The Hated and the Dead

EP43: Aung San Suu Kyi

August 07, 2022 Tom Leeman Season 4
The Hated and the Dead
EP43: Aung San Suu Kyi
Show Notes Transcript

Aung San Suu Kyi became one of the most recognisable people in the world in the 1990s and 2000s during long periods under house arrest in her native Myanmar. Released in 2010, her image as an icon of democracy, resilience and human rights has been tainted by her apparent ambivalence towards the military-sponsored ethnic cleansing (some say genocide) of Myanmar's Rohingya Muslim minority.

My guest today is Dr Ronan Lee (@Ronan_Lee), research fellow at the Institute for Media and Creative Industries at Loughborough University London. Ronan is the author of Myanmar’s Rohingya Genocide: Identity History and Hate Speech, which was released last year. We discuss Aung San Suu Kyi’s early life as a member of the Myanmar elite, her time under house arrest, her response to the Rohingya genocide, and the complex nature of her personal politics and her legacy. 

Unknown:

Hello and welcome to the hated in the dead with Tom Leeman. Today's episode sees us examine Southeast Asia for the first time. By looking at one of the most famous female political figures of the last century. Aung San su chi became an icon of democracy and human rights during her long periods under house arrest in her native Myanmar in the 1990s and 2000s. It's fair to say that at certain times, Aung San su chi was one of the most respected people in the world, and her name became a byword for resilience and stubborn opposition to repression. However, over time, this image, which was largely constructed by a lazy international media, has proven to be unsatisfactory. Since her released from prison in 2010, Suchi has shown herself to be a highly chauvinistic politician, failing to call out the Myanmar military over their appalling actions towards the Rohingya Muslim minority, and sometimes appearing unfazed by the genocide taking place. sutures life is a great example of how far good spin and image construction can serve a person's ambitions, and just how often the press can fall for spin and unwittingly make it conventional wisdom. My guest today is Dr. Ronan Lee, research fellow in the Institute for media and Creative Industries at Loughborough University London. Ronan is the author of Myanmar's Rohingya, genocide, identity, history and hate speech, which was released last year. We discuss on Sangsu cheeze. Early life as a member of the Myanmar elite, her time under house arrest her response to the Rohingya genocide and the complex nature of her personal politics and legacy. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to introduce Aung San su chi. Hi, Ron, thanks for joining me. How are you? Oh, really well, enjoying the balmy British weather. The subject of our conversation today is an Sangsu chi. She was the State Councillor of Myanmar between 2016 and 2021. But she has been in the public eye for much longer than that. And I think more as a political prisoner than a politician per se. I want to read a quote from a speech she gave in 1988. She said, power without truth can be dangerous to all. We have organised to hold public meetings on Friday. It can be successful if we hold it peacefully and with discipline. The country will never succeed if the people lack discipline. Let the world know that our people are disciplined and truthful. She spoke those words in August 1988. Can you briefly explain the context in which she was saying those words what was happening in Myanmar in August 1988? Well, in 1988, the military dictatorship of Myanmar was seemingly collapsing. It had been in power since 1962. So it came to power in a in a coup. So Summit, Myanmar Burma, as as it as it then was, gained independence in 1948. There was a brief period of civilian rule. And then the military undertook a coup in 1962 and held on to power until basically 1988 When their administration fell apart. The economy was a wreck. It was a shambolic state. It was in terms of where the economy stood, it was it was probably worse off economically than Ethiopia, where run Bob Geldof was raising money for at the time that the people were sick of the military been in control. The military had been pretty brutal, as they as they have always been, in terms of how they dominated the ordinary people. But the people were taken to the streets in some considerable numbers. And there was a sense that one of two things was going were going to happen either the people were going to displace the military from power, or the military was going to massacre them. And I think that what we what the quote that you read from Aung San su chi, was her signalling to, to the military, in fact, at that time, that the people so ordinary civilians been in control of the government would not necessarily represent the country falling apart, which is how the military had always portrayed. The risk of civilian rule that they always presented it that if civilians are in control of the government as they had been during the 1950s, then the country would fall apart. And Aung San su chi, I think, was was signalling to the military, that civilian rule would not necessarily be like that. But I think it tells us a lot about Aung San su chi, as well, because it tells us exactly how concerned she was about keeping the military on side, even at that juncture. She's known outside of Myanmar, not as the State Councillor. I mean, if you ask if you ask people outside of Myanmar to name the State Councillor of Myanmar, they'd never say Aung San su chi, she was known as a democracy icon, a fighter for human rights. I mean, that's how she was portrayed internationally. She's a Nobel Laureate, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. And that's how people understood her. But I think in a lot of ways that that involved a reading backwards or, or or earning sort of a willful blindness to certain aspects of Aung San su chi is political Korea, that sort of suited a narrative. I mean, in 1988, when the people took to the streets, she initially made the decision that she didn't want to get involved. She didn't want to pick a side, she made that very clear that she wasn't picking one side or the other. And she was presenting herself initially, as an honest broker between the military and the people. Now, looking back at it, most people would believe that in actual fact, she led a civilian uprising or led a revolution. And it's not, that was not the case at that time. And I think had we been a little bit more mindful about her political thinking in 1988, it might have four wonders about what she was thinking in the future. I think there's a lot of interesting ideas there that I want to come back to. To talk a bit more