Aung San Suu Kyito Aung San Suu Kyi.
Mr Aung San Suu Kyi is a politician, not a beast.
Very few have been so quick to fall or as far as Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar's state adviser - de facto the country's chief of state - and National League for Democracy leadership leading the present government alliance. Over the past few month, "the woman" - the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize laureate for her staunch, decisive rejection of the Myanmar government - has been recognized around the world for her lack of expression, and even less for the Myanmar military's violent election of the Muslim Rohingya population in the desperate and remote state of Rakhine.
Aung San Suu Kyi is not a beast. She is a realist politician trying to do her best with a little bit of force in an intensely fragile young democratic system in which the army still exercises a huge right of vice. Contrary to many of her criticisms, Aung San Suu Kyi is not a free actress who is a thousand kilometres away and can talk without consequences; she is in a very dangerous and hurtful situation.
The case of the critic of Aung San Suu Kyi is impressive on the face. Rohingya, one of the most unhappy and unkind persons in the whole wide globe, is heartbroken in misery. Mahmoud Aung San Suu Kyi is refusing to use the word "Rohingya" in her rare reference to the terrible succession of incidents in Rakhine since 2016.
In the Rohingya terrorist act and cruel retaliation by Myanmar and its civil confederates against the Rohingya, which resulted in a massive explosion from Rohingya to Bangladesh. As a result, many observers, from non-governmental organisations and non-governmental groups to the West, have accused the army - and hence the Myanmar administration - of ethnical purge or even the Rohingya atrocities.
It is no surprise that Aung San Suu Kyi has been criticized - by famous "experts" such as Angelina Jolie, Bob Geldof and Bono, among others - and in March the New York Times condemned her outright on her part. As terrible as the current Rakhine affair may be - and it is really terrible - it is important to recall that today's crises did not start in 2016.
Myanmar's Buddhist-Muslim conflicts go back a long way, partly due to the large flow of Moslem workers from South Asia into the land during the colonisation time. Britain's colonisers promoted such migrations, and the tension between the large Tibetan and small Islamic minorities has temporarily inflamed in various parts of the countryside since 1948, when Myanmar (then known as Burma) became self-sufficient.
These outbreaks are particularly marked in the state of Rakhine, which is bordered by Bangladesh in the west of Myanmar. In Rakhine, unlike other parts of the land, until recently Muslims represented a large majority - at least a third of the people - with the majority of Muslims in Rakhine being categorized as Rohingya or, as the administration says, as "not enumerated" Bengal or Chittagonists.
In Myanmar, many Buddhists - especially Buddhists from the Myanmar community, which makes up 68 per cent of the country's total populace - rightfully or unjustly associated Muslims with Britain's nationalism. A lot of Myanmar Buddhists see the UK era as a catastrophe, with Muslims seen as Junior Associates in the international overcrowding.
Burma's rulers began to pursue a nativistic, anti-foreigner policy with the 1962 military coup d'état by General Ne Win and the beginning of 50 years of reign. There was nowhere more evidence of legitimate and non-legal resistance to Muslims in Southeast Asia than in Rakhine, where in the 1950' and again in the 1970', the early 1990', from 2001 to 2002 and in the years after 2012, which culminated in the 2016 to 2017 crises, municipal tension between Buddhists and Muslims overturned.
This is the background to Aung San Suu Kyi's acts - or inactivity - since she came to office in the post-2015 election period. Burma is full of cautious, often warlike tribes - 135 are formally recognised - and Aung San Suu Kyi's grassroots is with the biggest such group, the Burmese Buddhists, among whom there is great backing for anti-Muslim speech and campaign.
It' important to remember that Burmese Buddhists also rule the army. And so that we do not overlook the fact that the Rohingya administration has not had formal Rohingya statute in the state since the early 1980s, Aung San Suu Kyi has also passed on this to her. Neither of the above is intended to euphemise Aung San Suu Kyi's acts in relation to the Rohingya crises, let alone to relieve them.
Myanmar's "opening" - an "opening" signalled and symbolised by the 2008 constitutional treaty and the unilateral win of the National League for Democracy in the 2015 election - is highly delicate and can be quickly shut down by Myanmar's current rulers.
Aung San Suu Kyi's closely-knit Islamic confederate Ko Ni's murder last year - after he was killed after getting off a jet at Yangon International Airport - bears witness to this fact. She is a leading advisor, but few believe she is foolish, and she knows the dynamic of Myanmar's powers all too well.
We must also bear in mind that, as the recent reporter Francis Wade has shown, many of the same Burmese citizens who have been denouncing the Rohingya leaders for many years are encouraging their campaigns against the Rohingya. Myanmar's Muslim-Buddhist struggle - which includes the violent Rohingya bloodshed - can be seen as an example of this.
This is not entirely unexpected in a torn, split land that is just beginning to come out of generation after generation of armed check. All of Aung San Suu Kyi's views on the Rohingya must take all of this into consideration. She is a Buddhist - as somewhere between 85 and 90 per cent of Burma's people - and a Burma is very important.
Aung San Suu Kyi, like the great majority of Burmese Buddhist nationals - among them her deceased Aung San, the "George Washington" of Myanmar - strives above all to preserve her large, cumbersome, ethnic lyre, which despite its official name ("The Republic of the Union of Myanmar") is currently only a "union" in the name.
At the moment it is not helpful to take up the cause of Rohingya - or even to mention her name. Not a Lincoln, Aung San Suu Kyi is not a morally-oeger. It may like the Rohingya or not, but it is only a more stable and optimistic Union of Myanmar that can provide the stable and economical growth that would guarantee a better Rakhine for Rohingya and others.
Therefore, in the meantime, the rest of the rest of the world, especially the West, should use the little influence it has on the Myanmar administration to defend the Rohingya left in the state of Rakhine and to try to mitigate the horrible circumstances under which Rohingya escapees live in Bangladesh. Politics is the motivating force behind most of the region's players, and despite the pressures to act publicly, the Muslim community has done little for the Rohingya.
Most seem to be subject to minimal penalties, and NGOs such as the Holy Father have no clear division. Twenty-five years ago, the West Liberal Party was mistaken in thinking that Aung San Suu Kyi was somehow the king of humanity. Rather, she courageously defended the cause of mankind in the particular contexts of the overwhelming Myanmar state.
At that time she was a Buddhist Burmese nationist, and she still is. And, whether we like it or not, their reviewers must realize that Aung San Suu Kyi has less freedoms than Bono and the New York Times draft.