e_Paper 4-12-2016

Opinion
23
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2016
DT
Because they don’t vote
Why is Aung San Suu Kyi still silent?
The Rohingya issue is a political landmine in Myanmar
• Mahmood Sadaat Ruhul
“I
think that if you live
under a dictatorship
for many years, people
do not like to trust
one another -- a dictatorship
generates a climate of mistrust,”
Aung San Suu Kyi told Mishal
Hussein of the BBC in 2013 when
questioned about the persecution
of Rohingyas in Myanmar.
The dictatorship in question
is, of course, the military junta
which ruled over Myanmar
from 1962-2011, and which still
holds significant leverage over
political life by way of important
ministerial portfolios such as
Defense and Border Affairs, and
the uncontested right to a quarter
of the seats in both houses of the
legislature.
It was under this military
rule that Suu Kyi was elevated
to the pantheon of human
rights defenders, with the Nobel
Committee, in 1991, awarding
her the Peace Prize for being
an “important symbol in the
struggle against oppression,”
most prominently for her efforts
at spearheading the popular 8888
Uprising which attempted to
topple the failed administrators of
the “Burmese way to socialism.”
It is, without a doubt, that
Myanmar’s military regimes
were unadulterated disasters. All
the usual boxes of tyranny were
ticked: Economic stagnation,
suppression of dissent, arbitrary
detention, etc.
Behind the curtains lies a shrewd political operator with her finger on the
pulse of a population that has, for decades, endured military rule. The
Rohingya issue is simply a political landmine in Myanmar, destined for
the quagmire, derided as ‘identity politics’
Even in 1990, when free and fair
elections announced Suu Kyi’s
National League for Democracy
as the majority party, the military
rolled back on its promises to
relinquish power and sent the
country back down the rabbit hole
of uncertainty.
More to Suu Kyi’s argument
about the “climate of mistrust,” is
the military’s single most potent
footprint: Ethnic conflict.
The military regimes of the past
have used the full brunt of the
state machinery to suppress and
sequester ethnic minorities. In
Myanmar today, if you can name
a minority population, you can
be sure they are presently or had
been at one time or another in
conflict with the military.
The Shans, Myanmar’s largest
minority group, have been
tormented by the Tadmadaw for
decades, and often communities
have had to flee to neighbouring
Thailand; because of this, many
armed organisations such as the
erstwhile Shan National Army
have sprouted up seeking selfdetermination
for the group.
The story begins to take on a
coherent narrative as one traverses
across Myanmar’s geographical
landscape. The Karen National
Liberation Army has been fighting
the government since 1949 for the
establishment of an autonomous
“Kawthoolei” state. The Karen
conflict has been called the
“world’s longest running civil
war.” The Kachin war was also
resuscitated in 2011 after a 17 year
hiatus.
In each of these fronts,
the crimes of successive
governments are familiar though
no less depressing: Rape, torture,
displacement, forced labour, and
child soldiers.
The government has even
resorted to using ostensibly
less nefarious, though no less
damaging in the long term,
formulas to curtail advancement
and progress in minority
populated regions. The crumbling
transportation infrastructure, for
example, provides a blueprint
for inequity and according to the
ADB “after decades of underinvestment,
provides poor
access to markets and services,
perpetuates poverty and regional
REUTERS
inequality.”
And then we have the
Rohingyas who don’t even have
the right to be called citizens. Who
are relegated to realms of “boat
people” and “floating coffins,”
or their moniker in diplomatic
circles: “The most persecuted
minority in the world.”
But that was under military
rule.
Surely, the newly elected
government of Suu Kyi, the
champion of human rights, will
make efforts to alleviate some of
the sufferings, right? After all, she
has an esteemed record in fighting
against injustices, and now that
she holds power, all the bulwarks
that stood against reconciliation
must fall.
But here’s the catch. “Why
won’t she say anything about the
Rohingyas?” is the question on
everyone’s lips. The answer is far
less sensationalistic and more
disturbing than it may seem.
There are no votes in it.
Many in the majority Bamar
population hold deep-rooted
prejudices against much of
the non-Buddhist minorities,
including Rohingyas. The
burgeoning 969 movement led by
monk Ashin Wirathu has fanned
religious tensions and scapegoated
Muslims as the cause for the
country’s ills. This extremist
movement reared its ugly head
during the 2012-2013 anti-Muslim
campaign all over Myanmar,
especially in Rakhine state.
Suu Kyi’s party won a supermajority
in both chambers of
parliament in the 2015 general
election, largely on the back of
support from the Bamar majority.
Even though it is true that the NLD
also won many unexpected seats
in minority regions, like Kachin,
the fact remains that the Buddhist
Bamar vote was pivotal in her
party’s landslide victory.
Do not let Suu Kyi’s seemingly
spotless activism fool you.
Behind the curtains lies a
shrewd political operator with her
finger on the pulse of a population
that has, for decades, endured
military rule. The Rohingya issue
is simply a political landmine
in Myanmar, destined for the
quagmire, derided as “identity
politics.” Any proximity to it risks
provoking the ire of Myanmar’s
Buddhist Nationalist lobby, who
hold significant clout as pressure
groups.
Even the best politicians are
no good without power. And Suu
Kyi seems to have decided that
keeping mum on the plight of
the Rohingyas is the best course
for action. Rohingyas have taken
backseat to the buzzword of
“national reconciliation.”
While it is true that decades of
mismanagement has left Myanmar
in a deeply polarised state of
decay, the argument that some
issues are more important than
others does not hold water in this
case. Constitutional reform rings
hollow when one million of the
country’s inhabitants live under
the threat of ethnic cleansing
Bangladesh and the UNHCR do
indeed have a humanitarian duty
to accept the Rohingya refugees
who are crossing the border, but
the international community must
not let Suu Kyi’s new government
off the hook while it pursues more
politically expedient policy goals.
The same governments that
bestowed upon her honorific
titles and prizes, must take
responsibility to remind her that
she is the leader of all Burmese
people, including Rohingyas, and
not just the ones she sees as vote
banks. •
Mahmood Sadaat Ruhul is a freelance
contributor.