On February 13, 2025, a federal criminal tribunal of Buenos Aires, Argentina, issued arrest mandates against 25 senior myanmar officials for their role in genocide and crimes against humanity against the Rohingyas. Among the named people are the chief of the Junta, Min Aung Hlaing, the ousted state councilor Aung San Suu Kyi, the former president Htin Kyaw and the deputy chief of the chief of the Junta Soe Win. It was a historical stage of international justice, forcing the responsibility of one of the most odious crimes of the 21st century.
However, five days later, the National Government of the Unity (NUG) of Myanmar published a response which is a master’s class in escape, selective memory and political opportunity. He tries to rewrite history, to absolve civil managers of responsibility and to put pressure on the Rohingyas to accept a limited version of justice – while supervising his own political survival as the upper moral imperative.
The NUG, composed largely of former officials of the National League for Democracy (NLD), faced an impossible dilemma. The rejection of the indictment of Aung San Suu Kyi would mean rejecting the justice efforts led by Rohingya, while accepting that this would risk alienating their base and reshaping the inheritance of Suu Kyi, the founder and leader of the NLD. In the end, the NUG chose to drive a coach and horses through the very idea of justice efforts led by Rohingya.
Brouk silent concealment
Even before the NUG published a statement, however, the drama had already started elsewhere. The Burmese organization Rohingya Uk (Brouk) – The very group that initiated this case – deliberately tried to obscure the fact that Ang San Suu Kyi was one of those who were faced with an arrest warrant. Their first press release wrongly said, “Persons appointed to the Court’s request include 23 military officials from Myanmar.”
This carefully avoided mentioning that the actual number of arrest mandates was 25 – including two civil leaders, Aung San Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw. Why would a Rohingya organization do this? Certainly, they considered the mandates as a major achievement? A press release highlighting Aung San Suu Kyi as a target of an interpol Red opinion would have had much more impact than any other name. Instead, they buried it.
When the confusion has become obvious, Brouk quietly updated its press release – not with an ad or a clarification, but with a stealth assembly confirming that Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw were indeed charged.
It was not an accident. It was a calculated act of narrative control. Worse, the Brouk declaration tried to reject the blame on the Argentinian prosecutor, saying: “In June 2024, the Argentinian prosecutor decided independently to include civilians, like Aung San Suu Kyi, at his request to the court for mandates stop. “
This is misleading and is a complete rewriting of history. For years, Brouk campaigned for the prosecution of Aung San Suu Kyi. They filed a matter against her In Argentina in 2019 and celebrated a 2020 decision which canceled the decision to exclude it. Throughout, Brouk had aOn that Suu Kyi with the generals must be held responsible for the genocide.
Now Brouk owes an explanation. Has the organization faced the pressure to soften its position on Aung San Suu Kyi? They should explain publicly why they have changed their position, which influenced this decision, and why justice is now “in the best interest” of the Rohingyas when they spent years saying the opposite. This case is supposed to concern responsibility and not on the political opportunity.
With the credibility of Brouk in free fall, the Nug followed with its own attempt to rewrite history.
The remarkable declaration of the NUG
Five days after the delivery of mandates, the Nug finally replied. It was carefully formulated, evasive and politically calculated. Their main argument is that only soldiers are responsible: “The authors of mass atrocities committed against the Rohingyas … are only the leaders of the Myanmar army and their subordinate battalions.”
It is obviously false. While the tatmadaw physically carried out the atrocities, the government of Aung San Suu Kyi provided political coverage, defended the army to the ICJ, denied genocide and blocked of international surveys. The civil government has repeatedly minimized killings, rapes and the criminal fire; He rejected evidence of mass, torture and forced displacement pits. The Government of the NLD rejected the missions of research of the UN and refused visas to the investigators. AUNG SAN SUU KYI herself said to the world in 2019 At the International Court of Justice, there was no genocide.
The idea that the Civil Directorate had no role in the violence that has driven almost a million rohingyas in the country is historically and legally untenable.
