In recent decades, the Nobel Peace Prize has become a powerful tool for color revolutions in Western countries, and symbols of political resistance in several countries have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and eventually become leaders in leading the country’s democratization. For example, Mandela for South Africa and Aung San Suu Kyi for Myanmar. Some of these figures did not become the political leaders of a country’s democratization, but at least they did have high hopes at the Time of the award. But Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is probably the only one who has experienced a lifetime of accolades, followed by destruction, by the same group of people from the same institutions, and by the Burmese military, who imprisoned her before she came to power and who detained her during the coup.
The reasons for this are personal, but the more important factor is that the political arena she is in is too dangerous.
Burma itself is a political battleground
Burma is a political playground because of two reasons: first, ethnic conflicts are very sharp and there are constant armed conflicts; second, the military is powerful.
Since independence, the ethnic issue has been a long-standing problem that has affected Burma’s politics. According to statistics provided by the Oslo Peace Institute in 2016, from 1948 to 2015, there were 268 armed clashes of varying scale, intensity and duration between the Burmese government forces and the relevant ethnic armed groups. central government signed a historic ceasefire agreement with eight ethnic armed forces. Since the National League for Democracy (NLD) won the November 2015 election and came to power in April, armed clashes of varying scale have continued to occur between the government forces and ethnic armed groups. . The most serious clashes between the Tatmadaw and ethnic armed groups occurred in the first half of 2018, when the KIA shelled camps in Sumprabum, Waingmaw and Tanai townships, displacing 120,000 people.
The junta is still in power and constitutionally guaranteed
The military regime is a distinctive feature of Burma’s political system. The military regime was established in 1962 by Myanmar’s National Defense Force (NDF) leader Ne Win, who inaugurated a period of military rule that lasted more than 50 years. In 2011, the first president, Thein Sein, came to power, ushering in an era of elected governments. On March 30, 2016, a new government led by senior NLD member U Tin Kyaw was sworn in, ushering in a new historical phase of “civilian rule and civilian-military co-governance” and a dramatic change in the relationship between the military and politics.
However, the Constitution of Burma (2008), which was written under the leadership of Senior General Than Shwe, allows the military to retain many of its powers and become another center of power alongside the NLD government. According to the 2008 Constitution, the Tatmadaw is not bound by the civilian government, but is an independent military group that is outside the political ecology of the country, and is the “guardian of the state” and “keeper of the constitution. In addition to the requirement that the military hold 25% of the seats in Parliament and that 75% of the members of Parliament must agree to any amendment to the Constitution, Article 417 of the Constitution stipulates that the President, in consultation with the National Defense and Security Council, may declare a state of emergency in the event of an attempt to seize the sovereignty of the Union by insurrection, violence, or unjustified coercion, resulting in the disintegration of the Union or the possible loss of sovereignty. Article 418(a) further specifies that in the event of a situation under Article 417, the President shall declare that the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the Union shall be transferred to the Commander-in-Chief of the military to enable him to take the necessary action to calm the situation.
As a result, the Burmese military has made it clear that their military actions are in accordance with the Constitution.
Burma is an arena of political wrestling between the U.S. and China
South Africa’s Mandela has lived up to the high expectations of the United Nations, the United States, and the major European powers, and with their decades-long support, has finally turned South Africa into a rainbow nation. The world media cheered the completion of this rainbow nation for several years until South Africa’s reverse racial discrimination prevailed, its economy degenerated from a moderately developed country to a developing one again, and its crime rate was high. Although the mainstream media does not talk about the current situation in South Africa, it is actually clear to everyone who understands it.
This is why Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has become the hope of the United Nations, the United States, and major European powers. Progressive forces are hoping that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi will lead the democratization of Myanmar and create a star of democracy for Asia and the world, where democracy is flawed.
However, China has closer ties with its immediate neighbor, Burma, than with Western countries. The U.S. and other Western countries have long pursued a policy of heavy-handed sanctions against Burma, and have virtually no formal diplomatic relations with the country. Myanmar’s most prominent diplomatic power is China, and along with Cambodia, is China’s most loyal ally and advocate of its interests in Southeast Asia. In addition to the large number of Chinese companies investing in Myanmar, China is also building an oil pipeline in the country to get rid of its dependence on the Malacca Strait. Myanmar is not only of economic importance to China, but also of inestimable political value. China, a long-time diplomat of interests, is well aware of the role of the military in Burmese politics and has been deliberately maintaining friendly relations with the Burmese military, and not only the National Defense Force, but also some ethnic minority armed forces, in the form of providing them with military equipment. The Burmese military is said to have informed the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi of possible military action during a meeting with him in mid-January.
The West’s influence on Burma has been largely in supporting Aung San Suu Kyi, a political symbol of global fame, far less rooted in Burma itself than in China.
Aung San Suu Kyi falls between the cracks of her own political Culture and that of the West
Two things have been most criticized about Aung San Suu Kyi’s rise to power.
One is that after her party won the election, Burmese married to foreign citizens or with foreign children could not become president or vice president due to the Burmese Constitution (2008). Aung San Suu Kyi was married to British historian Michael Aris (who died in 1999), and her two sons are British citizens. As a result, she can only be foreign minister and minister of presidential affairs. To circumvent this law, Aung San Suu Kyi has created a custom-made post of “senior minister of state” in imitation of Lee Kuan Yew’s post-retirement power grab, and has publicly stated that she will be a powerful leader over the president to lead the government – a move that is naturally perceived as Aung San Suu Kyi is power-hungry.
Aung San Suu Kyi is leading her own government. The needs of her country’s politics have led to her handling of the Rohingya crisis and her harsh crackdown on journalists. The Rohingya are a group of Muslims in Burma, Bengali immigrants introduced by the British colonial government back then. The post-independence Burmese government has not recognized the Rohingya as citizens, and the fact that the main faith in Burma is Buddhism has added fuel to the fire of ethnic conflict. Since 2010, there have been bloody clashes between the Rohingya and the Burmese government, which eventually turned into a massive crackdown, killing and injuring many Rohingya and triggering a refugee crisis. The UN investigation publicly condemned Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for her failure to stop the violence, her failure to use her authority and moral standing to curb the spread of hate speech in the country, and for allowing the military to run amok, for which she was partly responsible. In 2018, two local journalists hired by Reuters were sentenced to seven years in prison for violating the Telecommunications and Communications Act for reporting on a killing spree by Burmese government forces, and in September of the same year, a political commentator for the Global Myanmar newspaper In September of the same year, a political commentator for the New Light of Myanmar newspaper was sentenced to seven years in prison for “secession” for his constant criticism of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
Aung San Suu Kyi has been criticized and blamed by the international community, and more than a dozen countries and international organizations have withdrawn their awards, including the Oxford Prize for Freedom, the Berlin Prize for Freedom, the Canadian Honorary Citizenship, and Amnesty International’s Ambassador of Conscience Award, etc. The BBC has been full of praise for her, and in December 2019 wrote an article dedicated to her, “Aung San Suu Kyi: From “Human Rights Fighter” to “Human Rights Activist. Human Rights Fighter” to “genocide” Defender”.
I do not intend to criticize Aung San Suu Kyi. Given her status and the fact that she is in a political arena where various political forces are fighting fiercely, the February 1 change should have been expected. I don’t think the fraud is just an empty story, and it’s not difficult for her and her party to learn from the election rigging practices of political parties in other countries. She lost because her opponent was a strong military powerhouse with the legitimacy of a homegrown constitution. The U.S. and the Western world are now left to fend for themselves, and condemnation should be the greatest support for her.
Recent Comments