about anxieties sort of early in life. There's a subset of subjects on this podcast emerging that I think you could quite clunkily call, sort of dynastic skull daughters. I've done podcasts on Indira Ghandi and on Sheikh Hasina, both of whom were the daughters and founding fathers of India and Bangladesh. Su Chi is in that sense of similar figure to those two, right? Yeah, in many ways, I mean, it's, it's, we might look at female political leaders because they're rarer than men. So we might sort of categorise them in in the as dynastic or because it's a rare rare thing. So it it piques our interest. And we think all over that wonder if there's something to be to be seen here. What's clear, though, is that she was part of of the her country's elite. I mean, there's no question about that. Her father, General Aung San, is, remains the independence hero. He's the he's the figure that's regarded by most people in Myanmar as having having delivered the country its independence from colonial rule. And as incredibly significantly, he was his image was on was on stamps and on on currency, really, up until the time when Aung San su chi came onto the political scene and then the the military started to take his image away from things not to give to to avoid giving her political standing. And even at times when, when, when it you might perceive that the military was had taken control of of Myanmar, her family retained a sense of an honoured place her mother was the ambassador to India. So Aung San su chi really grew up as the daughter of an ambassador, an ambassador to India, no less, which is really significant terms of Myanmar's history. Nehru had been seen as a great supporter of Aung San su attempts to to gain independence and famously the the image that that's commonly seen in Myanmar of General Aung San is Aung San wearing a heavy overcoat that Nehru had gifted him before he went to London to negotiate the independence of the country. So Aung San su chi is mother has made the ambassador to India, so incredibly honoured and incredibly honoured role. Now Aung San her dad died very early in her life. He was murdered by a political rival just months short of the country gaining its independence. So the country was on its way to independence. And then Aung San and a range of other high level political leaders were assassinated. So at That stage Aung San su chi would have been about two years old. So she really probably doesn't have any roots unlikely she's got any actual recollection of life with her father. But she talks about how influential his politics has been on her political trajectory. She talks about that quite commonly she's written, she's written a short biography of her dad. And she did that in about 1980. So well, before she was involved in politics. Yeah. And I think that shows a certain degree of interest in politics before the 1988 uprising as well. She obviously this was a very privileged upbringing, and she was educated at Oxford in the 1960s. I think she worked for a time for the UN, as a young woman as well. Do you think these experiences of inculcating herself in kind of these elite Western institutions has it has it had a noticeable effect on her politics? Do you think you could describe her at least at least at this stage as a sort of Western liberal? No, I don't think so. I think I think what, what's important to remember is that by the time she she first got involved in politics in 1988, she was in her mid 40s, she'd spent most of her life by that stage living outside of Myanmar. So she'd had a very privileged upbringing. For for a person from Myanmar at that time, she had a very privileged upbringing, but outside of the country, and had had access from a very young age to political theory, influential political figures the world over. I think that that certainly gave her an understanding of how the world operated. And it's something that you would criticise, quite often criticise the generals in Myanmar for not not really understanding the world outside of the country. She certainly understood what would push the buttons of the international community and the Western community in particular, that's something that she unquestionably understood, but it affected her politics in the sense that you'd never describe her as a as a candidate of the people, even though she's adored by the people. She's, she's always held herself a little bit away from the public, that she operates almost on a slightly different plane to the public that she's, she's been, you'd almost suggest that she thinks she's been drafted or drawn into politics, because of her skills, rather than been someone who's emerged organically from from the people within the country. We admire is a country with a very fraught history post independence, as you mentioned, the 1988 uprising was a reaction to decades of, of military dictatorship, very brutal military dictatorship. What was the fate of this uprising? Well, ultimately, it failed. So the military undertook a number of leadership changes through the period from the time of the uprising in 98, right through almost two till 1990. And one of the one of the tricks that they used as strategies that they used quite effectively was delay, they just simply would delay decisions and delay activity. So they decided what they would do is they would announce elections to be held in 1990. And the the, the civilian opposition, agreed to participate in those elections and abide by that stage Aung San su chi, I think, had already been prior to the actual shooting, she was under house arrest. So she was not free to participate in the elections, even though the party and her party, the National League for Democracy was certainly participating. And there were people campaigning in a limited way in the country for the National League for Democracy, that the party won those elections overwhelmingly won those elections, the military's proxy party was rejected. And the expectation in 1990 would have been that there would have been a transfer of power to the civilian to a civilian administration. But again, that's not what the military did. What they did was they they tightened up the repression made more arrests, announced that the election result was not to elect the parliament, but to elect a committee to draft a new constitution and proceeded on that basis. Now, hand in hand with this was a strategic decision by Aung San su chief to embrace peaceful politics, a politics that that rejected political violence. And it I think, left the opposition with very few options. So I mean, when you're when you're faced East when you're faced by a shockingly violent military, like we see within Myanmar, that's prepared to slaughter civilians. And your decision is that