"It?s difficult to imagine a more dramatic drop in public stature than the one Aung San Suu Kyi has experienced these past few weeks. No doubt due in large part to the overwhelming sense of betrayal felt by many, the Nobel Laureate has been harshly criticized for her country?s recent treatment of the Rohingya. Words like ?Genocide” and ?Ethnic Cleansing” have, to my mind, been aptly used to define the situation in Rakhine State. With hundreds dead and hundreds of thousands fleeing across the border to Bangladesh, it?s difficult to imagine a more systematic and purposeful deprivation of life and human rights currently unfolding. In the bloody corpus of human suffering, this chapter should without a doubt serve as the stereotypical example of ethnic cleansing. To a large extent, the international media agrees with that statement. And yet, though their denunciation of recent events has been forceful, the condemnation of Aung San Suu Kyi has proved a qualified one especially in more analytically minded circles. As it turns out, holding a Nobel prize inclines people, specifically those who consider themselves thoughtful, towards leniency. This is why you?ll hear arguments claiming that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has no good options, that she must appease the military leaders who are truly behind this massacre, that she risks damaging Myanmar?s fledgling democracy with too strong a denunciation of violence, and that the majority Bamar would turn against her should she speak out too strongly in defense of the Rohingya. Suu Kyi?s chief moral failing, by these accounts, is one of inaction. Her silence, rather than any active effort to tangibly harm people, is the main cause for disappointment..."