The Myanmar military must be squirming with delight at this rift between Suu Kyi and the west. Makes it much easier to quietly dispose of her at a convenient time.
While her silence is to be condemned, don't forget that the true cause of the Rohingya's suffering lie with the Myanmar military and their accomplices, who are the ones doing the killing and burning.
I invite her again and ask her to be there to answer what is happening there.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)
Aung San Suu Kyi will focus attention on the "Rakhine terrorist attacks," her spokesman said, after announcing Wednesday the she will skip an upcoming UN General Assembly session in New York later this month.
Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, is facing global outcry over Myanmar security forces' fierce response to a series of Rohingya militant attacks in the western state of Rakhine.
In her first address as national leader to the UN last year, Suu Kyi defended her government's efforts to resolve the crisis over the treatment of Myanmar's Rohingya Muslim minority, who were already widely reported to be one of the most discriminated ethnic groups in the worldbefore the crackdown.
I'd argue a country whose public support is apparently so intrinsically tied to allowing genocide isn't worth saving in the first place...
I'm all for Machiavellianism, pragmatism, realpolitik, realism- but not when it invalidates your entire message. I do see your point, of course, but I can't understand what she hopes to achieve if genocide is an acceptable failing.
Yeah, to be fair for Suu Kyi, she is stuck between the hammer and the anvil.
She is trying to make the country democratic, and she has a very powerful opponent already, the military.
She cannot afford to add the conservative buddhists to that list, else she would lose her standing in the majority of the burmese population and all her gains might amount to nothing in the future.
Actually, the military is probably doing this on purpose. It's a very good move against her, when you don't care about the ethics. Now that I think about it, I'm surprised they haven't done that earlier.
So, while I still think she should denouce the massacre, I can understand her point of view.
Call me cynical, but I'm pretty sure all countries have a significant portion of their population who'd okay genocide if it interested them, and even more that would ignore it. We humans haven't changed that much.
But yeah. She's too weak to afford alienating such a big power in the country. No idea what she thinks.