that you're the opposition will not take the military on. Militarily, your options or your options are fairly limited. And ultimately they had they acquiesced to. Well, reluctantly, they they acquiesced, because, yes, they continued to be to be an opposition fighting military rule, but really the prospects that they'd be able to dislodge the military, purely peacefully were mean, I would say virtually non existent. Now it was, it was 2008, before there was a new constitution agreed. And that was, when I say agreed, presented by the military as the concept, the new constitution. That was a constitution that embedded military control, it gave the military a quarter of the seats in the parliament, at key government ministries, an effective veto on future constitutional change. So it's, it's the constitution that that get that was used to give us the the recent, what's often been called a democratic opening, but really was was nothing more than a democratic facade for ongoing and continued military rule. You mentioned, this issue of house arrest, which I think is probably the thing for which unsung Suchi is best known. She was in under house arrest, I think, for 15 years after 21 after 1988 89. And the first period of that was was in the early 1990s. Can you go into what was the nature of this House rose? how restrictive exactly was this period of house arrest? Well, at some times, it was more restrictive than at other times, and you can add another 18 months of house arrest to the listener because she's been she's been incarcerated basically since February 1 of 2021, when the coup was undertaken, and now she's not in house arrest. She's in jail, within Myanmar. So Aung San su chi is home where she spent most of the period the family home. on University Avenue. It's a it's it's on, it's on the near Lake. It's a it's a leafy part of of, it's in the diplomatic quarter of of Yangon, it's near the United States embassy compound. And it was the family home. And that's where she was incarcerated. Now at various times, she was able to communicate with the outside world. And in other times she was not, and her only links with the outside world would really be through her housekeeper or her visits by her lawyer. during other periods, she was able to communicate with people and would give speeches over the fence of the house and crowds would gather to hear those to hear those speeches. But it would have been incredibly isolating. It's important, I think, to to think many years, many of us have been through COVID isolation, we've been through a period where we were locked down in, in our, in our homes, and many people described it as house arrest. But this was not the same as that there was no opportunity to visit the local shops once a day or once a week or anything like that. And there was no internet. And I think this is something that's really significant in terms of how we understand wash, incarceration and house arrest in in Myanmar would have been like in the past, there was there was no way of really communicating with the outside world. You could hear the radio. So you might be able to listen to international news. And she actually Aung San su chi does talk about that the amount of time she spent listening to the BBC World Service. That was something that that that she did a lot she played the piano. And she read, she read books and she meditated. But in terms of staying up to speed with with political events, and news, very difficult, it would have been incredibly isolating. And it would have been, I think, pretty tough, psychologically, to experience that now. I don't want to suggest that it was that it was in any way worse than the condition of political prisoners in Myanmar in in in the notoriously dreadful jails in that country. It certainly physically would have been better. And maybe it would have been a better situation than then being in in jail, but would have been incredibly isolating for her and I think would have had an effect upon upon her politics. upon his thinking, this is a part of the world. And I want to, if we have time, I want to ask you more directly about this at the end. But this is a part of the world where political assassinations are pretty rife, including, as you said, and sang stitches Father, did it ever cross the military's mind to just to just kill Ensign CJ are many times, yeah, many times. And there were there were instances when, when, when that was due to happen. And they, the reason she was under house arrest, as opposed to being in jail was that they always they always presented her to the public. I mean, the Mumbai Metro were all about controlling the narrative. And they always presented to the public. I mean, there's sometimes they would present her as as as a foolish pawn of Western Imperial interests, married to married to a, an Englishman, you know, the colonial devil. I mean, this is how it was, this was how it was presented and presented in state media and presented very, very aggressively in state media as that at other times, they presented her as, as as a slightly foolish person who misunderstood what was going on and that she was she was not really understanding what what was happening in the country, and that she wasn't quite a criminal. She was just someone who, who did not understand the politics. And she would eventually come around to understand that what the military were doing was in the in the national interest, and that's how the military is always presented themselves that if you if you disagree, what they're doing is the you don't quite understand what we're doing is in the national interest, and you're come around to us eventually. Now, in recent times, the military is viewer nonsense. I mean, we could talk about recent events. But in recent times, the military's view on Aung San su chi has changed, they now present her as a common criminal. I mean, it's no question that that's how they present it. That's changed since the coup in 2020 21. But yeah, her life was was at a certainly at risk. One of the motivations her her late husband, Michael Aris presented for nominating her for a Nobel Prize was to keep her alive. I mean, his perception certainly was that if she was a Nobel Prize winner, it would be less likely that they that they would and could get away with assassinating her. And that's something that I think, was a very real risk. I mean, you've got to remember as well, she was under house arrest, her husband was was very, very sick, dying, and they wouldn't let him visit the country, they wouldn't let him visit her. And they certainly wouldn't guarantee that if she left to see him outside of the country that she'd be able to come back in. And ultimately, he passed away. Without from cancer without having