By M A Hossain
Myanmar’s ousted civilian leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, has recently relocated to the capital city of Naypyidaw, where she is now placed under house arrest following a year of solitary confinement. This development by the military junta has surprised both national and international observers.
In February 2021, the Tatmadaw seized power in a coup and incarcerated previous ruling leaders, supporters including Suu Kyi. Subsequently, the military regime sentenced Suu Kyi to a 33-year prison term on various charges. The junta government has consistently extended its tenure by imposing a state of emergency in Myanmar. The recent clemency has extended to Suu Kyi coincided with the fourth extension of the state of emergency, and this move has exhibited as an act of religious ceremony involving prisoners.
Additionally, a spokesperson from the National League for Democracy (NLD) confirmed that the government had exempted Suu Kyi from five criminal cases. However, these moves should not be misconstrued as a prelude to her imminent release; rather, it might be a calculated strategic manoeuvre by the junta government to retain its hold on power, thereby placating both domestic resistance and the international community.
The military coup in Myanmar has spurred widespread civil protests and ignited armed resistance from ethnic insurgent groups and civil defence forces. The junta’s brutal crackdown has led to over 2,600 casualties and the incarceration of as many as 16,600 political detainees. This ongoing armed conflict has plunged millions of citizens into conditions of food insecurity, displacement, and economic recession. The nation’s isolation and consequent sanctions imposed by the international community have caused a collapse in the economy, marked by dwindling foreign investments and trade activities. Furthermore, both the United Nations and Western nations have decried the arrest, trial, and sentencing of Suu Kyi, labelling them as politically motivated and farcical. Suu Kyi still embodies Myanmar’s democratic ideals while representing a spark challenge to the military junta.
It is reasonable to deduce that the decision to confine Aung San Suu Kyi to house arrest, with limited privileges, is not a gesture of goodwill from the junta government. This is owing to the fact that the current ruling establishment has designated Suu Kyi’s former party as a ‘terrorist’ organization and is employing excessive force to suppress it. Just last week, the UN Security Council passed a resolution urging an end to violence in Myanmar and the release of all political detainees.
While China and Russia abstained from the vote, they refrained from exercising their veto power, hinting at a degree of consensus among major powers. In a notable diplomatic development last July, Thai Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai became the first foreign diplomat to meet Suu Kyi. During this interaction, Suu Kyi expressed her willingness to play a role in resolving Myanmar’s internal conflict. According to Radio Free Asia, on May 27 and June 4, Suu Kyi engaged in constructive discussions with high-ranking military officials regarding the nation’s armed conflict, public security, and, most importantly, the pursuit of peace. Moreover, a meeting between former Parliament Speaker Khun Myat and China’s Special Representative for the Asian Region, Deng Xijun, signified Suu Kyi’s influence in crisis resolution. It is evident that the junta government aims to leverage Suu Kyi’s influence to quell the ongoing armed struggle.
Various conjectures can be formulated to account for Suu Kyi’s house arrest. One plausible rationale is that it could be construed as a positive gesture from the authorities. The present self-styled government, which faces intense pressure from the international community and domestic pro-democracy movements, might seek to appease concerns by showing flexibility to the democratically elected leader. This action could be interpreted as a conciliatory step, fostering an environment conducive to dialogue and negotiation. However, this conjecture is riddled with uncertainty.
An alternate perspective posits that the move could be intended to mollify the international community, particularly Western nations that have enforced sanctions on the military and its leadership. By showing a measure of flexibility, these nations might be deterred from pursuing more drastic measures. Nevertheless, this hypothesis is fraught with skepticism, because the Myanmar army does not bother at all of Western sanctions rather is consistently pursuing of its agendas.
A third possible motive could be the strategy of isolating Suu Kyi from her supporters and the general public, effectively curbing her interactions with the outside world. Such a manoeuvre might aim to undermine Aung San Suu Kyi’s stature as a symbol of resistance and optimism for millions of Myanmar citizens. Detaining her under house arrest in Naypyidaw allows for tighter surveillance and control, serving as a means to exert pressure on her. An additional rationale could centre on her age and health considerations. There have been rumours of Suu Kyi’s illness during her imprisonment. Converting her confinement to house arrest might facilitate improved medical care, minimizing health-related complications. Nonetheless, this theory remains speculative as the military always remain silent on her health status.
The armed resistance spearheaded by pro-democracy groups and ethnic insurgent factions in Myanmar has escalated since Suu Kyi’s arrest, following the military coup. This is especially evident among members of the National Unity Government (NUG), an entity formed by deposed lawmakers and activists. The NUG asserts its legitimacy as Myanmar’s government and has taken the lead in opposing the junta. It has established a federal army, collaborating with select ethnic armed groups and civil defence forces to counter the military’s might. In this context, the junta’s flexible manoeuvre, transitioning Suu Kyi to house arrest, could potentially alleviate some pressure and enable negotiations with her. Moreover, this change could facilitate the involvement of foreign diplomats or military personnel in mediating various concerns at different intervals. The transfer of Suu Kyi from incarceration to house arrest undoubtedly constitutes a strategic move.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge that Suu Kyi’s leadership has drawn criticism and controversy in both domestically and internationally for her failure to response on the Rohingya crisis and tacit approval for military’s campaign of ethnic cleansing in Rakhine State. The military’s brutal crackdown in 2017 forced around 1.1 million Rohingyas to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh. Suu Kyi’s stance in shielding the military during its trial for genocide at the UN International Court of Justice sparked condemnation from global civil societies and international leaders. Nevertheless, there remains a consensus on the need for a democratic Myanmar.
The Myanmar military junta might have harboured multiple motives for shifting Aung San Suu Kyi from prison to house arrest. However, this manoeuvre does not alter the reality that Suu Kyi remains confined and faces grave charges that could bring an end to her political career and life. This development also does not change the fact that Myanmar remains entrenched in military rule and faces a severe political and humanitarian crisis. So, this move makes the future of Myanmar and its people uncertain rather than optimistic. (IPA Service)
By arrangement with the Arabian Post
The post Myanmar Junta Message From Suu Kyi’s House Arrest first appeared on Latest India news, analysis and reports on IPA Newspack.