The Nug also tried to hide behind the 2008 Constitution written by the military, arguing that security issues were out of the control of the civil government. It is an absurd defense. If Aung San Suu Kyi had no power, then why did she actively defend the actions of the military on the world scene? If she did not have her say in terms of security, why did she oppose independent surveys on military crimes? Hiding behind the Constitution does not change the fact that civil leadership has approved and legitimized the actions of the military instead of resisting them.
The Nug Declaration also calls Ang San Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw to be withdrawn from the case, calling for their inclusion “a erroneous and erroneous legal accusation”. It is pure personal interest. The Argentinian court has published arrest mandates on the basis of an investigation under the universal jurisdiction. The judges did not act at random or on a whim. They evaluated the evidence. However, the Nug does not engage at all with these evidence. Instead, they simply declare the “erroneous” charges without approaching any of the facts. It is not a legal argument. It is a pure and simple damage control.
The most cynical part of the Declaration is the assertion that the prosecution of Aung San Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw “will create misunderstandings between the Rohingyas and other ethnic groups”. It is an insult to justice. This suggests that the Rohingyas should accept a politically practical version of responsibility – which does not touch the civilian leaders of the Myanmar, who have since been arrested by the junta – lest they disturb the delicate balance of ethnic policy. Why should the “national unity” of Myanmar be done at the expense of justice Rohingya?
Aung San Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw occupied the largest civilian offices in Myanmar. They could have demanded international surveys, expressed against anti -harghing violence or – at the very least – refused to defend the army at the ICJ. They did nothing about these things. And now the Nug wants to erase its role in this dark story.
One of the weakest defenses of Aung San Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw is their role in the Kofi Annan commission, which the Nug quotes as proof that they have worked towards a “long -term solution” for the Rohingyas. It is a nonsense. The Commission was a tortured advisory body. It was a public relations exercise that Suu Kyi used to divert international pressure rather than to face military crimes. He had no power of investigation or prosecution, and his recommendations were ignored. Shakeing it like a defense is insulting. It was a smoke screen that did nothing to stop what the United Nations later called a “Example of ethnic cleaning manual. “”
Finally, the NUG warned that the pursuit of civilian leaders “would undermine national unity” and would obstruct the “Spring Revolution”. This is a false dilemma. Holding Aung San Suu Kyi responsible does not mean that the soldiers were unleashed. The continuation of justice for the Rohingyas does not mean abandoning the fight against dictatorship. Democracy based on impunity is not a real democracy.
Rohingya Leaders: Is silence really an option?
The complete silence of Rohingya spokespersons on this debate with high issues is loose, short-sighted and self-deficit. For years, the Rohingyas have been pushed to the margins of Myanmar policy. Now, when the opposition of Myanmar rejects justice for the Rohingyas, they say nothing?
Don’t be mistaken: the Nug looks at. If Rohingyas leaders say nothing now, they will learn a crucial lesson – Rohingya leaders can be ignored. Rohingyas leaders will accept the version of justice that NUG offers them. Rohingya leaders are too weak or too afraid to defend themselves.
It’s a calculation moment. Will justice Rohingya be sacrificed for political convenience?
The NUG declaration is a carefully designed control of political damage. It selectively attributes the blame, rewrites the history and the pressures of Rohingya to settle for an incomplete version of justice. The truth is simple: Aung San Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw were charged with their role in the genocide of the Rohingyas. The Nug says that it is “wrong” but offers no counter-procurement, only political apology.
Meanwhile, Brouk, the Rohingya organization behind Argentinian efforts, after years of campaign for the prosecution of Aung San Suu Kyi, suddenly decided that it was not the right time. They misleaded the public, quietly changed their press release and hoped that no one would notice it.
Justice must apply to all authors and not only to the most practical. If the NUG really believes in human rights, it cannot make exceptions when these values are politically embarrassing.
The Rohingyas must now decide: will they demand full justice, or will they accept the version which is dictated to them by the political elite of Myanmar?