been able to see her over the years, I think since they'd been able to, to be in the same place quite commonly when they would be able to talk on the phone. The military, which were obviously listening in would would cut off the phone call at a time to create ultimate anxiety for run for both Aung San su chi and for and for her family. So her her, her personal safety was unquestionably at risk. And I think it's at risk. Again, I think I think in recent times, it's become seriously at risk. I read when I was preparing for this, that she maybe it was a letter to Michael Harris that she'd written but she claimed that she weighed something like 48 kilogrammes when she was under at 1.2 under house arrest. Yeah, so she was denied access to medical care. I mean, medical care in in Myanmar, at that time for ordinary people was was pretty poor and in the military didn't the military administration didn't spend money on on the health care system, it was among the worst in the world. So like many people within Myanmar, she didn't have access to good quality health care or any access to a doctor. She was pretty yo at various times. While under house arrest, she's still someone who I mean you certainly if you if you notice, even when she was State Councillor that she's someone who, particularly when she travels, when she travels internationally quite often she would she would be ill for a period of time. But before before or after, which suggests someone who's still struggling with with images, not nothing. The most robust health I think is what's what I'm suggesting. That's that's certainly what's been indicated by the military again, while she's been incarcerated since 2021 that she has medical issues and that of an undisclosed nature. But yeah, she was she was not in great shape during her period of house arrest. I assumed before I before we agreed to do this episode, I thought that she was only under house arrest for sort of one long period. Whereas actually, she was sort of released from her house arrest a couple of times, once in 1995. And I think, again, in 2002, What was the rationale from the armies perspective of releasing, I mean, shoot, you've mentioned that she was obviously very famous around the world, but she was an icon and a hero inside Burma was this was releasing her done in order to sort of placate masses of people who were who were sort of outraged by her incarceration. Yeah, so at various times, she was she was released, I mean, the military were all about staying in power. And they were all about managing opposition. And that's something that they've, they've done pretty effectively as it as it happens, aren't on till February of 2021, when they've they've failed, I think pretty spectacularly. So they would, they would release Aung San su chi for periods of time, they would try and do ultimately try and do deals about what the country should be like. And they would hope that she would agree to cooperate with them, it's a it's a hope that they that they had, and then she would do things that would indicate that maybe she wasn't quite going to be as pliant as that they, as they would hope. And then they would, their leverage, obviously, is then the that they can put her back into jail or into house arrest. And that's something that they've done a number of times, over the, over the journey. And the military really, though, about staying in power. So they used Aung San su chi, for their own purposes, they, they weren't necessarily, I mean, we've got to remember, people within Myanmar didn't necessarily have a full grasp on how Aung San su chi was seen outside of the country. So that those those things were different. There's no internet, there was there was a heavily censored media. So really, your only way of finding out what was going on within the country was from state media, or from talking to people face to face. So they would release Aung San su chi, they would then spin what that meant, in state media, that, that this was an acceptance of an acceptance of of their plan for, for the future, their plan for governing the country. And then if it didn't work, they just put her back in jail. And ultimately, I think they were hoping to break her that she would give up and that she would walk away. I mean, I think that they, they hoped that she would go home to go home to where had been her family home with her husband, which was outside of Myanmar, they hoped that she would just return to return to Oxford with with him and she didn't do that when when the opportunity arose. And then I think they hoped that that she would simply give up, and that she would decide that the situation was hopeless for her to affect change. And that she she would she would give up and she didn't and and as as much as I mean, I'm pretty critical among sensitives politics, but one of the things that she should be praised for is is the way she stuck. She stuck to it. She she she had she did. She did take on the military. She there were times when she very strongly took on the military and stuck stuck to her guns in a way that I don't think the country's military rulers thought that she would and I think they also struggle dealing with a woman. I think that's something they also struggle to deal with them. The mere military is virtually totally male institution. It's incredibly hierarchical. Men, if you if you wanted to do a study of toxic masculinity at the Myanmar military would be the worst. Yeah, it would be the worst example of that. And I don't think they quite knew how to how they would deal with her. She was having influence as well because of course, he nationally she was influential. So she was she was giving messages to the outside world. And there were various times when that rule, a couple of junctions that really affected how The country operate in the world. I mean, obviously there was a sanctions or the the of economic sanctions, the obvious thing, that that she she was in favour of economic sanctions. And this was something that the international community, certainly the Western Community, I should say, rather than, than others because China and and others did not impose sanctions. But certainly the West did. And they did that on the basis that this was the this was what I'm saying Suchi wanted them to do. And I think that by releasing her at various times, it was part of an attempt to work to work to try and work with Aung San su chi to see whether or not they could convince her to ask the West to remove the sanctions as this as the 90s sort of give way to the 2000s. And especially the sort of later 2000s that I think it's fair to say that the military's grip, that kind of vise like grip that it had on the country begins to waver a bit and begins to sort of