Suu Kyi: Why defend the indefensible?

Suu Kyi, Myanmar's de facto leader, remains unrepentant for the genocidal crimes of her government against the Rohingya. To understand the reason behind her unpardonable silence to condemn the barbarous, genocidal crimes of her security forces, and as a matter of fact endorse such high crimes, here below are probable  reasons in a recently published article by Andrew Selth .
Excerpts:

Foreign observers have put forward three reasons to account for her actions.

First, most have suggested that, with the 2020 national elections in mind, Aung San Suu Kyi is keen to be seen to defend Myanmar against external criticism. She knows that the clearance operations in Rakhine State in 2016 and 2017 were popular with many of her Burman Buddhist constituents, who have long viewed the Rohingyas as illegal Bengali immigrants who follow an alien and potentially dangerous religion. Not to have stood up against the ICJ could have had electoral consequences for her National League for Democracy. 

Second, it has also been pointed out that Aung San Suu Kyi is currently governing Myanmar as part of a coalition with the Tatmadaw, which arguably remains the strongest political institution in the country. If she is to survive as State Counsellor and implement the wide range of reforms being promoted by her party, she needs to keep the generals onside. She cannot stand by and allow the international community to attack them, for fear of making them even more hostile to her government.

In this regard, it is relevant that Myanmar’s armed forces were created by her father, independence hero Aung San. For them to be publicly disgraced would not only bring discredit to the institution itself, but could also reflect on its revered founder, and by implication Aung San Suu Kyi herself. Interestingly, huge billboards have recently appeared around the country, showing Aung San Suu Kyi with three smiling generals, emphasising the close links between them and implying her support for their military operations.

A few pundits have postulated a third motive. For all her criticisms of the former military regime, and attempts as a political prisoner to win the support of foreign governments, Aung San Suu Kyi has always been a strong Myanmar nationalist. She shares with the generals a deep commitment to the country’s independence and sovereignty and, particularly since taking power herself, has put her country before wider considerations. She also knows that people in Myanmar do not like seeing their country publicly attacked by foreigners.

There is a fourth possible reason. Aung San Suu Kyi has a profound sense of personal destiny. She has always seen herself as the daughter of Myanmar’s founding national hero, who was assassinated in 1947. For decades, she worked to become Myanmar’s president, and to take her place in the pantheon of Myanmar’s most revered leaders. With that in mind, she may have felt that she could not remain silent while her country and, technically speaking, her government and herself, were accused of crimes against humanity.

Even when she was a prisoner of conscience, and revered by the international community as a democratic icon, Aung San Suu Kyi always insisted that she was a politician. This has been borne out by her actions (or lack of action) since taking power in 2016. Whether her appearance in the ICJ is further evidence of the demands of realpolitik, stems from a sense of duty towards her country, or is derived from deeper personal feelings, is difficult to say. 

However, the result will be the same: her popularity in Myanmar may rise, but outside the country her reputation will reach a new low.