[ad_1]
BANGKOK – The Myanmar government appears to be besieged by an international community concerned over the condition of its nascent democracy, with widespread calls for a genocide tribunal to retain its armed forces to explain the brutal treatment of its Rohingya Muslim minority.
But experts say do not expect a change of course from the country's leader, state councilor Aung San Suu Kyi, even after a new round of virulent criticism after the conviction of two reporters from Reuters. men and boys.
Suu Kyi's motives are opaque. Even as a venerated Democrat activist, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate was known for her autocracy, but her fundamental ideology is now in question.
There is at least a loose consensus on the fact that she is facing real restrictions on her actions because of the power retained by the army that is enshrined in the constitution that it has imposed in 2007.
"Aung San Suu Kyi tried to balance her delicate and antagonistic relationship with the army and her conception of the needs of society, perhaps fearing too strong a position, which could trigger a return to the rule military under certain circumstances, "David Steinberg, professor emeritus at Georgetown University, wrote in July in the online magazine The Diplomat.
Other observers are less generous, saying that Suu Kyi's apparent impassivity with regard to Rohingya's fate – and hostility towards those who wish to tackle the problem – hindered the narration that threatened it against the army.
"People tended to think that Aung San Suu Kyi and the army disagreed and everyone feared that the other would oust power," said Khin Zaw Win, a government critic who directs the Tampadipa Institute, a Yangon. institution of capacity building.
He said the conviction of the two Reuters journalists, sentenced to seven years in prison, is a reminder that "shows that what they fear in tandem, is that the world finds the truth and seeks to topple them ".
The old adage, "They must stay together, or they hang separately," describes their situation, he said.
Political realities inside and outside Myanmar suggest that there is no will or way to ensure justice for the Rohingyas, 700,000 of whom have fled to neighboring Bangladesh to escape a brutal campaign of counter-insurgency led by the army. Myanmar denies any widespread human rights violations and claims that its actions were a response to the surprise attacks perpetrated by militants last August that killed about 10 members of the security forces. Critics accuse ethnic cleansing.
Those who tend to hold Myanmar accountable have few weapons to do so. Despite the recommendation made last month by a special US commission of inquiry that the main commanders of Myanmar would be charged with genocide, no trial should be held in the foreseeable future.
It is far from clear that any country would formally prosecute, and some would seek to thwart it. The major powers that have never had much interest in human rights – China and Russia – also have strategic reasons to settle in Myanmar, an outpost well located on the Indian Ocean .
"A court of the International Criminal Court, for example, on genocide charges, will be difficult to obtain," said Murray Hiebert, senior associate of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. "Not only is Myanmar not a member of the ICC, but a member of the US Security Council must be seized, and China and Russia have made it clear that they will block a case against Myanmar."
The desire to contain China's growing influence in Southeast Asia is a major problem.
"American and Western democracies want to avoid pushing Myanmar further into Beijing's arms," Hiebert said.
Competition with China for the geopolitical influence, as well as the friendship of the countries of the region anxious not to upset the boat or not to compromise the investments, also limit the threat of hostile actions .
"I think that Myanmar can always count on most Southeast Asian countries as partners, but also on India and probably Japan.Japan fears to take a firm stance on the Rohingya, fearing to lose its strategic influence in Myanmar ". Joshua Kurlantzick, member of the Foreign Relations Council based in New York.
Sanctions – the second-line approach to pressurizing Myanmar – face the same constraints as pressure for a court to commit genocide, even though countries inclined to do so may act unilaterally.
Charney and Hiebert both noted that US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell – a staunch supporter of Suu Kyi in his Nobel days as a military freedom fighter – remains friendly to him and is an obstacle to Washington's tougher action.
"I think that Myanmar and most of the population will fall back on more sanctions because they resisted most of the Rohingya treatment protests over the past year," Hiebert said. "They tell foreign visitors that they have resisted and survived sanctions before." The difference this time, of course, is that the majority of the population seems to support military actions against the Rohingya, whereas in the past , many put pressure on the army to move towards greater democracy ".