weaken. And you obviously mentioned the the 2008 constitution, the drafting of that document. And, of course, I'm saying sushi is eventually released from house arrest in I think, 2010. Can you talk about some of the sort of trends that led up to that moment and how Myanmar began to take tentative steps towards some sort of political restraint? Well, the economy was wrecked through that whole period. And it's the sort of the underlying and underlying element to all of this. I think the war on terror, in fact, played it played an underrecognized role in what occurred at various times, Myanmar has been listed as part of the axis of evil. And that's pretty, I mean, nowadays, we look at that as almost a historic theme. It's quite some years ago now. But at the time, it was incredibly significant in terms of the risk of regime change. And the generals, I think, were nervous about the prospects of being on being on that list. They really didn't quite understand how, how the US was calibrating its policy at the time. And we saw we saw responses within Myanmar, like moving the capital to Napa door. So moving the capital from from from Yangon to to a new city built specifically to withstand withstand invasion. I mean, this is a city this was this was a place in the in the interior of the country. I mean, still, foreign embassies don't really operate there. They they never did. They didn't they didn't move to number two, because I mean, there were no people there. It's it's a place where you've got six lane highways in a country that I mean, I don't think be any other part of the country that has six lane highways, but it's about avoiding avoiding invasion, and it's about avoiding regime change. So that was the context for, I think, a approachment with Aung San su chi. The it was also, I think, on the part of the point of view of the opposition, a sense that they hadn't been able to be the military. So the options now, were simply to either accept military role in perpetuity, or to work with the inside some way now. I think that's because on under Aung San su chi is leadership. The main opposition party, the National League for Democracy, was not prepared to take the militarily the military on militarily, they weren't prepared to use political violence at all. So their options became except military rule or work with them and ultimately, they they agreed to work to work with them. The 19 over 2008 Constitution gave way to a pretty dicey election in 2010, when one of the one of the generals decided that he wasn't a general anymore, to insane and he would he would ultimately become the president of the country having won an election that no one would describe as free and fair. And he then ruled as president of Myanmar from 2016. From from 2011, I should say through till 2016. Now, very quickly after this notionally civilian or quasi civilian administration comes to power, there's a negotiation with Aung San su chi. And Aung San su chi, is released about a week after the election in 2010. This was so so after after, so she's released So she wasn't able to participate the election in 2010. So there's now a kind of a quasi civilian administration in power. But Aung San su chi has been released from house arrest. I, I got to meet her. In fact that week, really, when she was younger since I was in Yangon, and was able to meet her within two to three days of her of her release from from house arrest. I mean, I've got to be honest, I think I think she was as surprised as I was that we were two people that were talking about politics in Myanmar. At that time, there were there weren't many foreigners in the country at that time. Most foreigners have been the journalists had been expelled. The diplomats had been asked to leave the country that there was some in country but but but not many. I was there a tourist visa? And was Yep, pretty nervous as you would be. Still at that time, but the opportunity to have a conversation with Constance itchy at that time was was pretty enticing. I mean, she she struck me at the time as someone who was dealing with a lot. I mean, she was she had been just released from from house arrest and was was basically thrown into the leadership of the major opposition party in her country with the expectation that that would that that would mean something in the future. This is something that I wanted to ask you really was. She's obviously this immensely popular, admirable figure. But she's also pretty old. By this stage. I think she was 65 when she got released from from house arrest, and I don't want to sound ageist. But this is a long time to be in very difficult psychological conditions. And of course, she'd never actually been a politician. She's never run anything. Do you think that it was a mistake for her to go into politics? I so I would I my arguments always been that. Ironically, in many respects, that Aung San su chi, she wants to be present, she wanted to wanted to be present in their mind that she was she was blocked from the ability to become president. So so she agreed to run in Biola in a by election in 2012. And her party swept the board in 2012. That just over 4344, by elections, held at that time, the party won virtually all of them. And she went into parliament. And then subsequently at the next general election, they won the election and one of the one of the priorities post election was changing the constitution, so that she could become president to remove this, this constitutional impediment that prevents her from becoming president of the country, because she was married to married to a foreigner. Now, they created a position for her State Councillor, which is effectively Prime Minister. And I would argue that in actual fact, it would have it would have served the military's purposes and probably would have worked for what Aung San su chi wanted for her to be a figurehead president of Myanmar. And to leave the State Councillor role to someone who actually has political experience and wants to be an organiser of, of, of government, a government manager, cuz she's good. She's not an administrator. Right. She's a an important political figure. But she's a sort of natural national cultural figure, rather than, like an executive, will she's She has been a terrible manager of government business is I think, I don't think that would be an unfair characterization of how she was, there is a problem in men, but that many, many decisions will tend to be avoided and presented to someone further up the chain. I mean, if you've got a hierarchical structure in your in any way, within Myanmar, there will be a tendency for decisions to be avoided. And that's what we saw, particularly within her political party, the National League for Democracy that