking place, because there is ample evidence that genocide is taking place and has been for many years. Half of the Rohingya population have had to flee to try to escape said genocide, only to then have the Myanmar military lay landmines on the border in their bid to kill even more of them and to prevent them from returning home. And you are attempting to invent a very unlikely scenario that Muslims in Indonesia would commit genocide against Myanmar Buddhists? You are absolutely and literally repeating the exact same kind of rubbish propaganda that the Burmese Buddhists, military and government have been spouting. Is there any point where you will stop carrying water for the Myanmar Government?

He fails to acknowledge that Suu had been under house arrest for advocating human rights for over 15 years and claims that during that time of house arrest she was somehow guilty of racially motivated crimes against humanity.
That her house arrest was somehow a fraud!

Her house arrest is an excuse for condoning ethnic cleansing, or as she described it "clearance operations" and genocide?

And as I explained and provided links to support my arguments (something you are yet to do by the way), she has never once, not once, advocated for the human rights of ethnic Burmese groups, and certainly never once for the Muslim minority groups in her country who face persecution. She is complicit in the crimes being committed while she holds power in Government QQ. She and her party first entered parliament in 2012. She won the general election in 2015, but because she married a foreigner and has children from that marriage, by law, she is not allowed to sit as President of Myanmar, so a special position was created for her in Government, which amounts to being the Prime Minister, but as she has indicated multiple times, she is actually the one in charge. The person who sits as President is there as her support, but she is the one in charge.

Neither her party, or her, have ever advocated for the equality or human rights of those minority groups. And currently, first her silence and then her actions to prevent any form of investigation into human rights violations of those ethnic minority groups, her personal attempts to bully other countries when they have attempted to broach the subject with her or provide aid to ensure those ethnic minority groups receive it.. Her comments condoning the acts that are text book ethnic cleansing, her refusal to alter the laws that would allow these groups to regain their citizenship, her refusal and failure to close down the concentration/internment camps, her refusal and failure to remove laws that control how many children those groups have, to their access to health and education, her latest comments which amounted to outright lies about the violence, means that she is absolutely complicit. What part of that is so hard to understand? You keep injecting things into this argument that a) I have not actually said and b) that you seem to get from somewhere or other and fail to support with even a link, as though you are trying to change the subject yet again. I have never said that her house arrest was a fraud. I said that even during that time, her comments about human rights never stretched to ethnic minority groups in her country. Frankly, you keep whining that what the victims of this horrific crime is going through is an exaggeration when reported in the media or human rights and aid groups or the UN, but you are the one who keeps injecting things that aren't even relevant to this discussion or making things up and inferring I have said it, when I did not.

 

[Bells]

So yes it may be a good idea to ask what the hell he is ranting about....

Firstly, I am not a "he".

Secondly, you have lost your proverbial shit at every report from the media, NGO's, the UN, various organisations like Yale University, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum (who also released their own report after sending observers there over the last few years), and aid and human rights groups, which clearly indicate that this ethnic cleansing is part of a bigger program of genocide, due to the planning, coordination, attempts of denial, their arming and busing in militia members to take part, arming local Buddhists to take part, their use of propaganda to stoke fear and anger towards these groups and telling them that the only way to win is to kill them, for example, the participation on a State level by way of laws that reduce birthrates of these minority groups, restricting and denying healthcare, particularly to pregnant women to ensure they miscarry, marriage laws, movement laws.. These types of programs, when combined with the violence, restrictions placed upon them, threats of violence, propaganda, the actual killings, burning and destruction of villages, Government policy to ensure protection to those committing these acts of violence, coordination of these attacks, use of military hardware like helicopter gunships who provide support for the armed locals and military and police who go village by village in their "clearance operations", burning bodies after killing them to hide any evidence, burning of buildings.. This is what genocide looks like.

I suggested a solution to the crisis that involves a major change in the thinking and response by the UN. An idealism... a fantasy that may be worth pursuing.

Your suggestion amounted to removing the Rohingya from Myanmar, making them live in a camp in Bangladesh. In short, your suggestion would amount to finishing the job of the Myanmar government and military for them.

