Aung Sang Suu Kyi: just quit Myanmar
by Sandhya Jain on 31 May 2009 10 Comments

Given the alacrity with which President Obama has called for “immediate and unconditional” release of Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who became controversial when an American army veteran (read CIA agent) infiltrated her house detention from 3-5 May, it may be appropriate for the West to relieve the military regime of its unwanted guest by offering her asylum in their lands. That way, the West can also satisfy itself that her health concerns are being properly addressed.

Ms. Suu Kyi’s husband, late Michael Aris, was a white Briton and her two sons, Alexander and Kim, are British citizens. Hence, the United Kingdom should have no problem in offering her permanent residence and relief from prolonged incarceration in a country where she is unwelcome, being legitimately regarded as an instrument of western imperialism.

With her entire family belonging to another nationality, and also another faith (Christian) Ms. Suu Kyi is a Myanmar citizen by formality only, being the daughter of Gen. Aung San. With her sharply pro-western tilt, she has no right to aspire for political leadership of a country which the West desires to exploit for its mineral wealth, and reduce to a de facto colony.

In this connection, Myanmar’s Buddhist clergy must realise that dabbling in politics on behalf of western colonialists is both shameful and anti-national. Buddhist countries must realise that if they do not retain kinship with the Hindu-Indian roots of Buddhism, they will serve only as the doorway for penetration and takeover of their countries and societies by inimical monotheistic traditions. If medieval Islam swamped the Buddhist societies of Afghanistan and Central Asia, and India’s north western and north eastern flanks, it was Christianity that made inroads in Sri Lanka, South Korea, much of South East Asia, and Japan.

The still largely Buddhist populations of Thailand and Myanmar are currently under pressure, as are large parts of China. But whereas Beijing shows some signs of awakening to the threat by reviving the nation’s Confucian roots, there is little or no recognition of danger by the monasteries in Myanmar. Monks are easy to rent for pro-democracy (sic) demonstrations.

Aung Sang Suu Kyi’s presence in Myanmar is akin to the West’s imposing former Unocal executives in office in Afghanistan, and similar stooges in former Soviet Republics. Mikheil Saakashvili, who became President of Georgia in January 2004 after a well-funded ‘Rose Revolution’ in November 2003, is married to Dutch-born Sandra E. Roelofs and, if memory serves me right, has an American passport. 

This trend of imposing dual citizens (natives married to white Christians) upon the non-monotheistic world that has barely recovered from the colonial depredations of the 19th and 20th centuries needs to be firmly rebuffed. Mercifully, the western-sponsored ‘coloured revolutions’ in former Soviet Republics seem to have faded, with Ukraine (‘orange revolution’) and Georgia sinking in to economic crisis, and Kyrgyzstan (‘tulip revolution’) firmly with Russia. 

The new Myanmar constitution rightly denies the right to contest elections to citizens married to foreigners; so Ms. Suu Kyi should call it a day. It does not lie in Mr. Obama’s mouth to cast aspersions on the Myanmar regime and direct it to release Ms. Suu Kyi and others, so they may wreak havoc on their natal societies.

Prisoner without a conscience

On 14 May 2009, it became known that American army veteran John Yettaw swam across a lake to enter the island home of Myanmar pro-democracy (read pro-West) leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and was ensconced there for two days before being detected. The news created a furore in Myanmar’s highly secretive regime (remember how the generals built the new capital, Naypydaw, in utter secrecy, to avert a foreign-funded ‘revolution’ or the ravages of a simulated tsunami?)

Naturally, the 63-year-old Suu Kyi is now on trial. If convicted, she could get another five year detention (her current term was to end on 27 May 2009).

Through most of her 19-year incarceration, Ms. Suu Kyi has been living in the comfort of her own home, rather than in a harsh prison cell. Even when Yettaw was found at her home – certainly the result of lax security or bribed guards – she and her two maids were taken to Insein Prison near Yangon (Rangoon), for trial. But even here, they have been accorded the facility of a guest house on the premises, rather than a jail cell.

This is in sharp contrast to the mysterious death of former Yugoslav President Slobodan  Miloševic in March 2006, while in western custody at The Hague, where he was being tried for alleged war crimes (highly disputed). The cause of death was allegedly a heart attack, and many believed this was deliberately triggered by wrong medication.