that virtually every significant decision was was landing on Aung San su cheese desk. So you can't run a country. You can't govern a country of 55 million people. When you don't delegate power, you don't delegate authority. And I think that was something that that her party over five years didn't do particularly well that there was a they were often very slow to make decisions because decisions were being held up I mean, this is something that brings down governments in lots of places. I mean, it's this is, you know, you look at you look at places that have have struggled to make government I mean, remember just even thinking to, to an Australian government just a couple of a couple of years ago were a big criticism was that decisions were being held up so that the prime minister could get involved. And it was slowing down the processes of government. And I think in a lot of ways that she would have been an ideal, an ideal figurehead leader, so they should have made her president, and they should have let someone who wanted to be a manager of government business, become the state counsellor. And I think that both both the military and Aung San su chi got caught up with that debate, the military saw the title of president as something that should be kept away from Aung San su chi. And I actually think with the creation of the State Councillor role, the title of president became meaningless. It became not a it actually has it did become a figurehead role within a prime ministerial system, because she was making all shoot all the all the decisions, we're stopping with the stopping with her with the State Councillor. Do you think that the army had constructed this system in such a way as to make her look as foolish and as ineffective as possible? I think they constructed the system to stay in power. I think that's that's what they did. And I think they feared that if she had the title of president, that that would lead to them been slowly edged out of power. Now, I don't think that's something that she would have done. But I think they feared that, that if the constitutional block to her becoming president was removed, that may be constitutional blocks to military seats, and Parliament might be removed next or to two other things. But I don't necessarily think that that was that was quite the intention that Aung San su chi had. But I mean, the military and in terms of, of, of these things are pretty risk averse. They don't want to give up anything if they can avoid giving. I mean, there's there's, they've got no, they've got no history of giving up any power or authority voluntarily, they just don't do it, though. They'll give up they'll give up something if they perceive they need to, or if they perceive they can leverage it to gain something else. I want to discuss the episode that actually, I think probably for people of my age, and thankfully, he is actually now better known for then the period of house arrest in the 80s 90s and 2000s. And that's the Rohingya crisis. Can you go into well, first can you explain who the returnees are and then can you explain what happened or started to happen in 2017? What will during are a mostly Muslim ethnic minority that live in a part of of Myanmar that's that's in Rakhine State. It's called historically it was the kingdom of Eric Han. And that our era can was in fact a major theatre of opinion in were in the, in the Pacific War and World War Two. So many people will will will, in fact, know, our account and know historic African. The Rohingya are indigenous to me, and I mean, they're they're from, that's where they're from. But they're a Muslim group in an overwhelmingly Buddhist country. And they have been while they were fully part of the national political fabric during the civilian era, prior to 1962. They were actively excluded from society by under military rule. So from 1962 onwards, the rigging is rights to citizenship, access to education, health care, or the ability to travel. Even the ability to travel from one village to another, were pretty heavily restricted by the military. And ultimately that Coleman that's culminated in a number of forced deportations pogroms that have at various times in the 70s, and the 90s, and most recently, in 2017, led to hundreds of 1000s of Rohingya fleeing across the border into Bangladesh. Now, the most recent, the most recent forced deportation in 2017. Describe I mean it it's genocidal. I mean, there's no quit as a genocide scholar I'm pretty, pretty clear about describing this genocide as the mistreatment of being a being genocide. This was the forced deportation of between seven and 800,000 civilians. I mean, these are people that that that fled their country with horrific stories of military violence. I mean, the accounts are the accounts that are sickening. The military used, used helicopters to, to to launch fire at the mostly bamboo villages that the Hinga lived in, they targeted men to be murdered. They targeted educated people saw community leaders and anyone who had an education school if there were school teachers or, or people who were regarded as having some ability to, to, to lead the community. They were murdered. The targeted women and girls for will appalling sexual violence as as a military tactic. This, this was a mom and he's the accounts are stomach churning. And this happened over a two month period in August, September and October of 2017. I mean, to give you some idea of the scale of the displacement, people arrived in Bangladesh, to sort of forested land scrub land where there was no no one living and created the world's largest refugee camp. I mean, this this from from from nothing, a camp of bamboo and tarpaulins with more people than then a city the size of Dublin or Glasgow or Washington DC. Arriving in the space of a couple of weeks on foot with just nothing I mean carrying carrying often children or elderly relatives. I mean, it was an incredibly traumatising experience for for, for the victims. It's been deeply affected me having having spoken with with Rohingya victims shortly shortly after effect, there were still people crossing the border when I was when I was in, in the camps in in 2017. And it was it was unlike previous instances of mistreatment of the Rohingya because they crossed an international frontier into a country that that didn't block access to the internet. We got to know what was going on. So we were pretty limited in pinback been able to get images, timely images out of Myanmar that they they did arrive, but the minute people were able to access a cell phone tower of Bangladesh cell phone tower, they're able to tell their stories to the world. So journalists were able to get out. So all of a sudden, there was a face to the violence. So