Why are we rewarding Aung San Suu Kyi for staying silent?

Aung San Suu Kyi was once a darling of the international community. She was awarded with several prestigious awards for her echoing speeches to uphold peacekeeping efforts—including the Nobel Peace Prize and honorary Canadian citizenship in 2012.

And now a whisper barely leaves her mouth, as one of the biggest genocides of the decade continues to unfold. Aung San Suu Kyi should be condemned for her silence and stripped of her legitimacy and reputation as a peacekeeper. She cannot continue being rewarded for staying silent.

Suu Kyi was admired for her peaceful approach against the military junta that has ruled over Myanmar. Although she won the national election in 1990, the military prevented the legislative assembly from governing and kept Suu Kyi under house arrest for almost 15 years. She was constitutionally prohibited from becoming Myanmar’s actual leader due to a technical provision in Myanmar’s laws. However, once released in 2010, she adopted the name and office of “State Counsellor.” According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the majority of the population agrees Suu Kyi is the real power within the government. Myanmar has been a primarily Buddhist majority country located between Bangladesh, India and Thailand since 1962-- when she called on the military leaders to hand over power to a civilian government. So even though Suu Kyi isn’t the “official leader,” she is informally seen as the country’s largest influencer. Despite the fact that Suu Kyi cannot legally control the Myanmar military, she shouldn't be excused for her silence against the recent ethnic cleansing of the minority Rohingya Muslim population. Her action, or lack thereof, begs the question: if she has the will to continue her political efforts through 15 years of solidarity against the military, why can she not do the same for the marginalized in her own nation?

Unfortunately, Myanmar is a developing state with very little economic advantages for powerful states to intervene in their crisis. There are currently over 370,000 Rohingya Muslim refugees in Bangladesh-- a state which already has a stain of resources from carrying the largest population density in the world. If bystanders are just as bad a perpetrators, then Suu Kyi is the worst form of bystander there could be. So while revoking her Nobel Peace Prize or honorary citizenship in Canada isn’t going to stop the violence, it does send a message that the international community condemns all forms of violence in Myanmar. Doing so will prove that the world acknowledges that Rohingya Muslims are facing one of the most vicious genocides of the 21st century, and that those who are responsible for the violence will be punished. Condemning Suu Kyi is the first step to allow for progress towards peace and aid to those who suffer.

Has the Nobel Prize turned into the Olympics, in which the recipient only has to prove their peacekeeping abilities once? Why are there Nobel laureates who have benefited from the recognition and monetary compensation of the award, yet have failed to further enhance the international community?

Discriminatory policies of the Myanmar government to the Rohingya minority is rooted in their history, but most notable policies started in the 1970s. During this decade, Rohingya were refused of citizenship and had to carry identification cards. In addition, their marriage, access to employment and education were restricted.

Over the course of the past five years, this eventually led to the systemic executions of Rohingya villages. As of August 2017, the Myanmar government declared the defending guerrilla military, Arkan Rohingya Salvation Army, a terrorist organization. On look for these terrorists, the Myanmar military launched a campaign to destroy hundreds of Rohingya villages, murdering the men and raping the women. This resulted in more than 500,000 Rohingya refugees forcibly displaced into Bangladesh and Thailand.

And if this all sounds a little too familiar,think back to the Holocaust, Rwanda, or even Armenia,the UN’s secretary general Alfonso Guterres agreed. Guterres said that there is no question that the present massacre of thousands of Rohingya is a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.

A textbook example of ethnic cleansing, and yet Suu Kyi remains silent.

One could argue that Suu Kyi is finally caving to international pressure, after she admitted to unprecedented extrajudicial killings of ten Rohingya militant suspects by security forces in September. But consider the 9,000 Rohingya who died from military attacks that same month, before the word “progress” comes to mind.

In 2013, during an interview with BBC One, Suu Kyi denied that the then-rising crisis in Myanmar was an ethnic cleansing.

“I think it’s due to fear on both sides and this is what the world needs to understand. That the fear is not on the side of the Muslims, but on the side of the Buddhists as well... Muslims have been targeted, but Buddhists have been subjected as well. There is fear on both sides,” said Suu Kyi.

But let’s be clear. Stating that the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims to the Buddhist majority has “two sides” is the equivalent of Donald Trump’s “both sides" comments on the white supremacy attack in Charlottesville and the anti-Nazi counter protest.

The Canadian government has also condemned the violence in Myanmar. In a recent phone call between Suu Kyi and Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister emphasized “the urgent need for Myanmar's military and civilian leaders to take a strong stand in ending the violence, promoting the protection of civilians and promoting unimpeded access for the UN and international humanitarian actors.”

However, the Canadian government is sending mixed signals on the issue and Trudeau has remained silent on revoking Suu Kyi’s honorary citizenship.

As far as her Nobel Peace Prize goes, former committee member Gunnar Stalsett has made it clear they will not intervene.

“The Nobel Committee has never rescinded a prize and has made the decision not to in Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi’s case either,” said Stalsett, in an interview with the New York Times. “A peace prize has never been revoked and the committee does not issue condemnations or censure laureates.”

“The principle we follow is the decision, not a declaration of a saint,” Stalsett said. “When the decision has been made and the award has been given, that ends the responsibility of the committee."

But does the responsibility really end? Has the Nobel Prize turned into the Olympics, in which the recipient only has to prove their peacekeeping abilities once? Why are there Nobel laureates who have benefited from the recognition and monetary compensation of the award, yet have failed to further enhance the international community? Why does the Nobel Committee have the privilege of awarding our society’s most influential contributors, when their idleness is postponing a peaceful future?

Will it really take another Alan Kurdi, a photo of a boy washed up on a shore, before the Nobel committee and Canadian government step up to their responsibilities?

The Globe and Mail covered a rally against Myanmar violence on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario back in September. Fareed Khan was a speaker at the protest and sponsored a petition calling on the Liberal government to revoke Suu Kyi’s honorary citizenship.

In his speech to a crowd of over 250 people , Khan emphasized what it means to truly be Canadian, and how all citizens have a responsibility to uphold the fundamental values of democracy, protection of human rights and a commitment to the rule of law.

"When Canada conferred honorary Canadian status on Aung San Suu Kyi, it was because she was said to embody these principles," he said. "Regrettably, that no longer seems to be the case,"Khan said. "She no longer deserves the honor of being in the company of people like Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama and Malala Yousafzai."

Instead of rewarding actual peacekeeping, we are rewarding silence. And if Suu Kyi continues to get away with this, one must question is there is any merit left to the Peace Prize at all?

Photos: Flickr / Citta di Parma

The views presented in this article do not represent the views of Journalists for Human Rights