He suggests an invasion of a sovereign state to arrest and detain and to force regime change, to create yet another debacle similar (and probably a hell of lot worse) to Libya and Iraq based on third hand info posted by crappy British and USA newspapers.

My suggestion is what the UN does when things like this happen. Peacekeepers to keep the civilian population safe and an investigation and arrests for those who committed the acts or were complicit in the acts. Do you understand how that is different to what happened in Libya and Iraq? And I get my information from human rights groups, the UN, studies from various universities around the world and NGO's, often they are reported in the media, so I provide you with the abridged version. If you want, I can post up the studies and papers that sometimes run into the hundreds of pages. Given your inability to even read the tidbits that have been posted, I don't hold out much hope in your understanding the picture as a whole, or willing to actually look at it without your fan-girling over the Myanmar government and military.

In the mean time, while he is ranting about who is at fault with out any way of knowing the truth, over 400000 persons wallow in mud desperate for a solution. All Bells can do is suggest a perpetual repeat of the same problem with the same solution.

What I proposed has worked in various other countries that endured genocides. Or did you miss all of those genocides in the past or were you too busy carrying water for the state actors who committed those too?

Over indulging in sympathy grabbing, sanctimonious self righteousness that fails to deal with the reality of the situation miserably.

Says the one whining that she somehow gets a pass for her complicity in ethnic cleansing because she faced house imprisonment.

Most of the questions Bells has asked have been answered by Suu.
He only needs to listen to her answers...

Your problem is that I am and have listened to her answers. So has everyone else. And that is your biggest problem in this discussion. You are choosing to not listen to what she has said or noticed what she has done, because 'wah, she faced house imprisonment for years, it's a new government, she doesn't want to lose her political power, wah'.. Meanwhile you ignore the fact that she has repeatedly openly condoned the violence, blamed the victims of the ethnic cleansing, refused to address them by name, denied other forms of violence, lied about the violence ending at the start of September, despite footage from across the border and satellite images obtained by NGO's like Human Rights Watch and the UN proving she lied. Your problem that I and everyone else have listened to her actual words and arguments and her answers. And those answers prove she is complicit in genocide and ethnic cleansing.

 

[Quantum Quack]

deleted due to futility

 

[Quantum Quack]

ok .. enough... just to clarify
On what date do you believe she is or started to be guilty of genocide?

In other words spell out your accusation including vested authority, dates, body count and material evidence...
Take the role of a court prosecutor and spit it out. be specific and lose the emotional content.
And then maybe stick to the goal posts you have established so that they can be discussed intelligently.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Your suggestion amounted to removing the Rohingya from Myanmar, making them live in a camp in Bangladesh. In short, your suggestion would amount to finishing the job of the Myanmar government and military for them.

not true..
My suggestion was to grant them statehood and perhaps offer them a future free of ongoing persecution. I expressed an idealism that the UN may evolve into being able to offer stateless persons global citizenship regardless of local , national BS.

Repeat just to be clear:
Global citizenship to deal with the stateless dilemma.

To get past this situation of repeatedly throwing the Rohingya back just so that in a few years time they can be culled all over again.

We have a similar situation on Manus island and Nauru detention camps. The way the U N can get past this is to offer all detainees UN citizenship therefore circumventing the political situation in Australia. The asylum seekers are virtually stateless.
If the UN was able to grant them asylum then problem solved.

The Bangladesh Gov could then take their case to the UN and not Myanmar.
The same could apply to the Dreamers in the USA and all illegal immigrants in Europe etc...
but as I said idealistic.. but most likely where the UN will have to go in the very near future.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Why are you avoiding the attacks on police stations in August?
and the ARNO
see post #89 In case you missed it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

"A rallying point for Muslim leaders around the world"..? This quote comes from where, exactly?