this was this was top news in the world in 2017. I mean, it was it was it was it was huge news. And I think equally large news later was the role of anti anxiety in this. How did anti anxiety react to what was going on, as you said, this wasn't this wasn't a new phenomenon, the Russian Jews had been, you know, discriminated against for a very long time. But now that she was in appear in a position of sort of relative power and authority, How did she react? Well, well, initially, she didn't react. I mean that that was that was the that was the odd thing. So there was a four week period where there was really no statement from Aung San su chi. I mean, at this point, she was the State Councillor of Myanmar. So she's the effective Prime Minister of the country. Her country's military is forcibly genocidal ly forcibly deporting hundreds of 1000s of people into an adjacent country. And there was no reaction from I mean, imagine, imagine that happening anywhere else, but there's no reaction from from the Prime Minister. Four weeks into the crisis, she made a speech, she made a speech in in better speech that that was brought broadcast within Myanmar, and was was was viewed internationally, where she in fact, defended the military's approach she described media accounts of atrocities as as a huge I mean the quote the quote from her I mean, this is this is not people putting words in her mouth this these these were her words she described me as a huge iceberg of misinformation. And, and it was a strong in Last month from her of what the military was doing, I mean, the, the problem was she was the one person in the country who had the political standing call upon the military to exercise some restraint. So why didn't she? Well, I think, you know, it would be people in politics, they always present their bad decisions as things that they did, because they were in some way constrained. I mean, that's always That's always how you, you you spin your bad decision after the fact. I think I think the reality is, is that she was not unhappy with with the military's decision. I mean, I think I think it's very, it's very hard to read this in any other way than she made the decision that she was not prepared to take on the military in any way. At that time, that she possibly had other political priorities. And they were changing the constitution. Maybe she had a view that, that there was a long term process that would diminish military rule. And ultimately, she regarded as I think she regarded the Rohingya as an expendable community. I mean, she's a she's an she's an ethnic Burma, Buddhist nationalist in many ways. I mean, that's, that's her politics. I mean, she represents a political party, that during his term of office was was widely criticised by ethnic minorities for, for having not not rescinded the sorts of Burma analyzation policies. So to a rolling age of a sort of a hegemonic ethnic Burma identity throughout Myanmar, she was criticised by ethnic minorities for not not having rescinded many of those policies that were there was some quite, there was some quite unfortunate incidents where I, you know, there was a bridge that was to be named after her her father in an area where locals regarded him quite frankly as as a war criminal. And she and her party proceeded with with, with with these symbolic decisions that that you would only do I think, if you felt that it was something that needed to be done, and that was always the military's That was always the military's line, their line was always that we are representing the country in the way that it should be represented. And ethnic minorities should regard themselves as almost regard themselves as, as welcomed guests who should row in with what the majority want. When I was thinking about this, before we started, I suspected that the reason that she had sort of downplayed this was that basically what you said it originally right that she was concerned for her own position. She wanted to stay in power, she didn't want to annoy the military. And so she basically turned a blind eye to this but what you've said there is actually slightly it's not that charitable. Really. It's it's actually a worse it's a worse thing. Yeah, I mean, I'm I'm I think that yeah, I mean, that that that is certainly my my position on on where she is I see her I mean, I would as a scholar, I see her as a as a perma nationalist, and someone who is happy to use to use the rigour politically. I mean, it's it's shown no real desire to resolve their human rights concerns. I mean, they're bearing in mind throughout the entire period of uncensored cheese rule. There were about 100 and between 120 and 140,000 Rohingya in concentration camps within Rakhine state that they'd been displaced from their homes in 2012. And were confined to camps at that time, and weren't allowed to leave. Now they were they were in those camps. On the day Aung San su chi became State Councillor. And they remained in those camps on the day she was arrested most recently by the military in 2021. So if you're prepared to tolerate I mean, I'm not I'm not I'm not trying to overplay what these camps are. They are these are civilians. These are not people who've committed any crime. These are just ordinary ordinary people who have been put in camps surrounded by barbed wire. And there seems to be no plan for allowing them to return to their their former homes. So no, I'm not I don't think it's appropriate to do to give a charitable reading although I'll get I'll I'll, I'll give Do what the charitable reading would be. The charitable reading would be that Aung San su chi felt in 2017. That if she called on the military to restrain themselves, during their genocidal rampage, through Rohingya civilian communities, that they would immediately launch a coup and remove her from power. I mean, that's that's the charitable reading of things. But I mean, you've got to, you've got to ask, you've got to ask a very basic political question. If if calling on a military to not to restrain its genocidal impulses, leads them to remove you from power. Really, what power do you have? Yes, other than exactly other than the office, other than the, the car with the driver, and invitations to to important events. And I think the notoriety that the Rohingya crisis gained in 2017, actually would have insulated Aung San su chi against a coup at that time, because I don't think it would have been possible for that for the Western Community, not to have intervened to defend Aung San su chi is government had, she called for restraint, and that and that, and that prompting a military coup. Now, of course, what happened was, she didn't call for restraint. She defended the military, she trashed her international