THE HAGUE--Aung San Suu Kyi was well-prepared for her big gamble of testifying at the World Court here to defend Myanmar against allegations of genocide.

But her admission that certain crimes did occur, her descriptions of how people in Myanmar feel about the situation, and her insistence that the country itself is dealing with the issue may have been lost amid all the stories of horror and international society’s continued disappointment with the Nobel Peace Prize winner.

“I think that she prepared well for the court,” said Yoshihiro Nakanishi, an associate professor at Kyoto University who specializes in Myanmar politics. “She compromised where she should have compromised.”

‘FLY IN THE FACE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE’

Gambia, a small country in Africa, filed the case on behalf of other Muslim nations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ highest court. It accuses Myanmar of committing genocide against the ethnic Rohingya Muslim minority in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Gambia’s action was supported by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and several Western nations.

Hearings were held for both sides from Dec. 10 to 12.

Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s top political leader, flatly denied the allegation of genocide at the court on Dec. 11.

“Gambia has placed before the court an incomplete and misleading factual picture of the situation in Rakhine State in Myanmar,” she said.

Her assertion, which she has repeated before, drew a critical tone in news reports from Western media.

Once seen as a beacon of hope for Myanmar when she was under house arrest, Suu Kyi has been heavily criticized since she moved ahead with the democratization of the country.

Save the Children, an international nongovernmental organization, issued a statement lambasting Suu Kyi over the Rohingya issue.

“(Her denials) fly in the face of all the evidence gathered by the U.N. and the testimony our own teams have heard from countless survivors,” the statement said. “Rohingya families have faced patterns of unimaginable horrors in a campaign of violence. Children and their parents have been systematically killed, maimed and raped.

“The government of Myanmar has failed at every turn to punish those responsible.”

Human rights watchdog Amnesty International said Myanmar’s military crackdown has generated more than 700,000 Rohingya refugees.

“The exodus of more than three-quarters of a million people from their homes and country was nothing but the result of an orchestrated campaign of murder, rape and terror,” a statement released by the group said.

On Dec. 10, the U.S. Treasury Department announced sanctions against Min Aung Hlaing, the commander-in-chief of Myanmar’s military, and several other leaders deployed in Rakhine.

“There are credible claims of mass-scale rape and other forms of sexual violence committed by soldiers under Min Aung Hlaing’s command,” according to the department.

Before her testimony on Dec. 11, Suu Kyi had asserted that the military operation in Rakhine was a justifiable response to acts of terrorism and that its soldiers acted appropriately.

But at The Hague, she acknowledged that human rights violations were committed against Rohingya Muslims.

“It cannot be ruled out that disproportionate force was used by members of the Defense Services in some cases, in disregard of international humanitarian law, or that they did not distinguish clearly enough between ARSA (Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army) fighters and civilians,” she said.

Nakanishi said Suu Kyi likely had no choice but to admit that certain actions had occurred.

“There are already testimonies from Rohingya about acts of killing and other crimes, so it would be difficult for her to deny everything,” he said.

Suu Kyi also said many people in Myanmar were upset when the military shortened the sentences of soldiers who were found guilty of murdering Rohingya.

“(The military) sentenced four officers and three soldiers each to 10 years in prison with hard labor,” she said. “After serving a part of their sentences, they were given a military pardon. Many of us in Myanmar were unhappy with this bargain.”

However, she explained that the military trials and an independent investigation committee set up by the Myanmar government to look into crimes committed against Rohingya showed that ICJ intervention was unnecessary.

Suu Kyi cited the international principle that international justice should intervene only when a country’s justice system does not function.

Nakanishi noted that Myanmar has a history of hardening its stance when faced with outside intervention, including its long period under military rule.

He said Suu Kyi sent a message that the case should be resolved internally, and that she wants international society to give her the full authority to do so.

Support for Suu Kyi has gained stream in predominantly Buddhist Myanmar, where ethnic Rohingya Muslims are regarded as unwelcomed immigrants from neighboring Bangladesh.

Several hundred people in Yangon, Myanmar’s largest city, waved the country’s flag and held pictures of Suu Kyi as they watched a live broadcast of the Dec. 11 hearing at a public hall.

“I sincerely trust Suu Kyi and believe she will protect Myanmar from false assertions,” said Thae Su Mon, a 25-year-old office worker.

GENOCIDE OR NOT

Nakanishi noted that Suu Kyi refrained from criticizing the United Nations and Gambia and focused on the term genocide.

Specifically, the term applies when acts of killing or other crimes are committed with “genocidal intent,” according to the Genocide Convention.

“Even if mass killings occurred in Myanmar, the ICJ won’t view them as genocide if the acts were not carried out with the intention of destroying the group of Rohingya,” said Chisa Ishizuka, an associate professor at Toyo University who specializes in international law.

She said that an extremely careful judgment is expected because genocide is regarded as the heaviest charge under international law.

“It is difficult to predict the ICJ’s final decision, including the extent of Myanmar’s responsibility,” she said.

Before it makes a judgment on whether genocide was committed, the ICJ will have to consider Gambia’s request for “provisional measures” to prevent acts that could lead to genocide in Myanmar. That decision is expected in a month or so.

Ishizuka said that even if the ICJ approves the request for provisional measures, it does not mean it is leaning toward a guilty verdict on genocide.

“The ICJ is supposed to conceal its view until the final judgment on genocide, the most important part,” Ishizuka said.

She also said Myanmar could call into question whether Gambia is qualified to take the country to the ICJ, which deals only with disputes between nations.

Gambia, which is not directly related to the Rohingya issue as a nation, filed the case as a representative of the OIC.

If the ICJ decides there is no dispute between Myanmar and Gambia, the case could be thrown out.

If Myanmar raises that question, it could take two years for the ICJ to reach a decision, according to Ishizuka. The process of making a judgment on genocide would start afterward.

(Ryuta Sometaya is chief of The Asahi Shimbun’s Yangon Bureau.)