Wall Street Journal - https://www.wsj.com/articles/myanmars-rohingya-clampdown-sparks-a-growing-outcry-at-u-n-gathering-1505970745

UNITED NATIONS—The violence in Myanmar has become a rallying point for Islamic countries and their leaders at the General Assembly, while commanding widening attention and concern among heads of state gathered for annual meetings.​

 

[Bells]

The current fledgling democracy came to elected power in 15- 03- 2016 (Suu)

She was elected into government in 2012. Her party won the general election in 2015.

The nation is considered one of the least developed in the world.
The economic diversity is extreme with the military holding most of the wealth.
Government provided services (health education) beyond military are virtually non existent for all ethic groups not just Rohingya.

And this excuses ethnic cleansing and genocide? This excuses the implementation of laws that restrict birthrates, marriage, movement, denies access to health care, internment camps where they are forced into forced labour, denied access to food and nutrition and clean water, stripped of their citizenship and denied any rights, made to suffer constant threats and violence from the police and military?

Bells you really need to get you head around the incredible mess that was and is Myanmar.

Considering you don't even know how or when she and her party got into the Burmese Parliament, nor are you even aware of their laws and policies against the ethnic minority groups in Myanmar or when these laws were enacted, well, this would be hilarious if it was not so pathetic.

As a web designer I put together a pro bono web site, some years ago, for a British based charity that helped provide education materials for orphanages on the Burma Thai border. I with drew from the project mainly because the charity wished to publish military installation location (maps) to protect it's workers. I felt it would place the orphanages at risk.

Raises the question, why are you now actively defending and making excuses for their acts against minority groups.

I found out then, as part of research, that the militia in Burma were all prevalent and utterly ruthless. Extremes well beyond what we in the West may imagine.

Not really. Genocidal regimes tend to follow similar patterns.

In other words, we've been here and done all of this before.

To over simplify the situation in Myanmar and expect international norms to exist is ridiculous.

Over simplify? If anything, the media have been playing it down.

I have been involved actively and as a legal representative studying these types of events in the past and providing advice about how to proceed, and having seen some of the reports coming out of Myanmar, what the media reports has been nothing. I have been sent some of those latest reports, internal reports as I am now considering getting back in the field because of this latest catastrophe, I have seen the photos, satellite images, footage filmed by these organisations from the border, the injuries these people suffered in their attempts to escape, the images of the sexual injuries little girls have suffered due to being gang raped by the soldiers and the militia and by young girls, I mean some of them are toddlers. And you think reporting or even investigating these crimes consist of an oversimplification of the situation there? Would you prefer all remain silent, so as to not upset your delicate sensibilities and that of the opinion of Aung San Suu Kyi?

No one expects international norms to exist as they would in say, the West or even countries like Rwanda (where norms against genocide do exist now because they have been through this before and went through over a decade of reconciliation and hearings to promote unity after a long period of propaganda by the State, much like we see in Myanmar now and its government). What we do expect is even a basic fundamental recognition that these are human beings, worthy of even their basic fundamental human rights. But they aren't even recognised as human beings.

And I am sorry that you believe home imprisonment somehow gets her a pass on these matters. They do not.

Bells naivety is the sort of naivety that may get an awful lot of people butchered. ( not just Rohingya)

Suu is not kidding when she says that it is not safe for journalists etc.

How many of these sorts of things have you been involved with in the past?

When State actors use propaganda against aid groups, human rights groups, journalists, that is a means to hide what they are doing and it ensures the populace resort to violence against anyone they believe are aiding and abetting those the government wishes to destroy. We saw similarities in the last American election, where Trump went on his anti-media "fake news" spiel, where members of his voters turned on the media. In Myanmar, their policies and that of Aung San Suu Kyi (her social media posts, public statements and releases from her office) all used similar language.. "Fake news" and other propaganda and rhetoric against aid groups and journalists..

And journalists and aid groups and UN monitors are used to these sorts of conditions. She hasn't barred them from the region because she fears for their safety. She has barred them for the same reason other regimes have done the same thing in the past. It is a means to hide what is going on and to ensure the world community does not know what is happening. This is typical behaviour for State actors who commit or are complicit with human rights violations. She is merely repeating the same thing the military she railed against in the past, have done.