reputation. She demonstrated to the military that that really, she was pressured trouble. And I think that ultimately, that's what led to the coup and certainly led to the coup in 2021. There was no sense on the part of the military, that there would be any international response at and the fact that the international community didn't respond militarily in 2017, almost guaranteed that they wouldn't interfere in 2021. Because how do you how do you justify I mean, if you're now there's been a change of US president, of course, and the President Biden was coming it had just come into office, when when the coup was launched. But but if you're if you're a Western Power, how do you justify putting boots on the ground to defend Aung San su cheese government in 2021, if you weren't prepared to put boots on the ground to protect Rohingya civilian victims of genocide in 2017. And I think it was a bad I mean, at a at a basic political level, I think Aung San su chi made a very bad political decision throughout this period. As you said, she's back in prison. Now, after the coup that happened 18 months ago, more or less. Just to finish, I want to this was something that you mentioned right at the start about her international reputation. Do you think that the West really misjudged her in the sort of early days, do you? And if you do you why do you think they did that? I mean, this is obviously a country which is very far away, you know, geographically and culturally, from Europe and from North America. I do you think it's fair to say that they sort of caricature her is just a kind of icon for democracy in a place where there was very little democracy, I think that was just a very easy sell, that it was good for the television cameras, it was good for the newspapers. And they just sort of did that. Partly, I mean, partly as well, that she, she and her, she and her party and her family, very actively presented that image to the world. And it's very, very important. Remember, her husband feared greatly, that she would be assassinated. And he was working outside the country to present her image to the world. And there's, there's a country that I mean, while it It borders, India, and China, which is which is pretty significant. It really isn't well known and the intricacies of of life in Myanmar really wouldn't have been well known to people in Europe, certainly North America. So so she was someone you could get behind and be very, would have been very different. I think in terms of the international response if she was advocating shooting at soldiers, I think that that there might have been a very different, different Western response to the politics. I mean, but when you've got to when you've got a political opposition, that's that's promoting a peaceful transition and a peaceful response to a military regime. That's a pretty captivating thing. And I think it prompted people not to dig much further into her politics to not really think too much about about what else she might stand for the idea that she would she would in the future find herself running a government, I think was was beyond that. Many people's expectation and 2020 10 I mean, it was certainly not something that was was immediately on the cards even in 2010. And there was there was a big change. I mean, it was an agreement, she she agreed to participate. There was a constitution that they considered to be illegitimate, and had claimed and had had very actively called illegitimate. But but she agreed and a party agreed to participate in by elections in 2012. And in the general election in 2015. I mean, that was a compromise on on her part, and her party's part that, of course, brought them into government. But by then the West really hadn't considered exactly what that might mean. I mean, beyond a belief in democracy, what what did she stand for? And I think that that's where some of the surprise came from. And I think from her point of view, I think some of the shock that she expressed at the criticism that she was now receiving from the West, because her views I mean, I think in her mind, her views hadn't changed at all. I mean, from her point of view, she was the one that was utterly consistent. It was either moved or had misjudged her or had had had imposed thoughts on what she on her and what she might stand for, and how she might run. How she might run a government. Running. Thank you very much. I've really enjoyed that. If people want to read more about me and more, or about intensity, or about what you've written about those two topics. And I know that you've obviously written a lot about the ringers, where can they go? Oh, well, in terms of in terms of places to go that there's a there's a pretty good expatriate media out of out of Myanmar. So there's a diaspora media. Frontier. Myanmar is a really great publication that I strongly recommend. And you can you can find them online. There's a reading list. In fact, that's been published in the last couple of weeks by The Economist newspaper with with seven or eight good quality books to read about Myanmar, including my own, about the cambiemos Rohingya genocide, which is First Person accounts of of what occurred in 2017. So the Rohingya in in their own words. I was wondering when you were gonna get your own book? I did hope you were gonna get to it. I thought I should. I just thought I should mention it. That's why I asked people you possibly get banned in Myanmar, and then banned by the Mini? Yeah, state, that must be a bit of a bit of a badge of honour. Well, that's what people keep saying, but it feels feels the opposite. People can't read it means people can't read it. So state media made a really interesting announcement. But what if it's some weeks ago now announcing the name of the book and naming me and they arrested the rest of the bookshop sell at bookseller, for offering it for sale? I mean, it kind of shows you how they're trying to stop people learning about what's going on in the country, and they want to cover up their crimes. There's no There's no question about that. That's how the military in Myanmar operates. They really want to cover up their crimes. But it was it was unusual to make the decision to name a scholarly book. It's in the limited reading I've done about it. It just seems like a country where there's the search little press freedom. I mean, read it. Thank you very much. I've really enjoyed speaking to you. So cheers. Take care. My pleasure. Thank you for listening to the hated in the dead. If you've enjoyed this podcast, follow it on Spotify and Apple podcasts. And for good measure. Leave us a review. You can also follow the hated and the dead on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook so you never miss new content.