Gaining power is one thing, keeping it is another matter.
(sorry for coming in late)
Gaining power is one thing, keeping it is another thing altogether,
Gaining power is one thing, keeping it is another thing.
Bumped.
There has been a military coup, and she has now been taken into custody:
Hell of a bump, considering the post right before yours-Nice follow up. 
Entirely inadvertent!
For more:
These are two words I had never thought I would see side by side.
I see you haven’t studied the history of Myanmar.
All things in moderation, including moderation.
I suspect this lady simply had us all fooled. Part of it might have been the wonderful English she speaks.
I think we in the West are trained to react like Pavlov’s dog whenever we hear the word “democracy,” as if there is only one kind of democracy and that it necessarily functions in a manner that is fair to all.
In Myanmar, San Suu Kyi appears to be a genuine democrat, but it would also seem that she was hardly ever committed to the principle of liberal, inclusive democracy. It could be that she’s misunderstood and that she secretly wanted to have a broader democracy but was merely being pragmatic, recognizing that she’d likely never convince her militarist wing of the government, with whom she probably considered herself fortunate to have struck a power-sharing arrangement, to tolerate the existence of the Rohinga as legitimate citizens in a united Myanmar/Burma.
So we had a democracy of sorts, but a weak and unstable one that was in many regards illiberal and anti-democratic. The important takeaway for us in the West, especially in the United States, is that this is one form that democracy can take. In much of the American South, for many Black Americans, this was the type of democracy that was practiced until 1965. There’s no guarantee that we won’t slip back into that sort of democracy again.
Just want to point a couple of things out, the military leadership was the ones against the ethnic cleansing, it was the newly empowered civilians post 2008 like the now thankfully out of office, Su Kyi, who supported the pogroms.
Really should not be too difficult for Americans to understand, it was basically like Iraq before Saddam’s fall, the ethnic and sectarian tensions were suppressed by the leadership and when that leadership was removed from the scene, they exploded, hell in Iraq, the United States literally flew in and appointed most of the guys who conducted the pogroms, many of which were conducted with the active complicity of the US and the United States forces in Iraq.
Edit time expired
Same way, in Burma the “democratic” government could not wait to settle scores with assorted despised “undesirables”.
Lest everyone think that I am unnecessarily picking on the US here, I was disgusted by my own Governments support to the Burmese, including selling them advanced fighter jets.
Lots of countries, including those who really should have known better, had way to much faith in the civilian Government.
If so, they weren’t bothered enough to stop slaughtering ethnic minorities and engaging in gang rapes despite having near total discretion in the matter. As recent events have shown, they had few problems giving a hard “no” to civilian authorities if they strongly opposed something.
There might be a difference in degree in the attitude towards ethnic minorities, but the Tatmadaw is hardly innocent. Not even remotely close to it.
True, but most of the anti-Rohingya actions undertaken have been the work of the police rather the Army.
Militaries have an institutional aversion to shooting their own people, even those from disliked minorities. Oh sure they will do it if push comes to shove, as seen in way too many examples to count, but they have to be convince to do it.
Police, not so much.
Is that true? Everything I read at the time had said the opposite. I think either way Aung Suu Kyi bears responsibility either for being in a position of power and causing the genocide to happen or giving the veneer of credibility to genocidal thugs.
As far as the US is concerned, it really is shameful that it seems like there wasn’t much reason to continue to support Myanmar other than that Obama and some other big politicians had thrown their support behind Suu Kyi earlier and wanted to be saved the embarrassment. Really not a good look for us at all. It’s bad enough when you have a situation like Yemen where the govt supports mass murder at as a tradeoff for an economic benefit, but when they do it to help their own ego it’s just sick.
Either way, the military was involved. Even if it was others who were mostly involved in the atrocities, that’s like being a little pregnant. You’re involved or not.
And certainly, the military has proven at a bare minimum, it did not disapprove of the ethnic cleansing. At worst, they were actively involved.
There’s little doubt now that very little has happened as a matter of national policy with out at least their tacit approval.
I’d really like to see any analyses or cites that show they were as uninvolved as claimed. It defies what we know about how the country is run.
I’m not sure I agree with that. I suppose that in some cases the distinction between military and police can become blurred, but there are numerous examples throughout history in which military forces are often involved in ‘cleaning out’ undesirables - Al-Anfal comes to mind.
In the case of Myanmar, there is considerable evidence of local military involvement. I find it hard to believe that the highest levels of leadership couldn’t have prevented it had they really wanted to intervene. From what I’ve read, there’s a long history of conflicts between the Rohinga and Burmese governmental forces, which include the national military.
You referenced the comparisons to Iraq, but that’s not really the right analogy, IMO. In Iraq, you had an ethnic majority that came to power after decades of being ruled by an ethnic minority that had been deposed by foreign invasion and overthrow.
I get the impression that in Myanmar it was either a case of a fledgling imperfect democracy or no democracy at all. I agree that it doesn’t excuse Suu Kyi at all, but the evolution from multi-ethnic oppression to multi-ethnic liberal democracy is often an ugly one. I honestly don’t know what forces she was confronted with while she governed, and to what extent she was really in a position to change the outcome – some of those who are posting may in fact know that, but without knowing that, I’m reluctant to give a final judgment.