Myanmar officials say Yettaw has confessed to visiting Suu Kyi’s residence previously as well, in November-December 2008, though he claims he could not meet her then, which is peculiar to say the least. Anyway, these dual visits over the course of just six months certainly suggest that the army veteran is highly trained for such solitary and risky missions, which validates the suspicion that he is a CIA plant and that Suu Kyi is consciously in league with elements out to subvert the freedom and the economy of her native country.

Certainly, she was brash enough to acknowledge that “I did not inform them,” when the judge asked if she alerted Myanmar’s military authorities about the intrusion. She candidly admitted meeting Yettaw, giving him food, and allowing him to stay at her house: “I allowed him to have temporary shelter.”

Here is a remarkable prisoner without a conscience. The American stayed two days at her residence, leaving just before midnight on May 5. She claimed she did not know which way he went, and that she did not violate the terms of her house arrest by illegally entertaining an American citizen.

Yettaw, who was arrested on the return journey, glibly maintained that he swam across the lake to her house to warn her of a vision he had that she would be assassinated. This must be one of the most novel defence pleas in history!

Nobel allurement

Like Bishop Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo and politician José Ramos-Horta, who jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001 and led oil-rich East Timor to separation from Indonesia in 2002, Aung Sang Suu Kyi was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, after her landslide victory in the 1990 elections was thwarted by a nationalist military leadership. The Nobel was clearly aimed at building her image among the simple folk of Myanmar, in order to install another puppet leader in Asia. To briefly conclude the thread on East Timor, its first president and current prime minister Kay Rala Xanana Gusmão is married to Kirsty Sword, a former Australian spy!

The non-white, non-Christian world has now woken up to the danger of marriages of political leaders to foreign nationals, and is no longer impressed by awards and certificates – these are increasingly perceived as badges of intellectual slavery and political subordination. Myanmar plans to hold elections under its new constitution in 2010; ideally the lady should be removed from the nation before these are held.

Recently, Sri Lanka sternly rebuffed western interference and conducted brilliant army operations against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a Christian-dominated force determined to partition the country. Here again, we find that LTTE’s chief political strategist and chief negotiator, late Anton Stanislaus Balasingham, was a British citizen! In 1978, he married Adele Ann Wilby, an Australian citizen and nurse, who instantly rose to become an important member of the organisation’s women’s wing.

In Nepal, the Christian leadership of the Maoist guerillas led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, alias Prachanda, similarly received an unexpected rebuff by nationalist forces that recouped under the leadership of President Ram Baran Yadav and army chief Rukmangad Katawal, though that victory is still shaky. Still, the world is waking up to the West’s insidious political games to undermine the sovereignty of former colonies, or regions like Afghanistan that were inadequately ‘pacified’ (read crushed) in the past.

Intrusion for subversion

Whichever way one looks at it, the American intrusion was pure subversion. Given that the American government recently admitted parking a submarine in the icy Arctic waters to keep on eye on the Soviets during the Cold War, Johan Yettaw cannot be dismissed as an innocent or a crank.

He not only violated the security and immigration conditions of his visa – something white evangelicals do routinely in India – but was doubtless deputed by his government to communicate a specific message.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) party won the 1990 elections. But the generals ruling Myanmar wisely refused to let a pronouncedly pro-western leader, with marital ties to a white Christian, rule the country. The current outcry by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, Canada, the European Union and UN chief Ban Ki-moon (a South Korean Christian) only confirm western designs upon this resource-rich nation in India’s neighbourhood.

A western foothold in Myanmar would put pressure on both India and China, and it is high time these two large Asian neighbours began to look out for their mutual interests and concerns, rather than aggravate foolish rivalries.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) initially refrained from comment on the situation in Myanmar (a member-nation), but finally under pressure from European foreign ministers at a meeting in Hanoi, expressed ‘grave concern’ over Suu Kyi’s treatment; but did not directly condemn her trial.


In a rare concession, the ruling generals allowed diplomats and some Myanmar journalists inside the prison to witness Suu Kyi’s testimony. India and China would do well to stand by their beleaguered Asian sister nation. New Delhi’s recent propensity to go along with western colonial intent against friendly neighbours is to be deplored and discouraged.

The writer is Editor,

User Comments Post a Comment

Back to Top