What now for Aung San Suu Kyi?
By Nick Beake, Myanmar correspondent, BBC News
This judgment has surely obliterated any remnants of Aung San Suu Kyi’s international reputation.
Remember, she didn’t have to go to The Hague and become the embodiment of Myanmar’s defence. She chose to argue, in person, there was no mass murder, rape or arson.
Even her biggest critics used to acknowledge she doesn’t control the still powerful Burmese army, but now she has destroyed the firewall between her and the generals by trying – and failing – to justify their actions.
So far, Myanmar has played by the rules of the International Court of Justice. But will it abide by these emergency measures?
Writing today in a British newspaper, Aung San Suu Kyi questioned whether the international justice system was capable of ignoring “unsubstantiated narratives” told by human rights groups and UN investigators against her country.
So, after initially engaging with the UN’s top court, will a defeated Aung San Suu Kyi retreat now into isolation?
What is Myanmar’s position?
During hearings at the court in December, Ms Suu Kyi asked the ICJ to drop the case, describing it as “incomplete and incorrect”.
And in an article for the Financial Times published shortly before the court’s judgement she said human rights groups had condemned Myanmar based on “unproven statements without the due process of criminal investigation”.
“The international condemnation has had a negative effect on Myanmar’s endeavours to bring stability and progress to Rakhine,” she said.
“It has undermined painstaking domestic efforts to establish co-operation between the military and the civilian government.”
Her remarks also appeared to echo a statement by a government-appointed panel earlier this week which accepted that war crimes may have been committed by individuals but said there was no indication of an intent to commit genocide.
However, the BBC’s Anna Holligan, who is in The Hague, says that by coming to the court in December, Ms Suu Kyi had in effect recognised its legitimacy and it will now be difficult for Myanmar to ignore its judgement.
What is the background to the case?
The Rohingya, who numbered around one million in Myanmar at the start of 2017, are one of the many ethnic minorities in the country. Rohingya Muslims are the largest community of Muslims in Myanmar, with the majority living in Rakhine state.
But Myanmar’s government denies them citizenship, refusing to recognise them as a people and seeing them as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.
Waves of Rohingya refugees have fled Myanmar for Bangladesh over the decades but their latest exodus began on 25 August 2017 after militants from a Rohingya insurgent group called Arsa launched deadly attacks on more than 30 police posts.
Rohingyas arriving in Bangladesh said they fled after troops, backed by local Buddhist mobs, responded by burning their villages and attacking and killing civilians.
The government claims that “clearance operations” against the militants ended on 5 September 2017, but analysis of satellite imagery by Human Rights Watch suggests hundreds of villages were destroyed after August that year.
With more than half a million Rohingya believed to still be living in Rakhine, UN investigators have warned there is a “serious risk that genocidal actions may occur or recur”.
The state is the scene of an ongoing conflict between the army and rebels from the Buddhist-majority Rakhine ethnic group.
To read the original post, click here.