At best, you could call AASK an apologist for military. But that ignores that she was really their prisoner even while “free”, and the delicate negotiation she engaged in an attempt to build a civilian government, as flawed as it was.
The coup proves that she never really had any authority to begin with.
Why then the lies about the genocide?
What we know is that she doesn't really have any authority.
If she does something the military didn't like, whoops there's a coup.
If the military is likey or feels so so about it, then it's fine.
If the military wants her to do something, she probably has to.
The coup proves that.
Western people are out of touch. You cannot speak up or playing a martyr in these countries because they will actually kill you and your family and everyone involved.
To answer your question, we'll probably never know.
Apparently, you probably don't know either since your question implied that she had authority.
Quite the opposite, you think that was different in Hitlers reich? Do you think peoples who denied concentration camps and had no authority (but knew about it) where innocent?
>If the military wants her to do something, she probably has to.
That's is and was the lamest excuse for every human being ever!
There are different factions in the military, one of which was the architect of Burma’s democratic transition, the other which opposes the transition (who current dictator/CIC is part of).
The military miscalculated, as they didn’t intend for ASSK or NLD to outsmart them in constitution of their own design. Military had expected to win enough seats with their proxy party + military appointed seats to prevent NLD choosing a president. But NLD won enough seats to choose president, and their chosen president gets to appoint commander-in -chief (military must confirm). Never before had a president appointed the CIC. The military saw this has a threat to their power. They do not want to be under any civilian control. And Min Aung Hlaing (current dictator) is also probably afraid of genocide charges if he is no longer in power.
Ah yes, then shes definitely not responsible...irony off.
>>she took the podium on Wednesday at the United Nations’ highest court to defend her homeland against accusations of genocide, arguing that there had been no orchestrated campaign of persecution.
>>Instead, she insisted that what foreign observers have called an organized, years-long campaign of atrocities against the Rohingya has been exaggerated and misconstrued.
2019/12/11 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/world/asia/aung-san-suu-k...
2018/07/07 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/world/asia/myanmar-rohing...
She had no involvement in the military’s decisions in Rakhine state. Yes, she defended the perpetrators at ICJ, either as part of a political strategy of reconciliation with military, or because she just felt like defending them because she secretly likes what happened. You guess which explanation is more likely.
Fact is:
-Aung San Suu Kyi defended actively a genocide for not being one, while speaking in The Hague.
-The civilian government was informed and partially included in the genocide.
Both points are fact, and NOT speculations.
The military does not take orders from civilian government, it’s the other way around. Civilian gov has no legal or de facto control over Tatmadaw, or border control, or home affairs (police, courts). There is no civilian legislative control over Rakhine operations. Tatmadaw just does whatever they wants.
And anyone who speaks against their actions is imprisoned. If AASK spoke against them they would have imprisoned her again, like they just did. The politics AASK is dealing with are complex.
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/anaylsis/2019/11/21/Myanm...
https://burmacampaign.org.uk/argentinean-courts-urged-to-pro...
>If AASK spoke against them they would have imprisoned her again
She could just stay at the Haag and tell the truth...how about that?
“The Rohingya people are facing an existential threat. For decades, the Myanmar authorities have tried to wipe us out by confining us to ghettos, forcing us to flee our home country and killing us. The global community must act now to end this genocide and bring those responsible to justice,” said Tun Khin, President of BROUK.
Shame on you!
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/12/transcript-aung-sa...
And i don't feel like arguing with someone who defends a genocide denier, and explains it with "who don’t really know anything about Burma or her situation".
>either as part of a political strategy of reconciliation with military, or because she just felt like defending them because she secretly likes what happened. You guess which explanation is more likely.
Sound like the later one, defending a genocide for "reconciliation with military" is pure evil, and is never a sound strategy.
>>she took the podium on Wednesday at the United Nations’ highest court to defend her homeland against accusations of genocide, arguing that there had been no orchestrated campaign of persecution.
>>Instead, she insisted that what foreign observers have called an organized, years-long campaign of atrocities against the Rohingya has been exaggerated and misconstrued.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/world/asia/aung-san-suu-k...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/world/asia/myanmar-rohing...
I think that is interesting.
BTW: Hitler was also democratically elected, wouldn't have been the worst thing if the Wehrmacht made a coup then, like for example "operation valkyrie".