Foreign Affairs Secretary Kyaw Zeya told Parliament on Thursday that there was no reason for a fact finding mission to be allowed visas and their embassies abroad had been instructed accordingly. Myanmar had already said it would not cooperate with the UN probe when the international body announced the move in March.
The administration of specially-appointed “State Counsellor” Aung San Suu Kyi has come under fire for its handling of the Rohingya situation in Myanmar’s Rakhine state. A Nobel Peace laureate charged with transitioning the country from military dictatorship, Suu Kyi said that a UN mission “would have created greater hostility between the different communities.”
Although there is extensive evidence that Rohingya Muslims have been in Myanmar for centuries, the government has considered them illegal immigrants from Bangladesh for decades, leaving them stateless. On top of widespread reports of abuse and persecution on the part of local Buddhists, there are also allegations that security services working for the government have taken part in killings and attacks on Rohingya as well.
China and India joined Myanmar in distancing themselves from the UN resolution passed in March. Myanmar has insisted that its own domestic investigation is more than sufficient to uncover possible abuses.
The violent situation between the majority Buddhists and minority Muslims in Rakhine escalated further when a local group of insurgents killed nine border police last year, leading to a brutal retaliation from security forces. The UN said in a February report that the army’s response included mass killings and gang rapes that “very likely” amounted to crimes against humanity, and possibly to ethnic cleansing.
So once again Suu Kyi has proven that she is not averse to cohabitating with the military junta of Myanmar. Her transition from a fiery fighter of justice to a seasoned politician has indeed been remarkably swift. In less than two years, she has proven that even the most revolutionary leader can bow down to the power authority that matters. In Myanmar, that means appeasement with the military who still hold a disproportionate share of power.
Unfortunately, she does not realize that it is an asymmetric relationship – in the end the military can remove her for any reason. The main reason for ‘introducing’ Myanmar to democracy was that the military could become even more powerful and richer as there would be no bar to foreign investment – a major way for the economy to grow rapidly. By currying favour with them and with the ethnic Bama group -who resemble two thirds of Myanmar’s population, she hopes to stay in power for a very long time.
Power is indeed tremendously addictive, but by doing so she is losing all vestiges of the very high reputation she once held internationally. It cannot be a good thing.