 

[Bells]

why do you think she is hiding anything?

Because she has openly and publicly lied about what has happened and continues to happen, even in her latest statements that she stood on a podium and read out. She has shown first hand that she cannot be trusted (blatantly lying is usually a good indication) and her attempts to stymie and ban any investigators from entering the region, even before the latest bout of violence began, because she does not want the world to know what her government and military are doing there. If she truly was not afraid of being investigated, then she would allow UN investigators into the region. It has been over a year now and she has prevented them from entering the region because other groups and human rights observers have been documenting and reporting on the fact that her country was committing the crime of ethnic cleansing and genocide in the region against specific ethnic groups. That is when she banned them from entering the region.

I don't think she is all that concerned about the safety of journalists, ( Not caring so much if they end up slaughtered) but more concerned about the safety of local communities that would be threatened by the presence of journalists. The militia would consider any communication with journalists to be betrayal and react accordingly.

You mean she is concerned that the media would document the military arming local Buddhists and busing in militia members from other regions to commit these acts of ethnic cleansing? That was already documented by others who were there to observe years ago and since then. That is why she shut down any chance for the UN to send in their human rights observers to document any of it and why she banned the media from entering the region. You see, QQ, those bans came into effect when observers released their reports on what they saw and observed in the region.

Currently IMO there is no genocide however:
the potential for a massive genocide is extreme.

Prove there is no genocide.

Human Rights Watch, Yale Law School, Fortify Rights, International State Crime Initiative, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and others have advised that this is a genocide. The UN have declared it ethnic cleansing, which is a component to genocide and they are literally one click away from declaring a genocide.. Are you suggesting you know more or better than all of these organisations?

And that is the main problem Suu is facing...and attempting to avoid.

Attempting to avoid would not include or involve spreading propaganda to aid those committing said genocide and it would certainly not result in defending those committing said genocide.

This is how the UN (world) can help.
Help Suu prevent genocide...but exactly how is the big question.

They have been trying. But she has banned them from entering the country to investigate the violence against the ethnic minorities.

the ones that I did read or watch were out of date and not directly relevant to the current situation that has occurred since the raids on the police stations in August.

For goodness sake. Aung San Suu Kyi and her party entered parliament as members and representatives in 2012. They won the general election in 2015.

These issues have been ongoing and these latest "clearance operations" have been ongoing since last year but they ramped up their efforts in the last few months in their bid to rid the country of all the Rohingya - hence why this is a genocide. The genocide, as I noted earlier and as others have advised, is a slow genocide and has been ongoing for years. This is their latest push.

You seem to think all of this just happened. It didn't. Those reports that I have posted point to an ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing in the country and this latest push has been even more violent and deadly. Or did you actually miss all of that? I mean, everyone understands this, why do you fail to?

The problem with the word genocide is that it requires an orchestrated, organized and co-ordinates act to wipe out a particular ethnic group.

All of which are present in Myanmar. From laws that control birthrates, to active denial of medical care and services, preventing movement to access medical care, particularly for pregnant women, all of these are part of Government policy. Coordinated attacks on villages, state propaganda against them, the State arming locals and busing in militia groups, State sponsored intimidation and violence.. All of these aspects are present and have been documented for years. This isn't a flash bang genocide. This has been a slow and concerted effort of eradication.

There appears to be no specific evidence that links the militia, military and government in a way that demonstrates that degree of inter-fraction agreement and planning. IMO

All those who have declared this a genocide have observed this happening. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Hell, it was happening in 2012, when the State armed, bused in and provided meals to people who participated in that massacre. The same is happening now.

The so called genocide is maybe a "popular" action taken by various collections of militia and army units , which is why so many have managed to escape and continue to escape.

You know that there are people like you, who also use the exact same language for the Jewish holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the East Timor genocide and ethnic cleansing, the genocide in Srebenica, South Sudan..

You all follow the same pattern.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Why did you post the link to an undated report by the ISCI?

 

[Quantum Quack]

see post #95