She had no involvement in the military’s decisions in Rakhine state. Yes, she defended the perpetrators at ICJ, either as part of a political strategy of reconciliation with military, or because she just felt like defending them because she secretly likes what happened. You guess which explanation is more likely.
Fact is:
-Aung San Suu Kyi defended actively a genocide for not being one, while speaking in The Hague.
-The civilian government was informed and partially included in the genocide.
Both points are fact, and NOT speculations.
The military does not take orders from civilian government, it’s the other way around. Civilian gov has no legal or de facto control over Tatmadaw, or border control, or home affairs (police, courts). There is no civilian legislative control over Rakhine operations. Tatmadaw just does whatever they wants.
And anyone who speaks against their actions is imprisoned. If AASK spoke against them they would have imprisoned her again, like they just did. The politics AASK is dealing with are complex.
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/anaylsis/2019/11/21/Myanm...
https://burmacampaign.org.uk/argentinean-courts-urged-to-pro...
>If AASK spoke against them they would have imprisoned her again
She could just stay at the Haag and tell the truth...how about that?
“The Rohingya people are facing an existential threat. For decades, the Myanmar authorities have tried to wipe us out by confining us to ghettos, forcing us to flee our home country and killing us. The global community must act now to end this genocide and bring those responsible to justice,” said Tun Khin, President of BROUK.
Shame on you!
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/12/transcript-aung-sa...
And i don't feel like arguing with someone who defends a genocide denier, and explains it with "who don’t really know anything about Burma or her situation".
>either as part of a political strategy of reconciliation with military, or because she just felt like defending them because she secretly likes what happened. You guess which explanation is more likely.
Sound like the later one, defending a genocide for "reconciliation with military" is pure evil, and is never a sound strategy.
>>she took the podium on Wednesday at the United Nations’ highest court to defend her homeland against accusations of genocide, arguing that there had been no orchestrated campaign of persecution.
>>Instead, she insisted that what foreign observers have called an organized, years-long campaign of atrocities against the Rohingya has been exaggerated and misconstrued.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/world/asia/aung-san-suu-k...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/world/asia/myanmar-rohing...