Who's afraid of Aung San Suu Kyi?

Myanmar takes on the world at the Hague

December 04, 2019

Hello friends,

Next week is going to be a big one for Myanmar. Aung San Suu Kyi will make her way to the Hague to answer a genocide case against the country, no doubt winning support back home and unleashing a fresh round of ‘what happened to her!!!’ pieces. 

Below, I’ve outlined the bones of what you should know ahead of the case beginning Dec. 10. We’ll be keeping a close eye on it for the premium Dari Mulut ke Mulut, which you can join here for $6 a month or $60 for the year:

While I don’t really take a look at what’s happening in Cox’s Bazar or other camps here, please remember UNHCR and other organisations are always looking for donations to help support the hundreds of thousands of Rohingya forced to flee. 

Thanks!Erin Cook

The Gambia submitted a 46-page document to the International Court of Justice last month laying out a genocide case, including murder, rape and the destruction of communities. The Guardian notes this is the first time the court has moved to hear a case which had not previously been investigated by a tribunal, such as the International criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia established in the early 90s.

The Gambia, which is a Muslim-majority country, is acting on behalf of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation. Which is good, but to me raises questions about why the smallest country in mainland Africa has taken on the challenge instead of Indonesia, Malaysia or even Brunei. Still, it isn’t the first time OIC has floated coming for Myanmar with chatter beginning mid-last year around the same time the United Nations stepped up investigations. 

As an aside, here is an interesting explainer from the BBC why the Gambia is always THE Gambia.  

"The Gambia hopes by this case, and the OIC hopes by this case, to obtain a judgment from the International Court of Justice — the highest legal authority in the international community, that Myanmar is guilty of the crime of genocide against the Rohingya people," said Paul Reichler, a US-based lawyer on the Gambia’s legal team. 

What’s the difference between this International Court of Justice case and the International Criminal Court move? Good question! Thank everything for Frontier Myanmar. This is a bit beyond my ‘generalist’ purview, but this from Thomas Kean contextualises the current and past legal moves against Myanmar. 

The case revolves around the Genocide Convention. When Myanmar became a party to the convention in 1956, it pledged to “prevent and punish” genocide (and by extension not commit it). Under article nine, if one state party believes another state party has failed to uphold the terms of the convention, it can bring a case against it in the ICJ, which is a court established by the UN.

When signing the convention, Myanmar made a reservation about article three – the prosecution of individuals responsible for genocide in an international court. However, it made no reservation about article nine, opening the door for another state party to the convention to bring a case.

Bring it on, says Myanmar. Defacto leader Aung San Suu Kyi will lead the country’s defence herself when hearings begin Dec. 10. The response initially confused — Myanmar always maintains it’s not doing a thing wrong, does defending itself essentially admit there is something to defend? — but thankfully, here’s Azeem Ibrahim. There are two potential motivations here, he wrote at the end of November for the Washington Post. Firstly, she might really, truly not know the extent of the atrocities. Ibrahim writes that he’s spoken to sources who say when confronted with evidence she typically writes it off as an attempt to undermine her authority or even oust her. 

Perhaps Suu Kyi genuinely believes in the innocence of her cause and of her government. And perhaps she genuinely believes that if she, as a celebrated human rights icon, finally stands before the international community at the ICJ, they will finally recognize the errors of the “misinformation” aimed at her by her “detractors.”

Or, and this is what I’m leaning towards, she’s doing what seemingly all world leaders do now. Is it possible that she sees making an appearance and the relentless, loud reiteration of what is essentially a lie will be seen as ‘political strength’ and play extraordinarily well at home? 

Or maybe it’s a mix of both. As Angshuman Choudhury writes for the Diplomat, beyond that awkward WEF 2018 line about ‘handling it better’ ASSK has never really diverted from the script. This is a really interesting deeper piece so hard recommend a further reading. Includes the blunt line ‘it is unwise to assume that Suu Kyi is a mere “pawn in the game.”’ which is something the world should’ve read a while ago.

Play well at home, it does. Around 700 supporters took to the streets in Yangon ahead of ASSK flying out. Joined by members of her National League of Democracy, supporters said interesting things like “We stand with you, Mother Suu.” and “Mother Suu is the bravest human being in the world – her weapon is love.” Which, while very jarring, is important to note. “We must show our unity. If a country’s leader says a lemon is sweet, we have to say it is sweet,” protest organiser Aung Thu told Reuters.

The government has established a special unit to tackle the case, as well as others on the horizon. At what point during looking for office space for a whole new unit on defending yourself from genocide accusations do you think hmm are we the baddies? 

Oof, clanger from Israel. The Foreign Ministry was forced to condemn a since-deleted Tweet posted by the ambassador to Myanmar, Ronen Gilor, last week. “Encouragement for a good verdict and good luck!” he wrote. Holy smokes! “Israel strongly condemns the atrocities that took place in the Rakhine region against the Rohingya. About a week ago, Israel voted in favor of a resolution to denounce the atrocities,” the Foreign Ministry later said in a statement. 

Read more:

Massacre in Myanmar (Reuters Special Report)

Reply

or to participate.