[The military’s operation against the Rohingya in Rakhine state forced almost a million people into squalid camps in neighboring Bangladesh amid allegations of rape, indiscriminate killing and torture. Legal experts say the country now faces a reckoning that could implicate Suu Kyi, although a judgment will likely take years.]
By Shibani Mahtani and Michael Birnbaum
 |
|
Myanmar's
civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi during a televised speech in Naypyidaw,
the
capital, on Sept. 19, 2017. (Aung Shine Oo/AP)
|
Aung San Suu Kyi spent the best part of two
decades under house arrest when a military junta ruled Myanmar. This week in
The Hague, the Nobel laureate and former democracy campaigner will defend some
of the same generals and her country against allegations of genocide .
To many in the West, Suu Kyi’s decision to
personally defend Myanmar’s purge of the Rohingya is indefensible. As civilian
head of a government still under heavy military influence, she supported the
army and its campaign against the mostly Muslim minority, forcing the United
States, Britain and others to reassess a leader they spent years lionizing.
In Myanmar, however, the move has solidified
Suu Kyi’s hero status ahead of elections next year, underscoring the abhorrence
that many in the Buddhist-majority country feel toward the Rohingya, as well as
domestic considerations that make her appearance politically expedient.
As she departed for the United Nations’ top
court, tens of thousands attended rallies in Myanmar to support her mission,
waving placards and chanting in adoration. Some planned to fly to the
Netherlands. A religious ceremony was held in her honor at a pagoda named for
eternal peace.
The military’s operation against the Rohingya
in Rakhine state forced almost a million people into squalid camps in
neighboring Bangladesh amid allegations of rape, indiscriminate killing and
torture. Legal experts say the country now faces a reckoning that could
implicate Suu Kyi, although a judgment will likely take years.
“It’s the first time that they have to answer
for the military’s atrocities in Rakhine state in a credible court,” said
Param-Preet Singh, associate director of the International Justice Program at
Human Rights Watch.
The case at the International Court of
Justice was brought by Gambia, the smallest country in continental Africa, with
the backing of the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Gambia’s move
is a rare example of state-to-state litigation between U.N. member states, and
the first time a country without direct connection to the alleged atrocities
has brought a case before the ICJ.
“It took a tiny country like Gambia to give a
shot at justice,” Singh said. “None of the big powers have been able to do
that. It’s an unlikely hero that’s unlocking a door, and it’s created this path
that didn’t exist before.”
This week’s hearings are among several
international legal maneuvers to hold Myanmar officials to account. In
November, the International Criminal Court’s judges authorized prosecutors to
open an investigation into crimes against humanity over the treatment of the
Rohingya.
A striking feature of the proceedings is the
appearance of Suu Kyi. Her defense, scheduled for Wednesday, will mark one of
the only times a national leader has personally addressed the tribunal, which
first met in 1946.
Analysts and those familiar with Suu Kyi’s
thinking say domestic considerations largely explain her resolve to testify in
person. These include a desire to bolster her personal support and that of her
party, and to placate the military, which holds sway over key ministries and
has balked at proposed constitutional changes that would revoke its enshrined
role in politics and officially allow Suu Kyi to become president.
These people say Suu Kyi perceives herself as
the only one who can, and should, do the job of confronting international
opprobrium.
“Aung San Suu Kyi believes both that she is
the person best able to present Myanmar’s case at The Hague, and, as foreign minister,
the person who is most responsible for doing so,” said Richard Horsey, a
political analyst based in Yangon. “She no doubt understands the importance of
this moment for Myanmar’s international standing but will also have one eye on
her domestic audience.”
The state newspaper, the Global New Light of
Myanmar, in announcing Suu Kyi’s departure on Sunday said she would contest the
case “to defend the national interest.” Myanmar’s leaders have said
international courts have no jurisdiction over the matter and have pushed back
against the notion of any premeditated campaign against the Rohingya. The
leaders have argued that they were instead responding to a security threat posed
by militants.
Kobsak Chutikul, a retired Thai lawmaker and
diplomat who served on an advisory board assembled by Suu Kyi after the
Rohingya crisis, said her decision seemed to catch military leaders off-guard,
so much so that they held a special “national security session” to get everyone
on the same page.
“It thus bears the hallmarks of advice given
by her close-knit inner circle of under-the-radar Western advisers who may have
been more concerned with international image and perception issues,” he said.
“They would have advised her to ‘get ahead of the narrative,’ ‘get it out
there,’ and to use her power of celebrity to smother critics and accusers.”
Also, “the military now also owes her one,” Kobsak added.
The gambit is a risky one as the
international community pursues ways to hold Myanmar accountable. The U.S.
House of Representatives in 2018 overwhelmingly voted for a resolution that
declared the expulsion of the Rohingya to be genocide. In July, the State
Department announced sanctions against military leaders including commander in
chief Min Aung Hlaing, accusing them of “gross violations of human rights.”
So far, punitive measures have not targeted
Suu Kyi, who enjoys a close relationship with Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.).
Whether Suu Kyi’s calculations will play out
as she hopes is “questionable at best,” said a former senior Western diplomat
who worked closely with her.
“In the end, going to The Hague is very
risky, perhaps implicating her in mass atrocities in the international mind more
deeply than before,” he said.
For Rohingya refugees and those still in
Myanmar — where they are segregated, denied citizenship rights and restricted
in their movements — the proceedings are cause for cautious optimism. Rohingya
inside Myanmar, also known as Burma, are finding ways to live-stream the
coverage on spotty Internet connections. Those in Bangladesh, affected by an
Internet shutdown, are finding it harder to obtain news but say they have hope
for the first time in years.
“We have lost our hope and faith in the
Myanmar government, [but] we have some hope now finally in the ICJ,” said Khin
Maung, co-founder of the Rohingya Youth Association based in the Bangladesh
camps.
Mahtani reported
from Hong Kong and Birnbaum from Brussels. Cape Diamond in Yangon, Myanmar,
contributed to this report.
Read more
