Yesterday, on the first day of February, the Myanmar army declared a state of emergency, took control of the country and detained the Councilor of State and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize 1991. In a statement released by the television network Myawaddy TV – that belongs to them – the military accused the Electoral Commission of failing to act on the “huge irregularities” who claim to have taken place in the November legislative elections, when Aung San Suu Kyi's party, the “National League for Democracy” / “National League for Democracy” / NLD, won by a large majority.
The military claimed that the intervention, no acts of violence, was "necessary to preserve the stability of the country". A state of emergency lasting one year was declared. O vice-presidente Myint Swe, appointed to the position by the military, assumed the presidency, while the head of the Armed Forces, Min Aung Hlaing, will be responsible for “supervising the authorities”, as reported by the television channel. The military evoked the powers attributed to them by the Constitution of 1974, written by them – and endorsed by the current Charter, of 2008 -, which allows them to take control of the country “in the event of a national emergency”. They promised to organize new elections when the state of emergency ends: “We will establish a true multi-party democracy”, announced in a statement published on the Facebook network, and added that power will be transferred after “free and fair general elections” are held..
After his arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi asked the people, in a letter published by his party, that “do not accept the coup d’état”, which provoked an avalanche of international condemnation: the United Kingdom and the European Union immediately criticized the coup, while China limited itself to asking the parties involved to “resolve their differences”. The United States government has expressed its opposition to any attempt to change the results of the recent elections: “(…) We will take action against those responsible.”, warned the White House spokeswoman, in a statement. The UN Secretary General, António Guterres, “strongly condemned” the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi: “these acts represent a serious blow to democratic reforms in Myanmar”, stated.
Let's try to understand…
Using History, We recapitulate that the omnipotent presence of the military in the life of the country dates back to 1962, when they perpetrated the coup that replaced the government of Prime Minister U Nu with a collegial body – the “Union Revolutionary Council” – led by General Ne Win, that for thirty years (1958-88) personally dominated, and with an iron fist, to national life. The voice of resistance, So, focused on the “Great Lady” and the Buddhist community – Myanmar is 90% buddhist -, who experienced traumatic moments in the struggle for democratization: Suu Kyi placed under house arrest for almost 15 years, and the monks, your supporters, imolando-se, in protest, in front of your residence. In 2015 finally the NLD, political party of Suu Kyi, won the elections and was able, So, rise to the political scene, even administered by the military.
It should be noted that to preserve the power, through shady expedients they had reserved, by the Constitution of 2008, 25% from the seats of parliament to themselves, what gives them, in the last instance, “Minerva’s vote” in all collegiate decisions. Were, actually, even more “diligent”: by the section 59(f), chapter 3, of the Charter, conditioned that the president of the country cannot have, as well as any of your relatives, ties with foreign country. Now, this device has direct target: Su Kyii, who lived for many years in England, was married to a British professor, and his two children were born there.
Let's go, So, seek to understand the reasons for such antagonism against her: daughter of the founder of Myanmar, o General Aung Sang, the great national leader responsible for the independence of what was then Burma from the British Raj, Suu Kyi has fought tirelessly to play the democratic game in her country. In 2010, after being released from her long imprisonment, she led the NLD in boycotting that year's elections and demanded greater political openness. In 2015, finally led his party to a landslide victory in the legislative elections. As he could not run for president due to the constitutional clause, the position of State Counselor was then created for her. However, Suu Kyi, definitely, the national emblematic figure and the only possibility, per hour, from to medium term, “hopefully”, consolidate democracy in Myanmar.
His public life has not occurred, however, without a hitch. In 2018, “Amnesty International” decided to withdraw her title of Ambassador of Conscience, the highest award given to personalities who stand out in the defense of human rights. It was not the first time that an award given to Suu Kyi was revoked. Between others, were also “into space”: your honorary Canadian citizenship; the Holocaust Museum Human Rights Award, Professor of international relations at the “University of the Far East”; the title of Freedom of Oxford; the Freedom of Edinburgh Award, and so many others. This is a real “tsunami” political-ideological against, until then, “Heroine of Democracy”.
What was at stake was her perceived inaction, and your party, in the face of what a UN report called “mass murders” perpetrated by the country’s Buddhist majority against “rohingyas”. These are, how do you know, the Muslim minority that inhabits the Rakhine region on the western coast of Myanmar, who was transferred by British colonizers from neighboring Bangladesh, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, to serve as “coolies” on the tea plantations of what was then Burma (these origins are, however, contested). They today represent around 5% From 60 million inhabitants of the country. Others 800 1,000 are sheltered in refugee camps in Bangladesh, in front of the Bay of Bengal, which limits Muslim neighbors by sea and land – em Bangladesh – and Buddhists – My Burmese. I'm Myanmar, they do not have the right to own land or property; only have a stateless person's passport, granted by the UN.
Bangladesh does not intend to receive them either, claiming its overpopulation and the more than 720 thousand Rohingyas that it welcomed last year alone and who joined, in its turn, to more than 200 thousand others he had received during the various waves of violence unleashed by the Buddhist community in Rakhine. They form the largest refugee camp in the world, in the Cox’s Bazar region. The crisis that is endemically ravaging the region is one of the longest in the world and also one of the most neglected by the international community..
Suu Kyi has remained mostly silent on the issue most of the time, as it faces a major political dilemma: and yours “Sofia's choice”. That is, blatantly supporting the Rohingya, she risks losing the support of the Buddhist population – deeply religious, conservative and contrary to the presence of “Muslim terrorists” not only burmese -, which he needs so much to carry out his political struggle; In contrast, by remaining silent, or “neutral”, it raises criticism from the international community. Safeguard, however, its alliances and focus on its main purpose: the consolidation of democracy in Myanmar!
I had the opportunity to serve in both Bangladesh and Myanmar, and to testify, on both sides of the gulf, this tragedy. I interviewed myself, also, com Suu Kyi: a big moment for me. The “on site” experience makes us analyze situations from a perspective that is less contaminated by “Western truths”., even if under penalty of appearing, not minimum, insensitive. But let's analyze: daughter of Burmese independence leader, She fought her entire life for the redemocratization of her homeland, and face – again – the fury of military dictators, who imprisoned her – again – at your residence, who knows how much longer: history repeats itself. And it will certainly be the Buddhist population, led by monks, who tirelessly supported her throughout the process, often at the cost of the death of militants, and led the party she founded, a “National League for Democracy”, winning the presidential elections two years ago and coming to power, that will come to your aid again…Who can cast the first stone?
atrocious dilemma…
The democratic game is still in its infancy in Myanmar and is threatened by the military establishment and its corporate cronies; is not yet standing on its own two feet Suu Kyi's dilemma lies between humanitarian awareness and the absolute priority of solidifying the democratic process. For this reason, the times it manifested itself, she questioned the reality of the facts in Rakhine. She does not vehemently accuse, but neither does it defend… In other words, not everything is black and not everything is white when it comes to her posture… Shades of gray seem to be the most realistic when judging the “Great Lady”.
I suggest that friends read the article on “EXAM”: Myanmar military seizes power and arrests elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi
