U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–011PDF 2017

BURMA’S BRUTAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE

ROHINGYA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

Serial No. 115–72

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

TED S. YOHO, Florida, Chairman 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

AMI BERA, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Michael F. Martin, Ph.D., specialist in Asian affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, 

and Trade Division, Congressional Research Service ....................................... 8

Mr. Walter Lohman, director, Asian Studies Center, Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, The Heritage Foundation ......................... 19

Mr. Daniel P. Sullivan, senior advocate for human rights, Refugees International ................................................................................................................. 28

Ms. Andrea Gittleman, program manager, Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum .................................. 38

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Ted S. Yoho, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, and chairman, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific: Prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 3

Michael F. Martin, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ..................................................... 10

Mr. Walter Lohman: Prepared statement ............................................................. 21

Mr. Daniel P. Sullivan: Prepared statement ......................................................... 30

Ms. Andrea Gittleman: Prepared statement ......................................................... 40

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 60

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 61

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 62

(1)

BURMA’S BRUTAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE 

ROHINGYA 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ted Yoho (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. YOHO. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Members present will be permitted to submit written statements 

to be included in the official hearing record. Without objection, the 

hearing record will remain open for 5 calendar days to allow statements, questions, and extraneous material for the record subject to 

length limitations in the rules. 

As a reminder, I would like to remind the audience members 

that disruption of the committee proceedings is against the law and 

will not be tolerated. Although wearing theme shirts while seated 

in the hearing room is permissible, holding up signs during the 

meeting proceedings is not. Any disruptions will result in the suspension of the proceedings until the capitol police can restore order. 

And we thank you for following these guidelines. 

Good afternoon, and thank you to everyone for joining us today 

to discuss this sobering topic. The latest outbreak of ethnic violence 

in Burma’s Rakhine state has brought about the most urgent humanitarian emergency in the Asia Pacific today. 

We are convening this hearing today for two primary purposes. 

First, to gather information and impressions from our expert panel, 

some of whom recently have been on the ground in Burma to see 

this firsthand. And, secondly, to hear their recommendations for 

how the U.S. policy can best address this crisis. 

The Rohingya, a stateless Muslim people living in the Rakhine 

state, are frequently described as the world’s most persecuted minority. Denied citizenship in Burma and treated as unwanted, illegal immigrants, their modern history has been a continuous deprivation of basic human rights, punctuated with episodes of extreme 

violence. The latest of these is ongoing, and it is just unbelievable 

the amount of persecution that is going on. 

On August 25, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, ARSA, a 

Rohingya militant group, launched a coordinated attack on a security outpost in Burma’s Rakhine state, killing approximately a 

dozen personnel. In the weeks that have followed, the Burmese 

2

military has carried out a brutal retaliatory crackdown against the 

Rohingya population as a whole, characterized by sickening crimes 

against humanity. 

Human Rights Watch released a report on Monday documenting 

widespread and systematic attacks on the Rohingya civilians; deportations and forced population transfers; murders, including the 

murder of women and children; sexual violence; the razing of villages; and the deployment of landmines along paths used by the 

refugees. The reporting is corroborated by eyewitness accounts on 

the ground and satellite images, and it is heart-wrenching in its 

details. 

The military’s violence has sparked a massive refugee outflow 

into neighboring Bangladesh, which the Economist reports is the 

most intense since the Rwanda genocide. In this latest crisis alone, 

about 436,000 Rohingya have crossed the border, overwhelming the 

aid organizations there and bringing the total number of Rohingya 

refugees in Bangladesh to near 1 million. An unknown number of 

additional Rohingya remain internally displaced within the 

Rakhine state. The death toll is in the hundreds at least, and that 

is at a minimum. But aid organizations and reporters are denied 

access to this affected area, and the total number may be much 

higher in the tens of thousands. 

The road ahead will be difficult. Responding to the immediate 

crisis will be an enormous task, to say nothing of a sustainable 

lasting solution to the Rohingya dilemma. Burma has not created 

a space for the Rohingya in its society, and there is little appetite 

among the Buddhist majority to do so. State Counselor Aung San 

Suu Kyi, once thought as a global symbol of human rights and democracy, has led a lackluster response by the Burmese Government, focusing on denial and blaming the victims. 

The ARSA militants are also not helping their fellow Rohingya. 

Their latest attack came on the very day a commission headed by 

the former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan released his recommendations on easing ethnic tensions in Rakhine. This was the 

government’s most high-profile effort to improve the conditions in 

Rakhine following previous episodes of violence, and the ARSA attacked just as Aung San Suu Kyi pledged to implement the panel’s 

recommendations. 

Recent reports have indicated that the outflow of refugees to 

Bangladesh has slowed or stopped, which foreshadows the next 

stage of the crisis: The enormous challenge for humanitarian aid 

organizations to shift from lifesaving measures to a longer term effort to house and feed almost 1 million people, who under the current circumstances, are totally incapable of seeing to their own 

needs. 

In Washington, we will need to determine how we can best support these efforts, as well as what policy options are available for 

pressuring the Burmese military to stop its brutal violence and encouraging the civilian government to take a firmer stand against 

the military’s atrocities. 

So I thank the witnesses for joining us today and look forward 

to their testimony and recommendations. 

Without objection, the written statements will be entered into 

the hearing. 

3

I now turn to the ranking member for any remarks he may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yoho follows:]


27011e-1.eps
4

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am told that the Ambassador from Bangladesh is here. Thank 

you, sir, for being here, but more importantly, thank you for what 

your country, one of the poorest countries in the world, is doing to 

take care of hundreds of thousands of refugees. 

I would also like to introduce the Ambassador of Burma, but, unfortunately, I can’t because that Ambassador is not here. If that 

Ambassador were here, that Ambassador could find out what the 

world thinks of the policy of the Burmese Government toward hundreds of thousands of its own citizens. 

A humanitarian tragedy is unfolding in Burma, which is also referred to as Myanmar. Burma’s military, the Tatmadaw, moved 

against the Rohingya population after an August 25 attack by 

Rohingya militants on Burmese security forces. Nearly 1⁄2 million 

Rohingya Muslim refugees have fled their homeland in the 

Rakhine state following Burmese military operations against them. 

The U.N. High Commission for Human Rights noted that this 

situation seems to be a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. Late 

last year, something similar occurred on a smaller scale when an 

estimated 60,000 to 90,000 Rohingyas fled to Bangladesh as a result of Burmese military operations that have followed in October 

2016 Rohingya militant attack on border police. 

The vast majority of those who fled to Bangladesh, which is, as 

I pointed out, already impoverished and overcrowded, though the 

vast majority have fled there, a roughly 40,000 fled to India. Unfortunately, media reports indicate that India’s border security forces 

are attempting to prevent Rohingya from entering India through 

Bangladesh amidst the ongoing exodus from Burma, including the 

reported use of stun guns and pepper grenades. However, I should 


27011e-2.eps
5

point out that the international law is different for Bangladesh, 

which is the first resting place of those fleeing. Once people are in 

Bangladesh, they are not being oppressed, although they are not 

economically viable at the present time. So whether India has an 

obligation to accept them from Bangladesh is a subject that perhaps our witnesses can get into. 

The United States has led an international response to protect 

the—we have lead the international response to protect Muslims in 

Kosovo and in Bosnia against Serb aggression. We need to play a 

role along with others in protecting the Rohingya in dealing with 

the humanitarian needs. We also need to make sure that the Muslim world realizes that we are the only country to bomb a Christian 

nation, Serbia, for the defense of Muslims, something that is not 

widely focused on in the Muslim world. 

The administration should work to ensure that the physical 

needs of hundreds of thousands of refugees are provided for, secure 

a halt to Burmese military operations against the Rohingya, secure 

a safe return of the Rohingya population back to Burma, demand 

that Burma end decades of discrimination against the Rohingya, 

including addressing cases of appropriated land, citizenship rights, 

political representation, the lack of free movement, and economic 

improvements. This is especially necessary in citizenship rights. 

The idea that a people could live in a country generation after generation and still be called foreigners under that country’s laws is 

simply outrageous. 

We are to urge the United Nations Security Council to establish 

a U.N. Security Council probe commission on Burmese ethnic 

cleansing against the Rohingya and urge the United Nations Security Council to establish a U.N.-monitored safe zone for the 

Rohingya in Rakhine state to protect it from future mass killings. 

The Burmese Government says it will allow the return of these 

refugees, catch-22, when they provide proof of nationality. Since 

1982, the Burmese Government has stripped the Rohingya of their 

citizenship, making it impossible for them to prove their Burmese 

nationality. This is outrageous. Every group of people on the Earth 

has immigrated to where they live from somewhere else. Since we 

all came from apparently eastern Africa, and to say that you are 

not a citizen of a country because you cannot prove that your most 

ancient ancestors were born there would make us all citizens perhaps of Ethiopia and not citizens of any other country in the world. 

I say that just to show how absurd the position is to deny citizenship for people not only born in the country, but whose parents, 

even grandparents were born in that country. 

The United States, who was closely involved in bringing democracy to Burma, in a process that included elections in 2010 and 

2015, the release of political prisoners, the formation of a civilian 

government, and the lifting of U.N. sanctions. The United States 

should also take the lead of holding democratic practices, and democracy goes with fair treatment of minorities and a protection of 

minorities. It must press the Burmese Government to end military 

operations against the Rohingya, accept the refugees back, and 

grant them citizenship. I think they are already legally citizens. 

Recognize that citizenship. 

6

In September of last year, I, along with other members of this 

subcommittee, met with Aung San Suu Kyi as the former administration decided to lift a number of economic sanctions on Burma. 

It is clear, after the massacres and cleansing of October 2016 and 

the recent actions, that we need to reevaluate that policy. 

Last week, the State Department announced the U.S. is providing an additional 32 million in humanitarian assistance. I look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses whether that is sufficient. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. YOHO. I thank the ranking member. 

I too also would like to welcome Ambassador Ziauddin. Thank 

you for being here, for representing Bangladesh, and thank you for 

the support you have given to this crisis that is ongoing. 

I would like to commend the ranking member on his pointing out 

that the United States is a Nation that is—the only nation that has 

bombed a Christian nation to protect the Muslim populace. 

With that, I would like to turn to Mr. Chabot from Ohio for an 

opening statement. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for holding this really very important hearing at a critical 

time. 

The news, as you indicated, from the Rakhine state about the humanitarian crisis, unfortunately, seems to be getting worse every 

day. As a former chairman of this committee, I have been following 

this with really great concern for some time now. 

The previous administration touted Burma as a success story 

and relaxed many of the restrictions that have been longstanding, 

including on the Burmese military. Unfortunately, we are seeing 

that, in many ways, the Burma that we see today isn’t that much 

different than the one that we knew only a few years ago. There 

have been some improvements, but far too few. 

A number of us at the time were warned that this democratic 

transformation was incomplete and that President Obama and 

then Secretary of State Clinton’s optimism was premature. The 

current situation in Rakhine state, unfortunately, seems to illustrate that we were right, much as I wish that we had been wrong. 

So I look very much forward to this very distinguished panel 

here and hearing what solutions, what we can do to help. So I 

thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chabot. 

Now we will go to Mr. Rohrabacher for an opening statement. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have been following the events in this part 

of the world for a number of decades, but I will have to admit that 

I have a very shallow information base, knowledge base on what 

is happening on the issue being described today. So I will be very 

interested in hearing a history of this. 

I realize that I have been very active in the past in trying to support the Karens and the Karenis who were brutalized by the Burmese Government. And the Karens and the Kareni, of course, are 

Christians, or at least a large segment of their population is Christian. I understand from the people I know in Burma that there is 

a great deal of brutality still going on by the Burmese Government 

toward the Karens and the Kareni. However, being Christians, 

7

they don’t seem to get as much attention as it is when we see a 

group of Muslims who are under attack. 

I think that it is up to us to send a message to Burma that this 

type of repression, both whether it is Christians or Muslim, that 

attacks on unarmed civilians is unacceptable. But let me also note 

that we need to send a message to the people, to the Muslim people 

of the world that our human rights agenda is not just a front to 

attack Muslim regimes when they are doing something wrong, but 

when the Islamic people are being victimized, that we care about 

them just as we do anyone else. 

So I thank you for this hearing today. I plan to educate myself 

from what we are going to hear from the witnesses. So thank you 

very much. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Now we will go to Mrs. Ann Wagner for an opening statement. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this hearing. I too am devastated by the news coming out of Burma. 

For over 60 years, the Burmese Government has persecuted religious and ethnic minorities across the country. War has raged in 

Karen states, Chin states, Shan states, Kachin states, and the list 

goes on and on. 

The Obama administration lifted sanctions. Actually, Burma was 

becoming a democracy, but Burma’s Government had no authority 

over the nation’s powerful military. Human rights and democracy 

activists across Burma feel abandoned. The Christians in Kachin 

states have been ignored by the West. The Rohingya Muslims have 

been left for dead. With more Rohingya now living outside of 

Burma than living inside of Burma, the international community 

must stop demanding action and take action. We are in part to 

blame for not holding the Burmese Government and military accountable for their actions. 

So I want to thank you all very much for coming today. And a 

special thanks to Mr. Sullivan and to Ms. Gittleman for the advocacy work that you do in this arena. And my sincere thanks to the 

Ambassador from Bangladesh for the generosity of your country in 

opening up your border. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mrs. Wagner. 

This hearing today is so important because of the atrocities that 

going on out there, and we depend on the information that you 

guys give us, the panel, on the direction we go. When we look at 

the history of this, the length of time this has been going on, I don’t 

know how the world can stand by and do nothing. And so you guys 

are going to bring this out into the open. And I don’t want to say 

you are not doing anything because you are the Ambassadors, you 

are dealing with this in a good way, and we commend you. But we 

have to bring a stop to this. This is the 21st century, and we are 

doing stuff from the stone age to people on the ground. 

We met with an NGO yesterday, and he was showing us graphic 

pictures of charred bodies that were lined up, people with flamethrowers burning people in the 21st century. It is unacceptable, 

and we need to bring this to an end with the world community. 

So with that, I look forward to your testimonies. And I want you 

to understand that so much of what you guys tell us in a hearing 

8

goes into legislation that we put on through the State Department, 

maybe the Treasury or other organizations, so be very specific, be 

bold. I give you the permission. You can direct us. Use this opportunity to say, if I could write the legislation, this is what I would 

do to bring this to an end. So I welcome your testimonies. 

You are limited to about 5 minutes. Try to end when the red 

light goes on or ends at 5 minutes. Make sure you press your button so the microphone is on. 

With that, I am going to introduce the panel. We are going to 

start with Dr. Michael Martin, specialist in Asian affairs for the 

Congressional Research Service, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and 

Trade Division. Thank you for being here. Mr. Walter Lohman, 

thank you for being back. Director of the Asian Studies Center for 

the Heritage Foundation. Dr. Daniel Sullivan, senior advocate for 

human rights at the Refugee International. And Ms. Andrea 

Gittleman, program manager for the Simon-Skjodt Center for the 

Prevention of Genocide at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. 

That is a mouthful. Thank you for being here. 

And, Dr. Martin, if you don’t mind, we will start with you, and 

look forward to hearing from you. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. MARTIN, PH.D., SPECIALIST IN 

ASIAN AFFAIRS, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENSE, AND TRADE 

DIVISION, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

Mr. MARTIN. Chairman Yoho, Ranking Member Sherman, and 

the members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity 

to appear before you today to discuss the current crisis in Burma’s 

Rakhine state, the status of the Rohingya who have fled to Bangladesh, as well as those remaining in Burma. 

The current crisis in Burma’s Rakhine state is not the first time 

in which thousands of Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh, nor is it 

the only crisis in Burma that involves forced displacement for thousands of Burmans from their home. 

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there were over 375,000 internally displaced persons in 

Burma at the end of 2016 due to the nation’s ongoing civil war. In 

addition, more than 100,000 refugees live in camps in Thailand as 

a result of past fighting in Karen, Kareni, Mon, and Shan states. 

Some of these refugees have been living in camps for over 30 years. 

While Burma’s civil war and ongoing humanitarian challenges 

are issues in their own rights, it is the plight of the Rohingya that 

has captured the world’s attention. 

Since Burma’s military junta, the State Peace and Development 

Council transferred power to a mixed civilian military government 

in 2011, large-scale forced displacement of Rohingya have occurred 

on four occasions from June to October 2012, again in the spring 

of 2015, during the winter of 2016-2017, and most recently, starting on August 25, 2017. The latest displacement began after the 

Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, or ARSA, allegedly attacked 30 

security outposts northern Rakhine state. Burma’s military, or 

Tatmadaw, responded by initiating a clearance operation in the 

townships of Buthidaung, Maungdaw, and Rathedaung. As a result, over half of Burma’s estimated 1.1 million Rohingya are now 

9

in refugee camps in Bangladesh, and I would add that that percentage is probably low. 

During my 2-week trip to Burma earlier this month, I visited 

three camps of internally displaced persons, or IDPs, in northern 

Shan state. I also interviewed six individuals who said they had 

been beaten by Tatmadaw soldiers for their alleged support of ethnic armed organizations, or EAOs, operating near their villages. 

Their stories of abuse at the hands of the Tatmadaw were amazingly similar, maybe not surprisingly similar, to those being told by 

the Rohingya right now in Bangladesh. I would also add that none 

of them accounted similar beatings by EAO soldiers. 

During my trip, I was repeatedly told that most Burmans, including other ethnic minorities, welcome the Tatmadaw’s clearance 

operation and the resulting displacement of the Rohingya. The popular narrative among Burmans is that the Rohingya are Bengalis, 

illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, and are part of an effort to 

transform Burma into a Muslim nation, as was done in Indonesia 

and Malaysia centuries ago. When asked, people discredit claims of 

misconduct by the Tatmadaw soldiers and attribute any human 

rights abuses to ARSA. 

While many international observers have criticized State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi for her failure to take action, few have directed their criticism at Burma’s Commander in Chief, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing. Under Burma’s 2008 constitution, a constitution written by the Tatmadaw, General Min Aung Hlaing has 

supreme authority over all of Burma’s security forces, including the 

Tatmadaw, border guard forces, and the Myanmar police force. 

State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi and the civilian government 

have little direct authority over those security forces. 

The events of the past month in Burma raised a number of potential issues for Congress. Congress may consider the immediate 

humanitarian crisis in Bangladesh and Burma, as well as the possible long-term assistance that may be required. Congress may also 

address whether allegations of human rights abuses by the Burmese security forces, ARSA, or others in Rakhine states can be 

properly investigated, and if found credible, adjudicated in an appropriate manner. 

In addition, this crisis provides an opportunity for the United 

States to reflect on its policy toward Burma in general. The events 

in Rakhine state reveal much about the relationship between the 

Tatmadaw and Aung San Suu Kyi and her government, as well as 

relations among Burma’s various ethnic groups and the nation’s 

prospects for peace. It has also raised question about Burma’s role 

in regional geopolitical strategic and security relations, including 

those with China and India. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral remarks. Thank you again 

for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to the subcommittee’s 

questions on either my oral or written testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]

10


27011c-1.eps

Statement of 

Michael F. Martin 

Specialist in Asian Affairs 

Before 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Hearing on 

"Burma's Brutal Campaign Against the 

Rohingya" 

September 26, 2017 

Congressional Research Service 

7-5700 

"\\f\.Vw.crs.gov 
11


27011c-2.eps

~~~~s~~~~l-~_9~~~~?h_S_e_!!iC:'? ______ ------------------------------------

Chainnan Yoho, Ranking Member Shennan, and Members of the Subconnnittee_ thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the current crisis in Bumta's Rakhine State, and the 

situation of the Rohingya, both those who have fled to Bangladesh, as well as those remaining in Burma_ 

My name is Michael F Martin_ and I am testifying today in my capacity as an analyst for the 

Congressional Research Sen-ice. 

The events tmfolding in Bunna's Rakhine State- entailing an estimated 430.000 predominately Sunni 

Muslim Rohingya have fled into Bangladesh, tens of thousands ofRohingya, Rakhine and other ethnic 

minorities who have been displaced from their villages into temporary camps within Rakhine State, and 

possibly more than a thousand people who have been killed- is not the first such crisis for the region. 

Mass displacements ofRohingya from Rakhine State have occurred periodically dating back at least to 

1978_ Nor is Rakhinc the only state in Bumta in which conflict is forcing fanners out of their villages and 

into temporary camps. Bumta's 70-ycar old civil war continues in Kachin and Shan State, where Bumta 's 

military, or Tatmadaw. and various ethnic am1ed organizations. or EAOs. fight for control of land and 

valuable mineral resources. 

The current displacement of Rohingya began afier a new EAO_ the Arakan Rohiungya Salvation Amty 

(ARSA) reportedly attacked 30 security outposts along the border with Bangladesh on August 25_ 20 17_ 

killing over a dozen Burmese police officers and at least one Tatmadaw soldier. In response, ARSA was 

oftlcially declared a terrorist organization, the first time Bunna used such a declaration for an insurgent 

group_ In addition_ the Tatmadaw deployed more than 70 battalions_ or an estimated 30.000-35.000 

soldiers. into Rakhine State. The ensuing "'clearance operation'' in the townships ofButhidaung, 

Maungdaw, and Rathcdaung in northem Rakhinc State has contributed to the large-scale displacement of 

Rohingya, as well as the displacement of other ethnic groups, such as the Rakhine, Hindi, Dyna_ Magyi, 

Mro. and Thet. 

Some of the Rohingya who have made it to informal refugee camps in Bangladesh claim that Tatmadaw 

soldiers entered their 'illagcs, and proceeded to shoot civilians, rape women, and then bum down the 

entire village_ International medical teams treating the Rohingya in these camps report that some people 

bear gunshot \Vounds consistent with being shot from behind~ \vhile some \Vomen have injuries consistent 

with sexual assault. 11tc Tatmadaw has denied that its soldiers arc killing civilians_ raping women, and 

burning villages_ According to the Tatmadaw, the only casualties arc ""ARSA terrorists" and dtc villages 

are being destroyed by ARSA and its sy111pathizers. In her televised speech of September 19, 2017. State 

Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi stated: 

We condemn all human rights violations and the unlawful violence. We arc committed to the 

restoration of peace, stability, <md the mle of law throughout the state. The security forces have 

been instructed to adhere strictly to the code of conduct in carrying out security operations, to 

exercise all due restrainto and to take full measures to avoid collateral damage and the harming of 

llmocent civilians. Human rights violations and all other acts that affect the stability and harmony 

and undennine the rule of lavv \Vill be addressed in accordance vdth the strict nonns of justice. 

It is difficult to know for certain what has taken place in the townships of north em Rakhine State as 

media and humanitarian assistance access to the region has been largely cut off by the Tatmadaw ±or 

security reasons. Satellite imagery of the region shows evidence that dozens of villages in Mallltgda\\ 

Township haYe been partially or totally bumed down. and a smaller number of villages in Buthidaung and 

Rathedaung townships display varying degrees of ±ire damage. One BBC reporter who obtained access to 

the area witnessed the looting and destruction of a Rohingya village by what appeared to be a group of 

Rakhine men. The Tatmadaw soldiers escorting the reporter took no measures to interrogate or det:'lin the 

Rakhine men. 

Although the pace has slowed, the number of Rohingya entering Bangladesh increases every day. Over 

the past year, approximately half of dtc estimated 1.1 million Rohingya residing in Bumta have ±led to 

Bangladesh. To understand why Rohingya exoduses of this sort repeatedly happens in Rakhine State. one 

CRS TESIIMOIII'Y 

PrcparcdforGongress---------------------------------
12


27011c-3.eps

has to know about the history ofthe Rohingya and of past large scale displacements_ the competing 

narratives in Bunna about the Rohingya. the Bunnese govennnent 's policies regarding the Rohingya. and 

the attitudes and culture of the Tatmadaw with regard to the Rohingya_ and ethnic minorities in general. 

Recent Mass Displacements of Rohingya 

The history of recent large-scale exoduses ofRohingya from Rakhine State dates back at least to February 

1978, when Burma's mling military junta, under the leadership of General Ne Win, launched Operation 

Naga Min, or Operation King Dragon, ostensibly designed to expel a group of Rohingya insurgents, the 

Rohingya Patriotic Front (RPF)_ from northem Rakhine State_ Over a period of three months, Tatmadaw 

soldiers swept through northern Rakhine State, and an estimated 200,000- 250,000 Rohingya fled to 

Bangladesh_ where they found shelter in temporary can1ps ncar Cox's Bazar. l11c United Nations High 

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) recognized the Rohingya as refugees_ and was able to secure 

Bangladesh's support for the establishment of two official refugee camps. Most of the Rohingya were 

able to return to Bum1a following negotiations between Bangladesh, Bum1a and the United Nations. 

The Tatmadaw conducted another counter-insurgent campaign in northern Rakhine State in the winter of 

1992 against the Rohingya Solidarity Organization, m1 offshoot of the RPF By April 1992, more thm1 

250,000 Rohinm:a had fled to Bangladesh to escape the military operations. As happened in 1978, many 

of the Rohingya retumed to Burma after the military campaign was over, but some remained in the 

refugee can1ps in Bm1gladesh. 

From June to October 2012, approximately 200,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh, and another 120,000 

ended up in internally displaced persons (TOP) camps in Rakhine State after rioting erupted between the 

Rohingya and largely Buddhist Rakhine population in Rakhine State. The Tatmadaw responded by 

bringing in troops to restore law m1d order_ While many of the Rohingya in Bm1gladesh were eventually 

able to return to Burma, those in TOP camps have been unable to return to their villages. 

In the spring of 2015. an estimated 25,000 people- many of whom were Rohingya from Rakhine State -

took to boats in the Andaman Sea in hopes of reaching Malaysia and Thailand. Hundreds died along the 

vvay. A small number of the survi\-ing e1nigres returned to Bun11a. but most have chosen to remain in 

exile_ 

In late 2016, following the alleged attacks on three border outposts by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation 

Army (ARSA), approximately 87,000 Rohingya crossed into Bangladesh to escape the ensuing "clearance 

operation·· conducted by the Tatmadaw. The media, hLmlail rights organizations. and inten1ational 

humanitarian organizations accused the Tatmadavv of serious human rights abuses during the ''clearance 

operation .. , The Tatu1adaw denied these allegations. 

State Counsellor Aung Sm1 Suu K yi responded to the 2016 events by forming an intemational 

commission. the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State. headed by fom1cr UN General Secretary Kofi 

Annan. to '"identify the factors that have resulted in violence, displacement, and underdevelopment" in 

Rakhine State. On August 24, 2017, the Commission released its ±ina! report, cautioning that ""a highly 

militarized response is unlikely to bring peace to the area_'' Among the Commission-s recommendations 

are to promote greater economic development in Rakhine State, to align Bunna's 1982 Citizenship Law 

with international standards and enable the Rohingya to obtain citizenship, and make arrangements for the 

resettlement ofiDPs. In March 2017, the UN Hlllllan Rights Council approved a fact-finding mission to 

investigate alleged human rights ;iolations in Rakhine State, butAm1g San Suu Kyi has so far refused to 

permit the mission entry into Burma, stating that their presence "would have created greater hostility 

between the different comnumities.'' 

With the exception of the 2015 exodus, the mass displacements ofRohingyas has corresponded with 

large-scale deploj1nents ofTatmadaw soldiers into northern Rakhine State_ In each case, the media_ 

CRS TESIIMOIII'Y 

PrcparcdforGongress---------------------------------
13


27011c-4.eps

human rights organizations, and inten1ationalluunanitarian assistm1ce orgmrizations have reported 

evidence of serious human rights abuses of the Rohingya by the Tatmadaw soldiers. The Tatmadaw has 

repeatedly denied these allegations. 

Competing Narratives 

Historical evidence shows that a Muslim community has lived in northem Rakhine State for centuries. 

although not initially identified as Rohingya. Muslim merchants and traders settled in what is now eastern 

Bangladesh and Burma's Rakhine State as early as the 8'h Century. The Kingdom of Mrauk-U ruled this 

region from 1429 to 1785, as a joint Buddhist-Muslim society, under the protection of the Islamic Bengal 

Sultanate, and with a significant Muslim population. In 1785, the Bamar Konbaung Dynasty conquered 

the Kingdom of Mrauk-U, and ruled the area until the British extended the British Raj into Bum1a in 

1824. During the time of British rule over Bunna, an unknown number of Muslims migrated into northcm 

Rakhine State in what the British considered an internal resettlement. but which the Tatmadaw and much 

ofthc Burmese population now consider illegal innnigration. 

It is uncertain when a portion of the Muslim community of Rakhine State began identifying itself as 

Rohingya (l11crc is a separate Muslim community in Rakhinc State known as the Kamar. which is 

considered an indigenous ethnic group by the Burmese government.) According to the Rohin~,>ya 

narrative, the notion of a Rohingya ethnic group dates at least as far back as Burma's independence in 

1948. During the period of civilian rule in Bunna (1948-1962). Rohingya were Members of Parliament. 

served in the Tatmadaw, and worked as civi I servants. This ended after the Tatmadaw took control of the 

govcmmcnt in 1962. and began its anti-Rohingya can1paigns. 

Most people in Burma- including the majority ethnic Bamar and the various ethnic minorities - tell a 

different narrative about the origins of what they refer to as the '"Bengalis" ofRakhine State. Most people 

in Burma do not consider the Rohingya a legitimate ethnic community that has lived in Rakhine State for 

centuries. Instead, they assert that the Bengalis are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh or India that 

entered Rakhinc State during the time of British rule or more recently across the porous border with 

Bangladesh. In addition, Burn1a·s Buddhist nationalist movement. Ma Ba Tha, and its outspoken leader, 

A shin Wirathu. portray the ·"Bengalis" as the point of a spear of an effort by global Islam to transform 

Bum1a from a predominately Buddhist nation into an Islamic state. As a result, tl1e Rohingya arc widely 

seen as a threat to Burma's identity as a Buddhist nation of Southeast Asia. 

This popular narrative has translated into popular support for the Tatmadaw·s clearance operation in 

northem Rakhine State and approval of the resulting large-scale displacement of the Rohingya. Many 

people in Burma believe tl1c Tatmadaw 's assertions that its troops have not engaged in human rights 

abuses during the various clearance operations, and think the international media is intentionally 

spreading false stories about such matters. Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing is 

reportedly popular in most of Burma, even in some etlmic minority areas. because of his strong response 

to the '·ARSA terrorist threat"' and the resulting return of the so-called "Bengalis·· to Bangladesh. 

Burmese Government Policies on the Rohingya 

The Bun11ese government- whether under military-rule or under the current mixed civilian-military 

govcnuncnt- has established a number of discriminatory policies specifically toward tl1c Rohingya. 

Among these policies are: 

Denial of Citizenship- In 1982, Burma's military junta replaced the 1948 Union 

Citizenship Act with a new law, the 1982 Citizenship Law, that effectively revoked tl1c 

citizenship of most of the Rohingya in Burn1a. rendering them stateless. 

CRS TESIIMOIII"Y 

PrcparcdforGongress---------------------------------
14


27011c-5.eps

Denial of Suffrage and Representation- In 2015, then-President Thein Sein 

invalidated the temporary identification cards c·white cards") possessed by many 

Rohingya that had permitted them to vote in past elections. As a result, Union Election 

Commission did not allow the Rohingya to vote in the 2015 parliamentary elections. and 

prohibited Rohingya political parties and candidates from running for office in the 

elections. 

Denial of Education and Employment- Because they are not citizens, most Rohinb>yas 

cannot attend public Lmivcrsitics, work for the government. or join the military or the 

Myanmar Police Force. 

Restrictions on Movement- Rohingya in rural areas arc prohibited from moving out of 

their home villages without the pem1ission of local authorities. 

Restrictions on Marriage, Religious Conversion and Procreation- hl2015. Bunna·s 

Union Parliament passed the four '·Race and Religion Protection Laws" that seemingly 

targeted Bunna's Muslim population and, in particular, the Rohingya. T11c laws bmmcd 

cohabitation with someone who is not one's spouse (to bm1 de facto polygamy), 

prohibited interfaith maniages and conversion to Islam 'vithin a maniage without 

govennncnt approval, m1d required that women living in certain regions- regions with a 

high percentage of Muslim households- space prcgnm1cies at least 36 months apart. 

Tatmadaw Attitudes toward the Rohingya 

After the Tatmadaw seized power from an elected civilian government in 1962, Burma's military junta 

engaged in a series of activities that demonstrated 311 apparent m1tipathy toward the Rohingya. In 

particular. junta leader General Ne Win seemingly harbored a strong animosity toward the Rohingya. 

Under General Ne Win's command, Burmese forces conducted several military operations in northern 

Rakhine State targeted at the Rohingya community, including Operation King Dragon in 1978. General 

Ne \Vin reportedly supported the 1982 Citizenship Act that stripped most Rohingya of their citizenship, 

and implemented govemment policies designed to restrict their civil liberties. The Tatmadaw has been 

one of the most consistent advocates of the idea that the Rohingya arc illegal immigrm1ts from 

Bangladesh. and are not an indigenous ethnic minority in Bunna. 

The various military operations in northem Rakhine State have consistently resulted in the forced 

displacement of thousands ofRohingyas. and usually have involved credible allegations of serious human 

rights violations of Rohingya by Tatmadaw soldiers. Some Tatmadaw officers have defended their 

soldiers accused of raping Rohinb>ya women by stating that Rohinb>ya women are too dirty and ugly for 

their soldiers to even consider raping. In general, the Tatmadaw speak of and seemingly consider the 

Rohingya as inferior to the Bmnar majority, m1d by extension, seem to tolerate discrimination m1d 

maltreatment ofRohingya 

One lingering question is the goal or objective of the Tatmadaw 's treatment of the Rohingya. Some 

observers, including U.N. High Commissioner for Humm1 Rights Zeid Ra· ad AI Hussein. think the 

Tatmadaw's activities constitute ''ethnic clc311sing" ofRohingyafrom Bunna. m1d the ultimate goal is the 

remoyaJ of all Rohingya. Others maintain the objective is to reduce the percentage ofRohingya in 

northem Rakhine State by forced displacement plus the immigration ofBamar, Rakhine and other ethnic 

minorities into the region. 

One possible indication ofthe Tatmadaw's goal may be how the Bunncsc govennncnt mm1agcs the return 

of the displace Rohingya. ALmg Sm1 Suu K yi has indicated that the return will be mm1aged in accordm1ce 

with a 1992 agreement between Bangladesh and Bum1a on a previous case of mass displacement. That 

agreement stipulated that Bunna would accept the return ofm1yonc who could provide evidence of their 

C RS TES IIMOI'f'l 

PrcpamdforGongress ---------------------------------
15


27011c-6.eps

~~f!Q_!~i~n-~l_B_~~~h_S?r:--j~£_ _____ ---------------------------------------

prior residence in Bunna. One Bunnese official has stated that this may mean proof of eligibility for 

Bum1ese citizenship, which would significantly reduce the number of Rohingya who would be permitted 

to return to Burma. 

Issues for U.S. Policy 

The current crisis in Rakhine St.:tte raises a number of questions regarding U.S. policy toward Bunna and 

Bangladesh. The following list of questions is not meant to be exhaustive, but more indicative of the 

breadth and scope of factors that Congress may wish to bear in mind when examining U.S. policy toward 

Bum1a and Bangladesh. 

The State Department has announced an additional $32 mi11ion in humanitarian assistance in 

response to the situation in Rakhine State, with most of the funds going to help refugees in 

Bangladesh. What efforts are being made to obtain similar commitments from other nations? 

How long will this assistance last'' How much additional assistance will be needed? Is the amount 

being provided for assistance within Rakhine State sufficient to address current needs? 

The Burmese government has said it will lead the humanitarian response In Rakhinc State and 

will continue to avail the support ofthe Red Cross Movements. What intemational efforts are 

being made to obtain greater access to the TOPs in Rakhine State? Is the Tatmadaw intentionally 

hindering the provision of assistance in Rnkhine State0 If so, what can be done to obtain access to 

the intemally displaced people, regardless of etlmicity? 

Stories of serious hllll1an rights abuses continue to be reported from the Rohingya refugees in 

Rmgladesh, while the Tatmadaw claim to have found a mass grave ofHindis allegedly killed by 

ARSA. How legitimate arc these claims? 

So far, tl1c Tatmadaw has denied its troops ha\ e engaged in human rights abuses during the 

clearance operations, and that any casualties are ARSA terrorists. As a result the Tatmadaw 

refuse to permit any independent intcmational investigation of the alleged human rights abuse. 

What effect ha\e these allegations and the Tatmadaw 's refusal to pcnnit independent 

investigation had on U.S. relations with the Tatmadaw and Aung San Sun Kyi's govemment'' 

What is the Tatmadaw's objective in Rakhine State- the total displacement of the Rohingya, a 

major reduction in the Rohingya population. or the reestablishment oflaw and order? Hmv might 

the answer to tl1is question influence U.S. policy in Bumm and relations with the Tatmadaw? 

In response to the situation in Rakhine State, tl1e United Kingdom has cut off its assistance 

programs with the Tatmadaw. China, India, Israel, and Russia provide the Tatmadaw with arms 

and military training. Commandcr-in-ChiefMin Aung Hlaing recently traveled to Europe seeking 

closer military-to-military relations with several nations. What steps. if any, should the United 

States take with regard to Defense and State Department relations with the Tatmadaw0 

Aung San Sun K yi has repeatedly stated that international coverage of the situation in Rakhine 

State is biased_ inaccurate, and incomplete. Is there an) merit to her clai1ns? If so_ in what 

respect? What impact might this have on U.S. relations with her government0 

Aung San Suu Kyi recommitted her govemment to the implementation of the Annan Commission 

recommendations in her speech last week. What, if anything, can the United States do to assist in 

the implementation of those reconunendations? 

Little is known for certain about ARSA. What do we know about its origins. funding, size. and 

alleged relations with international Islamic fundamentalist organizations? What arc the 

implications for U.S. counter-terrorism c±Iorts in South and Soutl1castAsia? 

CRS lESTIMO!'f'l 

Prepared for C-ongress---------------------------------
16


27011c-7.eps

What impact has the recent outbreak of violence had on the ongoing conflict in Kachin and Shan 

State, as well as efforts to advance the political dialogue to resolve that conflict? Is there any 

evidence that the various EAOs are concerned that the Tatmadaw is emboldened by the popularity 

of its activities in Rakhinc State and may extend such an approach to eastem Bumm'1 What arc 

the possible implications for U.S. efforts to promote a peacefi.d resolution ofBunna's civil war? 

China sees both economic and strategic value in its relationship with Burma. China recently 

completed an oil and gas pipeline that runs from China's Ymman Province, across the conflict 

area innorthem Shan State, and ending in the deep-water port ofKvaukphyu, near the city of 

Sittwe in Rakhine State. China hopes to build a rail line and highway along the same corridor, 

providing China with direct freight access to the Indian Ocean. What cflcct could and should 

China "s economic and strategic interests in Bun11a have on U.S. policy? 

How might the events in Rakhine State influence U.S. relations with the Association of Southeast 

Asian Nations (ASEAN), as well as other nations in the region, including India, Indonesia, 

Malaysia. and Thailand? 

Mr. Chaim1m1, this concludes my testimony. Thm1k you again for the opportunity to testify. m1d I mn most 

·willing to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have pertaining to the 

subject of this hearing. 

CRS TESIIMOIII'Y 

PrcparcdforGongress---------------------------------
17


27011c-8.eps

_9~Qt:?~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~- --------------------------------------

CRS TE3 TIMON'¥ 

Prepared for Congress---------------------------------
18

Mr. YOHO. Dr. Martin, I appreciate it, and thank you for that 

great testimony. 

We have been blessed and honored to have the chairman of the 

full committee, Mr. Ed Royce here, and he has an opening statement. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Yoho, for giving 

me this opportunity, because I did want to register my observations 

about the circumstances that we are dealing with here. And I want 

to thank you for this important hearing, Chairman Yoho. 

There are few issues more pressing that demand our attention as 

much as this issue does this week and last week and the week before. The plight of the Rohingya, an ethnic group that many have 

called the most persecuted in the world, is also one that deserved 

our attention a long time ago. As a matter of fact, if we went back 

to 1982, if we look at what this population has been through, a citizenship law denied Burmese citizenship to Rohingya, even though 

most of them had lived in that country for generations. They have 

been denied freedom of movement, denied access to an education, 

to healthcare. Burmese Rohingya have been marginalized by every 

level of government, and that is top to bottom. And today the persecution of these people have reached new horrific levels. 

Fleeing government retaliation for attacks carried out by the 

ARSA, a fringe militant group at least 420,000 Rohingyas have 

been driven from their homes. They have been forced to cross the 

border into Bangladesh. I have heard personally their stories of 

what they have been through, of the villages that have been 

burned. Hundreds have been killed officially, but we know the 

number is many multiples of this. And journalists have been denied access to large areas of Rakhine state. So that is why I suspect this number is far, far higher than what is being reported. 

Now, what has been reported so far is that 200 villages have 

been burned, but I hear reports that I haven’t seen in the papers 

yet from others who are connected to the Internet who tell me 

about additional villages being burned. Landmines have been 

placed inside Burma’s borders with Bangladesh, maiming a handful of those seeking safe haven, but we know more will be killed 

by these landmines because no one has made a record of where 

they have been placed. It is little wonder that the U.N. human 

rights chief called this a textbook example of ethnic cleansing, and 

that is a strong but very warranted condemnation. 

In the face of these atrocities, Burma’s response has been, frankly, appalling. I have no illusion that with a young democratically 

elected government the challenges facing Aung San Suu Kyi are 

immense. But at the same time, if she is only a counselor, and if 

the power and the authority actually rests with the military, she 

still has the responsibility to speak out strongly on this issue of 

human rights. She has got to bring together widely diverse ethnic 

groups and work to improve an economy that suffered for decades 

under the military junta’s mismanagement. But nothing is more 

important than providing for the safety of the people within her 

borders. And Aung San Suu Kyi’s recent statement questioning 

why the Rohingya were fleeing and denying that the military had 

conducted clearance operations is wildly off the mark. 

19

The perpetrators of this ethnic cleansing must be condemned in 

the strongest terms and held accountable. The Burmese Government cannot be allowed to blatantly and cruelly mistreat Rohingya 

Muslims and other minority groups. The United States must 

prioritize the Rohingya and the protection of human rights in its 

relations with Burma, and we should use the tool at our disposal 

to help put a stop to this violence and to get USAID down on the 

ground and to get the Burmese people, the Rohingya people returned. 

Lastly, Bangladesh deserves praise for opening its borders to this 

influx of refugees. It is my sincere hope that the government honors its promise to build shelter for new arrivals and provide the 

needed medical care to them. 

And again, I thank Chairman Yoho. I thank the Ambassador of 

Bangladesh who is with us today. We appreciate what you have 

done, and I think this is a very important hearing. I thank the 

other members who are engaged in this issue for being involved. 

Thanks. 

I yield back. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Chairman Royce. I appreciate your input 

and being here. 

Mr. Lohman, if you would continue the testimony. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WALTER LOHMAN, DIRECTOR, ASIAN 

STUDIES CENTER, DAVIS INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Mr. LOHMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sherman, other members of the committee, I appreciate you 

having me here to——

Mr. YOHO. Do you have your microphone on? 

Mr. LOHMAN. It is on. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. Maybe move it a little closer. 

Mr. LOHMAN. Okay. Events in Burma over the last month have 

been heartrending, but they are only a manifestation of deeper realities about Burma that must be taken into better account in U.S. 

policy going forward, particularly as regards any normalization of 

U.S. military ties. 

The first reality concerns Burma’s relationship with China, their 

relationship between their militaries in particular. To the extent 

the proposals to open U.S. relations with the Burmese military are 

about ‘‘balancing China,’’ they vastly overestimate U.S. leverage. 

The one inescapable geographical reality is that China shares a 

border with Burma. The Chinese have major interests at stake 

there, much bigger than our own: Stability along their border, access to the Indian Ocean, rights alternative to the Malacca straits 

in the South China Sea for their trade, and access to energy resources, securities interests. The Chinese play both sides of the 

fence. They supply and support insurgencies along the border, and 

at the same time, they maintain a close relationship with the Burmese military and the civilian government. 

To maintain this position, the Chinese will compete with all the 

carrots and sticks they have, and they have far more than we do 

at this point in time on this particular place on the map. Our own 

20

efforts to engage in the military by comparison only compromise 

our values with little upside. 

The second reality I think Congress needs to take into account 

is the potential for the Americans to impact the reform process in 

Burma, and particularly impact the way the military sees reform. 

As is well known, civilian authorities of Burma have no control 

over the military. Some have, therefore, theorized that the U.S. 

should give the military a stake in political reform by offering it 

benefits, chiefly, contact with the U.S. military. This ignores equities that the military has in not fully cooperating with future reforms. The Burmese military had its own objective for initiating reforms under the previous regime, objectives that did not encompass 

fundamental reform of its own sources of power or its ultimate interest in crushing the opposition. 

The third reality concerns the nature of the Burmese military 

itself. The political environment in Burma has certainly changed. 

I think we have to acknowledge that. But I see no reason to believe 

the military has changed its own character. The textbook example 

of ‘‘ethnic cleansing’’ in Rakhine state is, in fact, a culmination of 

a decades long history of persecution by successive military governments in Burma. As Mike Martin pointed out, it is only different 

in degree from what has been happening in other ethnic areas for 

a very long time, and as Mr. Rohrbacher pointed out as well. 

Given these realities, I think it is time for Congress to step away 

for a moment and take a look at a broader approach to Burma, do 

a reset on our Burma policy, and here are five things that you 

could consider. 

Number one, remove authorities in the 2015 National Defense 

Authorization Act granting DOD authority to establish training opportunities for Burmese military personnel. 

Number two, codify the embargo on the exported defense articles 

and services to Burma. 

Number three, reimpose restrictions on Americans doing business with military-linked companies. 

Number four, continue the prohibition on IMET and foreign military financing. 

And number five, reimpose asset freezes and visa bans on Burmese military and give these measures basis in new laws tied to 

new goals that are reflective of the time. 

It is Congress that dictated Burma policy for 20 years before 

President Obama moved to end sanctions. Congress should reassert 

its role and enact legislation that updates America’s goals to reflect 

all that has changed in Burma and all that hasn’t. 

At Heritage, we are engaged in a project to develop a proposal 

to do just this, and we look forward to reporting back to you the 

full scope of our findings. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lohman follows:]

21


27011a-1.eps

CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY 

Burma's Brutal Campaign Against the Rohingya: Reexamining USBurma Miltary-to-Military Relations 

Testimony before the Foreign Affairs Committee, 

Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee 

United States House of Representatives 

September 27,2017 

Walter Lohman 

Director, Asian Studies Center 

The Heritage Foundation 

214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE • Washington, DC 20002 • (202) 546-4400 • heritage.org 
22


27011a-2.eps

CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY 

Events in Burma over the last month have been heartrending. The violence committed by Burmese 

security forces in Rakhine state and the resulting human exodus, however, is only the manifestation 

of several deeper realities that must be taken into better account in U.S. policy going forward. The 

Obama Administration paid insufficient heed to these realities in pursuing its opening to Burma. 

With Congress' acquiescence and cooperation, it moved too far, too fast, leaving only closer 

military-to-military relations to keep the normalizing bicycle moving. Supporters of engagement 

have, therefore, continued to press for what they see as the next logical step in America's opening to 

Burma. The problem is that for several reasons, outreach to the Bunnese military is ill-suited to meet 

American objectives. It rests on several misjudgments. Among these are the Burmese military's 

relationship with China, its place within Burma's reform political dynamic, and its nature as a 

fighting force 

China-Burma Relations 

To the extent that a U.S. opening to the Burmese military is about "balancing China," it vastly 

overestimates U.S. leverage. The one inescapable geographical reality is that, in contrast to the 

United States which is at its strongest at sea in the Indo-Pacific region, China shares an unstable, 

porous land border with Burma. As a part of its effort to cope with this and support broader interests 

in its relations with Burma, China supports several ethnic armed groups (EAGs) in the vicinity of the 

border. Among these groups are the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) which is actively involved in 

conflict with the Burmese army, the Kokang Army, and the United Wa State Army (UWSA). As 

recently as 2015, the Kokang were widely reported to be operating from Chinese territory in 

military operations against the Burmese army. Perhaps more importantly, they have helped make the 

UWSA 's 20,000-30,000 troops one of the best equipped insurgencies in the world. Support tor the 

UWSA includes making available more than small-arms and ammunition. Heavy weaponry such as 

armed helicopters, armored personnel vehicles, and wheeled "tank destroyers" have also been 

supplied to the UWSA. 1 Chinese manufacturers have even helped give the UWSA the wherewithal 

to produce their own weapons and supply them to other EAGs 2 

So Burma is an intensely local issue tor China. But Burma also has major strategic implications tor 

it. With the U.S. Navy prowling the narrow confines of the Western Pacific, a relationship with 

Burma offers China access to the Indian Ocean and alternative trade routes. In an attempt to 

diversify the routes by which crude oil reaches China, away from the Malacca Straits and South 

China Sea, it has built a pipeline that takes Middle East and African crude directly from the coast of 

Rakhine state to Southwestern China. A natural gas pipeline that pumps gas drilled offshore Rakhine 

to Southern China serves the same purpose, as well as helps diversify its sources of energy. The 

Chinese are now working on a deepwater port and industrial park, also in Rakhine state, that will 

serve as a critical node in its one-belt, one-road project. Reports indicate that with regard to the park, 

in fact, state-owned China's CITIC Group is seeking an extraordinary 85 percent stake in exchange 

±'or taking a loss on the suspended Myitsone dam project. 3 

z Lawi Weng, "AK-47's- Made in Wa State," The Irrawaddy, December 16, 2008 

h_t;UtiLJ:;"W-;v2JJ:rawaddv.comi<~Illi;lll..p_!l)ll;ln id-1480•} (accessed on September 26, 2017). 

2 
23


27011a-3.eps

CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY 

The bottom line is that the Chinese are not about to stand by and watch relationships that have 

secured this position compromised by other outside powers. Neither will Beijing be critical of 

Burmese security operations in the very location of its investments. 

Beijing essentially play both sides of the fence in Burma. From 1989, when both Burma and China 

were facing a ditllcult international environment, their militaries became very close. The Burmese 

were facing isolation for the crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators and the arrest of Aung San 

Suu Kyi and China for the Tiananmen Square massacre. Chinese military assistance to Bunna in the 

years following this marriage of convenience is estimated at $2 billion. This was a level of 

engagement that "helped transform the Myanmar military from a 'small, weak counter-insurgency 

force' into a 'powerful defence force capable of major conventional operations."'" And they 

continue today as the "single largest source of equipment and training for Burma's military forces." 5 

So, at the same time that the Chinese are receiving State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi in Beijing 

and facilitating her efforts to reach cease-fire arrangements with Burma's EAGs, they materially 

support some of the most well-armed among them as well as support her rivals for power in the 

Bunnese military. Yes, by all accounts, the Bunnese military has problems with China. For decades 

it contended with a China-supported communist insurgency. The military distrusts the Chinese and 

wants to lessen their reliance on them. And yes, this was a factor in Burma's decision to open up to 

the West, including to the United States. But in the geopolitical game, the Chinese have a team on 

the field, too, and it has a great deal more to offer than the training workshops that were proposed by 

the Senate Armed Servicesd Committee earlier this month. For such meager feed, in fact, it is not 

clear that the Burmese are at all interested in closer ties with the US military. 

Reform Political Dynamic 

The second misjudgment embedded in the pursuit of closer mil-to-mil relations is the thinking that 

through engagement with the military, the US has the ability to significantly impact the Burmese 

political dynamic in favor ofrefonn. As is well-known, the 2008 constitution gives civilian 

authorities in Burma no control over the military or the portfolios-defense, border affairs, and 

home atiairs-that they hold in the cabinet The theory, as I have heard expressed many times by 

proponents of closer mil-to-mil ties is that, given this, the U.S. should to induce the military to 

cooperate in reforms by giving it the direct benefit of a relationship with the U S military The 

concern is that otherwise it will have no stake in democratic reforms, and will, therefore, be of a 

mind to subvert them. 

Setting aside that the most plausible leverage in this regard were the prohibitions on doing business 

with military-linked businesses that were lifted at the end of Obama's term, this theory ignores the 

equities that the military has in not fully cooperating with future refonns. The Burmese military had 

its own objectives for initiating the reforms under the previous regime, objectives that did not 

encompass fundamental reform of its own sources of power. 

1

Inn Storey, Southeast As fa and the Rfse of China: The Search for Secnritr (London: Routledge, FebruMy 20 13). 

'Priscilla A. Clapp, ·'China· s Rclat10ns \\ith Bunna,"' testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Secmity Revic\v Commission 

on China·s Relations \\1th Southeast Asia, May 13,2015, hnps://\\\V\'-'.usip....QU;:'puhlicntionsl2015/05ichill3<;-r~lauons-burma 

(accessed on September 26. 2017). 

3 
24


27011a-4.eps

CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY 

So much has happened in Burma over the past six years. The military relinquished formal power 

over large swaths of the government Political prisoners have been freed; restrictions on the press 

and assembly have eased; a national human rights commission has been established. The political 

environment has become competitive. Most significantly, democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi was 

released from house arrest and allowed to organize politically. She led her party to victory in 2015 

parliamentary elections, and in 2016 assumed power over the civilian government. However, 

Burma's human rights situation has remained challenging even with these changes. Although a far 

cry from the more than 2,000 political prisoners held in the pre-reform era, 98 people remain in jail 

serving sentences or awaiting trial for political crimes. And arrests continue-38 in the month of 

August alone 6 Human Rights Watch characterizes the situation as follows in its 2017 World Report: 

"Restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and assembly persist, amid the government's 

failure to contend with the range of rights-abusing laws that have been long used to criminalize free 

speech and prosecute dissidents." 7 Freedom House still classifies Burma's press environment as "not 

free,"" with a score worse than Cambodia. Again, Burma is much better off in regard to both press 

freedom and broader political freedoms than it was in 2010, but stalled in terms of forward progress. 

The United States and other states in the international community can continue trying to chip away 

at these lingering issues, but the fundamental political reforms that are needed involve curbing the 

political power of the military. The grants of power given it by the 2008 constitution, guarantee of 

25 percent of seats in parliament that enable it to veto any amendments, control over the three 

aforementioned ministries, "control over its own judicial processes, including when allegations of 

human rights violations are involved,''9 and extraordinary powers to reassert control in the event of 

an emergency-these all remain obstacles to fuller political reform and imbue the military with a 

sense of impunity. 

By many accounts, the transition from military to civilian government that culminated in the 2015 

election was meticulously planned. The military government's 2003 "Roadmap to Democracy" was 

intended to get it to where it is today, not farther. Its freeing of Aung San Suu Kyi, as renowned 

Burma expert Berti! Lintner, who has reviewed internal documents related to the roadmap, says, was 

part of an effort to ease its opening to the West .. no more, n~ less ,Ultimately .. he s~ds, these. 

documents are clear: The ultimate aim of the military IS to· crush the opposition. The military has 

power, it has a plan, and it is not going to bargain it away in exchange for a relationship with the 

US military. 

Nature of the Burmese Military 

The third misjudgment in the pursuit of closer US.-Burma military-to-military relations involves 

the character of the Burmese military. Beyond the strategic decision it has made to share 

~Political Pri::;oncr Data, As::;istuncc As::;ocmtion for PoliLicalPrisoncrs (Btmntl), hllu.;.0~~~~cul-piisoncr-dala1 (acccs::>ed 

SL:ptc·mhl:r 26, 2017) 

4 
25


27011a-5.eps

CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY 

responsibilities with an elected civilian government, what has changed about the military that makes 

it a more palatable partner today than it has been in the past? In fact, there should be nothing 

surprising about its recent offensive against the Rohingya. This "text book example of ethnic 

cleansing" 11 has a decades-long history rooted in military governments' denial ofRohingya rights 

commensurate with citizenship. The persecution reached its most recent previous climax in 2012. At 

a time when intercommunal violence between Muslims and Buddhists were ±1aring, Burmese 

security forces in Rakhine were documented working with extremist groups there to drive the 

Rohingya out of the country. 12 

In short, the images of people, wretched and ±1eeing Ralchine by sea or river crossings, is nothing 

new. And its treatment of the Rohingya is in keeping with the military's behavior in other areas. The 

State Department's most recent report on Burma's human rights situation testitles to the continued 

fear that security forces exert in cont1ict areas more generally "through physical abuse and threats to 

individual livelihoods'' "Public information was unavailable as to the results of any military 

investigations into such abuses," it says, "and generally security forces appeared to act with 

impunity." 13 

This is essentially the same Burmese military today that it was prior to 20 II. With so little upside to 

dealing with it, as explained above, the downside of associating with such characters carries only 

downsides. 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

One thing T hope Congress will take stock of as it addresses concerns about the current situation in 

Rakhine state and America's approach to Burma more generally is its own history ofleadership. For 

20 years, Congress led on Bunna policy lt established the laws-the 1997 investment ban, the 2003 

Burma Freedom and Democracy Act, the 2008 Jade Act-that governed our policy. The 

extraordinarily complex set of overlapping authorities created by these laws and past Presidents' 

executive orders were not the neatest way of addressing the problems in Burma. But they were 

responsive. They were responsive to developments on the ground in Burma and they were 

responsive to core American values. It should take leadership again. Burma has changed. The 

situation there, including in Rakhine, requires a fresh look. Congress should enact comprehensive 

legislation that reconciles these realities by setting new goals and the best ways of going about 

addressing them. The Heritage Foundation's Asian Studies Center is currently engaged in a project 

to demonstrate what exactly this might look like. Some of its preliminary proposals are as follows: 

Refrain from further normalization of military-to-military relations with Burma. Senator 

John McCain's (R-AZ) decision to remove provisions of the 2018 National Defense 

Authorization Act (NOAA) granting the Department of Defense authority to provide the 

5 
26


27011a-6.eps

CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY 

Burmese military consultation, education, and training was a step in the right direction. 14 

Congress should go further and rescind the authorities granted in the 2015 NDAA that laid the 

groundwork for them. 

Codify the embargo on the export of defense articles and services to Burma that dates to 

1993. Codifying the embargo will make any relaxation of it subject to extensive consultations 

with Congress and require its explicit agreement. 

Re-impose restrictions on Americans doing business with military-linked companies and 

procurement/contracting entities. 1

' 

Continue the prohibition on International Military Education and Training (IMET) and Foreign 

Military (FMF) assistance to Burma. 

Re-impose asset freezes and visa bans on the Burmese military and give these measures basis 

in new US. law tied to new policy goals. 

Establish policy goals to include a cessation of abuse against unarmed civilians in Rakhine state 

and other conflict zones; access to conflict zones by journalists, humanitarian groups, and 

international fact-finding missions; establish an environment conducive to the return of refugees; 

and verified cessation of military ties to North Korea. 

Even in the midst of the crisis in Rakhine state, there will be objections to Congress taking a hard 

line on the US. relationship with the Burmese military. They will argue that it will take us out of the 

great geopolitical game vis-it-vis China. They will argue that the Bunnese military needs to be given 

a stake in refonn if it is to continue. Those arguments, as demonstrated, are specious. The stronger 

argument will cast doubt on the etlicacy of new sanctions in furthering reform and bringing about 

change in the military. Indeed, it is difficult to translate pressure into transformation. It is extremely 

difficult to force a military like Burma's unrestrained by civilian authority to concede what it has 

determined is in the interest of its institution. In acting, however, Congress can give a modicum of 

leverage to democratic forces in Bunna. And it can put the US on the right side. This is not an 

opportunity we have in every country in the region. Each case requires an approach tailored to its 

circumstances. But in Burma, given factors of geography, domestic dynamics, and history, the U.S. 

should press home its values. 

uNews Release, ·'SASC Chainnan Jolm McCain Seeks to Remove Burma :tvlilitary Cooperation from NDAA,'. Office of Senator Jolm 

M(.;Cain, September 12,2017, htlps./i\U\'\\'.Hl(.;VJin~.Jllk_gQ_v/vublic/inde~~.(.;iiu/201719/:n::;(.; ..;lLdinmm julm-lnt.:cai.u·~·ttk:; 

tu-n..·mo\ e-btrrnw-miliLar\ -cooperatiun-liom-nliaa (accessed on September 2Cl, 2017). 

~Sleploe lnlemalional, "U.S. L1fts All Ewnomic 

6 
27


27011a-7.eps

CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY 

******************* 

The Heritage Foundation is a public policy, research, and educational organization 

recognized as exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is privately supported 

and receives no funds from any government at any level, nor does it perform any government or 

other contract work 

The Heritage Foundation is the most broadly supported think tank in the United States. 

During 2016, it had hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation, and corporate supporters 

representing every state in the US. Its 2016 income came from the following sources: 

Individuals 75.3% 

Foundations 20.3% 

Corporations 1.8% 

Program revenue and other income 2.6% 

The top five corporate givers provided The Heritage Foundation with 1.0% of its 2016 

income. The Heritage Foundation's books are audited annually by the national accounting finn of 

RSMUS, LLP. 

7 
28

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Lohman, I appreciate it. 

Mr. Sullivan, if you would go ahead. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL P. SULLIVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE 

FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. SULLIVAN. First, I would like to take the opportunity to 

thank Chairman Royce, Chairman Yoho, and Ranking Member 

Sherman, and the members of this subcommittee for holding this 

very timely and very important hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, there is a tragedy of historic proportions that is 

unfolding right now in Myanmar, also known as Burma. Nearly 1⁄2

million of one single ethnic group, the Rohingya, have now fled 

from the country. That is at least one-third of the entire population 

that was living there up to a month ago. There are now more people, more Rohingya living in Bangladesh than there are in Burma, 

in Myanmar. Hundreds if not thousands of Rohingya have been 

killed. 

There is no question that crimes against humanity and ethnic 

cleansing are taking place. I know this is happening because I was 

there in Bangladesh hearing firsthand from people who had experienced these abuses. Refugees International’s president, Eric 

Schwartz, who is a former White House official and assistant Secretary of State, he has spent three decades, a career in various dozens of humanitarian and human rights missions, told me that this 

is one of the worst he has ever seen. 

I would like just to share one story that I think is illustrative. 

There is a woman named Lila, a 28-year-old mother of three 

daughters all under the age of seven. She told me how just a few 

days before she had been in her village in Rakhine state when soldiers, Myanmar soldiers came and surrounded her village, lit their 

homes on fire, shot at them. They fled. One of the soldiers grabbed 

her by the arm and tried to drag her away. She somehow escaped. 

Her husband told them to go ahead without him. He was going to 

try to get the family cows and bring them over. She with her three 

young daughters went by foot over the border to Bangladesh hiding 

in waist-deep water for long periods of time and arrived with just 

the clothes on her back. Just a few days later, she heard from 

neighbors who arrived that they had found her husband’s body in 

the river with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. This is 

just one of so many stories that I and so many others have heard 

from people fleeing. 

It is important to recognize ARSA, and it is important to recognize that there are other minorities, Rakhine Buddhists and Hindus who have been killed and displaced, but it is nowhere near on 

the scale of the Rohingya. 

The response of the Myanmar military has been grossly disproportional. It has also unleashed a humanitarian tragedy and 

crisis in Bangladesh. The Government of Bangladesh, to its great 

credit, has largely welcomed the Rohingya. It will be vital for the 

government to continue to work with international agencies, the 

UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration, and international NGOs to address the needs. I would just highlight the 

need for psychosocial and other services for gender-based violence, 

and the heightened risk of human trafficking. 

29

The announcement of $32 million in U.S. aid was a very welcome 

shot in the arm, but U.N. agencies are now reporting there will be 

at least $200 million needed over the next 6 months to address the 

crisis. 

In the interest of time, I am happy to speak further on the humanitarian situation with the question period. But ultimately, the 

only true long-term solution is to address the root causes, and I 

would just like to highlight three levels of responsibility. 

First and foremost, as we have heard, a name I think we should 

be hearing more and more is Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and 

the military. It is the Myanmar soldiers who are at the front lines 

of committing these abuses, and they are also those with the most 

power to bring them to an end. 

Secondly, there is the civilian leadership in Aung San Suu Kyi. 

She has not simply been silent; she has refused to allow a U.N. 

factfinding mission to come in. Her office has accused international 

NGOs of supporting terrorism. In her first address on the crisis to 

the world last week, she expressed ignorance as to why people were 

fleeing in such numbers, and indicated that the fact that less than 

50 percent of the villages being burned was, by her account, was 

somehow okay. 

Yes, she is limited in her influence by the military, but she still 

has a strong voice. And so far, she has only used it largely just to 

defend actions that are patently indefensible. 

The third level of responsibility is with world leaders, and in the 

context of this hearing, with the U.S. Government. I thank Members of Congress and members of this subcommittee for speaking 

out on the Rohingya, but so much more is needed. 

There are several steps that the U.S. Congress can take, and I 

just quickly highlight a few. Prohibiting military to military cooperation with Myanmar; placing targeted sanctions on Senior 

General Min Aung Hlaing and other senior leaders, as well as military-owned enterprises; urging the Trump administration to list 

those individuals on the Specially Designated Nationals list; also, 

pressing the Trump administration to work through the U.N. Security Council for multilateral measures, including an arms embargo, 

targeted sanctions, and authorization of collecting of evidence and 

possible referral to the ICC if accountability is not had. 

I would also emphasize support for robust humanitarian efforts 

in Bangladesh and the need to push for humanitarian access within Myanmar. Ultimately, for long-term solutions the Kofi Annan 

advisory commission recommendations should be implemented. 

Allow me to end on just a personal reflection that when I first 

started hearing the accounts of what was happening, getting videos 

from credible sources and seeing the masses moving to the border, 

I knew this was something different, and it had shades of Darfur, 

Srebrenica, and Rwanda. I hope that we are not looking back in 

the same way and asking what more could we have done to prevent 

the Rohingya going down that same road. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]

30


27011b-1.eps

Testimony of Daniel P Sullivan 

Senior Advocate for Human Rights 

Refugees International 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific 

"Bunna's Brutal Campaign Against the Rohingya" 

September 27, 2017 

L 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Yoho, Ranking Member Sherman and 

the members of this subcommittee for holding this timely hearing today, and Task that my full 

statement and additional Refugees International (Rl) documents be ordered part of the record. Rl 

is a non-profit, non-governmental organization that advocates for lifesaving assistance and 

protection for displaced people in parts of the world impacted by conflict, persecution and forced 

displacement. Based here in Washington, we conduct fact-finding missions to research and 

report on the circumstances of displaced populations in countries such as Somalia, Iraq, Uganda, 

and Bangladesh. RT does not accept any government or United Nations funding, which helps 

ensure that our advocacy is impartial and independent. 

Chairman Yoho, Ranking Member Shennan, today's important hearing could not come at a more 

crucial time. There is a tragedy of historic proportions unfolding at this moment in Myanmar. 

More than four hundred thousand people of a single ethnic group, the Rohingya, have fled 

Myanmar for Bangladesh in less than a month. That is more than one-third of the total number of 

Rohingya that were living in the country up to a month ago. 

The Myanmar military continues to relentlessly attack Rohingya villages, burning homes, 

beating, stabbing, and shooting the inhabitants, and leading survivors to flee for their lives. 

Doctors and humanitarian workers have reported widespread cases of rape. Hundreds, if not 

thousands of Rohingya, have been killed. 

There is no question that crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing are taking place. This 

was obvious three weeks ago, when RT first publicly accused the Myanmar military of such 

atrocities. 

I know this is happening because l heard the stories myself. Only a few days ago, l returned from 

visiting Bangladesh to speak with Rohingya who recently fled to ask them why. What T heard 

was a litany of abuses along a common strain: soldiers surrounding villages, using various 

incendiary devices to set fire to homes, at times locking or throwing people inside the burning 

1 
31


27011b-2.eps

structures; young women singled out to be taken away and raped; days long flight by foot and/or 

boat across the border to Bangladesh, arriving with just the clothes on their backs. 

Rl' s president, Eric Schwartz, a fonner White House official and Assistant Secretary of State for 

Populations, Refugees, and Migration, traveled with me to Bangladesh to meet the newly arrived 

Rohingya. Together we visited several camps and a hospital where we saw young girls and boys 

who had suffered gunshot wounds, bums, and physical injuries and emotional trauma inflicted 

by the Myanmar military. Eric has said that, over a three decade career, he's been on dozens of 

humanitarian and human rights missions, but doesn't remember choking up on any of them -

until this particular trip. The situation, he told me, is one of the worst he's ever seen. I can only 

concur. 

T thank Members of Congress, including Members of this Committee, for speaking out on behalf 

of the Rohingya. But mere words are no longer sufficient, Mr. Chainnan. The time for action is 

now, and Twill lay out in my testimony what action Congress should take immediately. 

Background 

My testimony today is based on my recent first-hand conversations with Rohingya in Bangladesh 

and years of working on the Rohingya, including visits to Malaysia, Thailand, Bangladesh, and 

Rakhine State in Myanmar. Past RT reports have documented the persecution faced by the 

Rohingya as a stateless group. They have described how the Rohingya have been refused 

citizenship by the Myanmar government despite historical claims to the country going back 

generations. And Rl reports have described the severe restrictions on basic freedoms to marry, 

have children, practice religion, work, or to move freely. The Rohingya have even been denied 

the right to self-identify, as the Myanmar government refuses to recognize "Rohingya" as a 

distinct ethnic group. 

The current crisis is the horrific culmination of these decades of persecution and more recent 

troubling developments. Even as the much lauded democratic opening of the past few years 

unfolded in Myanmar, conditions for the Rohingya were getting worse. Since violence between 

Rohingya and local Rakhine Buddhists broke out in 2012, some 120,000 Rohingya have 

remained confined to displacement camps described as 'open air prisons'. Tens of thousands 

took to sea to escape conditions in Myanmar, leading to the May 2015 Andaman Sea crisis that 

briefly captured the world's attention as thousands of Rohingya and Bangladeshis were 

abandoned on rickety boats by human traffickers. 

The prevailing conditions were noted in a report by an international advisory commission on 

Rakhine State, led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (one appointed and endorsed by 

Aung San Suu Kyi). Tt found that the Rohingya population has suffered "protracted statelessness 

and profound discrimination" that has caused the Rohingya community to become "marginalized 

and particularly vulnerable." It noted that several aspects of Myanmar's citizenship law "are not 

in compliance with international standards and norms" and that the citizenship law "has not done 

justice to the credible claims of communities who have been living in the country for 

generations." The report's recommendations included the need for unfettered humanitarian 

access, safe returns of refugees, and an "independent and impartial investigation" to ensure "that 

z 
32


27011b-3.eps

perpetrators of serious human rights violations are held accountable." It was even accepted by 

Aung San Suu Kyi and the Myanmar military, but any hoped for progress it might provide has 

been quickly overshadowed. 

Starting late last year the situation took a decided tum for the worse. In October 2016, an 

insurgent group of Rohingya calling itself the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), 

emerged publicly with an attack on border guard posts that left nine police officers dead. The 

insurgents attacked largely with knives and sling shots and some firearms. The response by the 

Myanmar military was grossly disproportional, targeting the entire Rohingya population, and 

indiscriminately wreaking severe human rights abuses upon them, including torture, arbitrary 

execution, and mass rape. Some 87,000 Rohingya would flee to Bangladesh in the next few 

months. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights carried out interviews with 

Rohingya who fled to Bangladesh and concluded that abuses were occurring that likely 

amounted to crimes against humanity. The UN Human Rights Council then established a FactFinding Mission to investigate further, but the Government of Myanmar said it would not 

cooperate or allow investigators access to the country. 

RI's most recent report, in July 2017, documented the experience of some of the 87,000 

Rohingya who fled to Bangladesh at that time and the serious humanitarian challenges that influx 

brought to Bangladesh. Among the challenges highlighted by Rl were inadequate shelter, 

unequal and inefficient aid distribution, and the rising risks of gender based violence and human 

trafficking. All of this was before August 25'", before the population of Rohingya in the country 

effectively doubled in the course of a month. 

The current crisis began on August 25'", a day after the Annan Commission report was released, 

when new attacks by ARSA on some 30 police posts led to a wildly disproportionate military 

response against the broader Rohingya civilian population. Like ARSA's October attacks, 

ARSA's August attacks were carried out largely with knives, sticks, and home-made weapons. 

Twelve police officers were killed, along with dozens of insurgents, according to the Myanmar 

government. 

Tt is important to recognize that other minority groups in Rakhine State, including Rakhine 

Buddhists and Hindus, have also been displaced and killed, many reportedly by ARSA 

insurgents, but nowhere on the scale of the Rohingya. As I mentioned at the beginning of this 

testimony, more than 400,000 of the just over a million Rohingya living in Myanmar as of last 

month have now been displaced. Hundreds, if not thousands, have been killed. Tt is difficult to 

get a completely accurate picture as access to Rakhine State remains heavily restricted. But 

speaking with those who have fled provides us with a very good idea of what is happening in the 

region. 

Fleeing Horrors in Myanmar 

The story of one woman 1 spoke with, Lila, is similar- in some ways, nearly identical- to other 

accounts I obtained. Lila, a 28-year-old mother of three daughters, all under the age of seven, 

was in her village in Boli Bazar in Maungdaw district of Rakhine State in western Myanmar just 

a matter of days ago. Soldiers came to her village and began lighting the houses on fire One 

3 
33


27011b-4.eps

soldier grabbed her by the ann and tried to drag her away but somehow she managed to escape. 

After she escaped the burning village, her husband told her to go ahead with her three daughters 

without him while he went to fetch the family's cows and try to bring them along. He told her he 

would catch up with her in Bangladesh. So she fled across the border hiding for long periods in 

water with her three small girls until she reached the sprawling and rapidly emerging makeshift 

shelters in Bangladesh. But a few days after Lila arrived in Bangladesh, neighbors arrived with 

the news that her husband's body had been found in a river, with a gunshot wound through the 

back of his head. 

It was an account all too familiar to the Rohingya with whom I spoke in Bangladesh. Numerous 

similar accounts have been collected by groups like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty 

International, and Fortify Rights. The Arakan Project, a group with a network of monitors 

throughout Rakhine State has described the attacks as systematic. Sometimes it is soldiers 

destroying the villages. Sometimes it is local ethnic Rakhine vigilantes setting the fires. And 

other times it is a mix of the two. Satellite images show clear patterns of destruction, vast swaths 

of burned villages in line with the accounts repeatedly told by Rohingya refugees; Rohingya 

neighborhoods burned to the ground while nearby non-Rohingya neighborhoods remain 

untouched. The Myanmar government claims the fires were started by the Rohingya themselves, 

but provides no proof It also refuses access to any outside observers, most notably the factfinding mission established by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate similar abuses 

widely reported in the last months of2016, begging the question of what they are trying to hide. 

The Border Guard Patrol across the border in Bangladesh has described hearing and seeing what 

they determined to be mortar fire in areas where fleeing civilians had congregated. The 

Government of Bangladesh has lodged official complaints about the laying ofland mines along 

the Myanmar side of the border. And we've received credible reports that those land mines are 

being laid further inside the country around Rohingya villages. 

What the hundreds of thousands of Rohingya fleeing to Bangladesh describe are no less than 

crimes against humanity perpetrated by a military already with a troubling track record. And the 

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights came to the clear conclusion that what is unfolding 

"seems to be a textbook example of ethnic cleansing." We certainly agree. 

A Humanitarian Crisis in Bangladesh 

The actions of the Myanmar military have also created a humanitarian crisis as aid efforts in 

Bangladesh, which was already home to 300,000 to 500,000 Rohingya who had fled past bouts 

of violence and persecution, have been quickly overwhelmed. When T visited Bangladesh a few 

months ago, the government and international agencies were still grappling with the influx of 

some 87,000 Rohingya from attacks that had taken place over the last months of 2016, including 

makeshift settlements of tens of thousands that popped up in the course of a week. 

On my most recent visit, which ended last week, the explosion of refugees was startling. Masses 

of people lined the roads in and around new makeshift settlements popping up in real time. 

Women and children dragged bamboo poles and tarps, wading through ankle deep mud to build 

new shelters. Hills and swaths ofland that had been completely green were stripped and overrun 

4 
34


27011b-5.eps

by new arrivals, desperate for some kind of shelter from the steady rains of the monsoon season 

after days fleeing on foot. 

The government of Bangladesh, to its great credit, has taken an overall welcoming stance. The 

government has announced plans to build more than 14,000 shelters on 2,000 acres ofland. It 

has begun to register new arrivals and provide biometric identity cards, with technical assistance 

provided by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). Serious concerns with implementation of plans, 

both in terms of building of adequate structures and providing freedom of movement remain and 

must be addressed, but in its overall response to such a crisis Bangladesh has been on the right 

side of history. It will be vital that the government work with international agencies, including 

UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration (10M), and international NGOs to ensure 

proper coordination, building of shelter according to global best practices, and adequate 

provision of not only food, sanitation, and medical care, but also psychosocial and other support 

specific to victims of gender based violence. 1 would also like to highlight that in Rl's previous 

report we noted the heightened risks of human trafficking cited by several humanitarian officials. 

With the new influx, those risks will only be further heightened. 

The needs are overwhelming. The support and solidarity of the global community is sorely 

needed. The announcement of $32 million in humanitarian aid by the United States was a 

welcome shot in the arm, but much more is needed. 10M has released a flash appeal for $26.1 

million as part of a gap of $77 million identified as needed through the end of this year by the 

Inter Sector Coordination Group, the coalition of agencies coordinating the humanitarian 

response in Bangladesh. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi just visited the 

makeshift camps for Rohingya in Bangladesh, and has stated that UNHCR will need $200 

million for the next 6 months to address the humanitarian crisis. 

And this is before mentioning the hundreds of thousands of Rohingya remaining inside Rakhine 

State, many blocked off from any kind of aid. Even before the attacks started, UNICEF was 

estimating 80,000 children under the age of five were facing acute malnutrition. 

Addressing the Root Causes 

Ultimately, the only true solution to the enduring misery of more than 400,000 Rohingya people 

in Bangladesh is addressing the root causes of their flight, the actions of the military in 

Myanmar. 

The only way to address the root causes is to address the actions of those bearing greatest 

responsibility. So I would like to take a moment to discuss the actions and roles of the Myanmar 

military, civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and the international community. 

First and foremost, the Myanmar military led by Senior General Min Aung Laing is directly 

responsible for this crisis. It is Myanmar soldiers and their leadership who are both the primary 

actors in perpetrating serious human rights abuses taking place and those in the strongest position 

to bring them to an end. As described earlier, there are numerous eye witness accounts from 

Rohingya who have fled to Bangladesh identifying men in Myanmar army uniforms attacking 

their villages, burning their homes, and stabbing or shooting their loved ones. These accounts are 

5 
35


27011b-6.eps

fortified by video and satellite evidence and the accounts of Bangladesh Border Guards 

observing fleeing masses, gunfire, and burning villages from across the border. The Myanmar 

military continues to refuse to allow outside access to areas of Rakhine State affected by the 

violence. 

A second level of responsibility lies with the civilian leadership of Myanmar, with Aung San 

Suu Kyi as its de facto head. A lot has been said about the limits she faces with a military that 

continues to wield enormous influence in the country, controlling much of the economy, 

guaranteed 25 percent of parliamentary seats under a constitution they crafted, and with primary 

authority over the security operations taking place. Much has also been said about the antiRohingya sentiments that pervade the vast majority of the population in Myanmar, making it a 

politically tenuous position to speak out about the rights of the Rohingya. All that is true. But it 

must also be recognized that Suu Kyi is not powerless. She has a prominent voice in the 

international community and among the domestic masses that overwhelmingly supported her in 

the last elections. 

Mr. Chairman, T do not need to remind you and your colleagues in Congress about the enormous 

efforts the U.S. Congress has undertaken on behalf of Suu Kyi, when she languished under house 

arrest or when she was attacked while campaigning. Under the leadership of the late Torn 

Lantos, the distinguished former Chairman of this Foreign Affairs Committee, the United States 

Congress imposed comprehensive sanctions against the previous military regime, in support of 

the very National League for Democracy (NLD) leaders who are in power today. Suu Kyi was 

even awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Yet, many of her supporters are asking where 

her voice is today on the abuse of the Rohingya. 

Yet, she has not simply been silent. She has rejected the UN fact-finding mission, and said or 

allowed those representing her to spread dangerous and unfounded allegations that have served 

to stoke tensions. For example, when World Food Programme nutrition biscuits were found in 

insurgent camps, Suu Kyi's office posted photos citing it as evidence that international NGOs are 

supporting terrorism, a baseless allegation that has endangered international aid workers trying to 

supply lifesaving assistance to those most in need. Just a few days ago an aid truck of the 

International Federation of the Red Cross was attacked by an angry crowd ofRakhine villagers. 

Tn her first address to the world on the Rohingya crisis on September 19th, Suu Kyi expressed 

ignorance as to why at least a third of the entire Rohingya population of Myanmar fled within the 

span of just three weeks, made no mention of credible reports of massive violations of human 

rights against the Rohingya community, and asserted that all people in Rakhine state have access 

to education and healthcare services without discrimination. She further declared that "[m]ore 

than 50 percent of the villages of Muslims are intact" as if destruction of Rohingya villages was 

somehow acceptable as long as the level was less than 50 percent. Yes, Aung San Suu Kyi's 

power is constrained, but she is not without a voice, and so far, that voice has largely served to 

defend actions that are patently indefensible. 

The third level of responsibility is that of the international community, specifically its 

political leaders, and in the particular context of this hearing, the responsibility of the 

United States government to speak out and act. As the crisis has worsened, more world 

6 
36


27011b-7.eps

leaders have been speaking out. ln remarks to the Security Council on Wednesday of last week, 

Vice President Pence stated that "President Trump and l. .. call on this Security Council and the 

United Nations to take strong and swift action to bring this crisis to an end and give hope and 

hep to the Rohingya people in their hour of need." Although this came more than three weeks 

after the crisis began, it was a welcome statement. But it will be largely meaningless if not 

followed by vigorous action on the part of U.S. officials. 

As reflected by today's hearing, there has also been congressional interest in this tragedy, and l 

note that draft language in the Senate that provided for expanded military to military relations 

between the United States and Myanmar has been effectively scrapped. 

But the actions that have been taken thus far are wholly inadequate, and much more pressure is 

needed to put an end to the ongoing violence. 

There are several steps the U.S. Congress can and should take to address the ongoing tragedy. 

The Congress should: 

• Prohibit military to military cooperation with Myanmar until abuses are ended and 

individuals involved in planning, aiding or carrying out such abuses against the Rohingya 

are held accountable. 

• Place targeted sanctions on Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and other senior military 

officials and military-owned enterprises and urge the Trump Administration to list them 

on the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list until the gross human rights abuses 

taking place are brought to an end and those responsible are held accountable. 

Press the Trump Administration to work through the UN Security Council toward open 

debate on the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar with a strong statement calling for cessation of 

abuses, access for the fact-finding mission, and imposition of measures with real 

consequences including: 

o Targeted sanctions on Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and other senior military 

otlicials and military-owned enterprises; 

o A multilateral arms embargo on Myanmar; 

o Authorization of evidence collection toward holding accountable those 

responsible for gross human rights abuses. 

o Support for a referral to the International Criminal Court unless the Myanmar 

authorities take significant measures to address the human rights concerns and to 

hold accountable those responsible for gross human rights abuses. 

• Demand unfettered international humanitarian access to Rakhine State. 

• Support robust humanitarian aid efforts in Bangladesh in the near term with the aim for 

eventual safe and voluntary return of Rohingya to Myanmar. 

• For long tenn solutions, endorse and push for progress on the recommendations of the 

Advisory Commission on Rakhine State led by former UN Secretary General Kofi 

Annan. 

Critics of an approach involving sanctions may warn that such actions will endanger Aung San 

Suu Kyi's etl'orts to build toward a democratic transition, or may prompt the military to take 

7 
37


27011b-8.eps

more drastic measures against the civilian government or against the Rohingya community. It is 

true that sanctions must be used carefully and cautiously to avoid unintended consequences. It is 

also true that sanctions are no silver bullet. Nonetheless, Rl strongly believes that they are a 

necessary part of an effective response to the current horrors. The alternative is to stand aside 

while ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity unfold. Already one third of the Rohingya 

population has been forcibly displaced from their homes in Myanmar. If the estimates amid the 

chaotic exodus are correct, there are now more Rohingya in Bangladesh than there are remaining 

in Myanmar. How bad does it have to get? 

Allow me to end with a personal reflection. When l started getting desperate warnings that 

something new and disastrous was unfolding, when l started receiving horrific videos taken by 

credible sources, and heard of the desperate masses descending on the Bangladesh border, l 

couldn't help but feel shades of Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur. Before 1994, hardly anyone knew 

where Rwanda was. Before 1995, hardly anyone had heard of Srebrenica. Before 2004, hardly 

anyone had heard of Darfur. The more this plays out, the more T fear that is exactly the road we 

are going down. Years later we all look back at those tragedies and wonder what could have been 

done to prevent them. Let's not allow the treatment of the Rohingya to become the Rwanda, 

Srebrenica, or Darfur we all look back upon with the same question. 

8 
38

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Sullivan, I appreciate your testimony. I read it, 

and I could tell it was laced with a lot of emotion, and I can tell 

that by your testimony, and I appreciate you being here and reporting to us. 

Ms. Gittleman, if you would be so kind. 

STATEMENT OF MS. ANDREA GITTLEMAN, PROGRAM MANAGER, SIMON-SKJODT CENTER FOR THE PREVENTION OF 

GENOCIDE, U.S. HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM 

Ms. GITTLEMAN. Thank you, Chairman Yoho and Ranking Member Sherman, for convening this hearing on such an urgent matter. 

I speak on behalf of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide. We 

draw upon lessons learned from the Holocaust, and the failure to 

prevent genocide then, in order to inform policy decisions today. It 

is with great alarm that we are here to discuss yet another situation of mass atrocity that the world is failing to prevent and local 

authorities are refraining from halting. 

The Simon-Skjodt Center sounded the alarm about early warning 

signs of genocide against the Rohingya 2 years ago. Even then, the 

warning signs were clear, including the denial of citizenship, segregation between Rohingya Muslims and Buddhist Rakhine, and 

impunity for violence against Rohingya. In fact, Burma had been 

listed as one of the top three countries most likely to experience a 

state-led mass killing in the Museum’s early warning project, and 

that has been every year since the project began. These warning 

signs were known, yet not heeded by leaders within Burma and 

others around the world. 

During a recent period of renewed international engagement, the 

Burmese Government perpetuated an enabling environment for 

mass atrocities. Over the past year, the Simon-Skjodt Center 

worked with the human rights organization Fortify Rights to gather testimony from Rohingya who have fled northern Rakhine 

states. 

As discussed, deadly attacks by a group known as ARSA were 

followed by the Burmese military so-called clearance operations, 

operations that the government stated were to address the threat 

of militants, but in practice, were brutal and disproportionate attacks against Rohingya civilians. Those who survived shared stories that consistently described the brutality of the Burmese military and their associates, how they attack entire villages and kill 

men, women, and children, and employ barbaric tactics such as 

rape and torture under the guise of countering militants. 

I spoke to Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh earlier this year 

after the first round of these so-called clearance operations, and 

people shared with me horrific stories of witnessing soldiers murder their family members, of fleeing for their lives not knowing of 

the fate of their loved ones. Women shared disturbing details of 

sexual violence that appears to have been systematically perpetrated. 

While the threat posed by ARSA and any militant group should 

be taken seriously, the greatest risk to civilians in Rakhine state 

today is coming from the Burmese military. We are witnessing the 

commission of crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing on a 

39

horrific scale. Without an immediate end to atrocity crimes and the 

creation of safe conditions so that those displaced can safely and 

voluntarily return in the future, we will witness a brutally effective 

campaign to rid all Rohingya from Burma. 

There is mounting evidence that genocide is happening in 

Burma. There needs to be additional investigation on the intent of 

perpetrators in order to make a definitive legal declaration of genocide. The Burmese Government is currently blocking efforts to investigate those crimes, but the U.S. has the ability to support such 

an investigation in order to bring the full truth to light. 

While investigations should, of course, move forward, by the time 

an investigation can be made into genocidal intent, it may be too 

late. We should not wait for a formal legal finding of genocide before taking action. 

The military is the primary perpetrator of mass atrocities and 

should be pressed with all of our available resources to cease its 

illegal campaign against Rohingya civilians. While the most urgent 

demand is for mass atrocities to cease, we must also address the 

underlying policies and institutions that allowed such crimes to 

occur. 

The ultimate responsibility for deescalating the current cycle of 

violence and protecting the lives and freedom of Burma’s minority 

populations rests with the country’s de facto leader, Aung San Sui 

Kyi. As a basic principle, we should not fear pressing democratically elected leaders to squarely confront mass atrocities within 

their country. We can understand the nature of Burma’s democratic transitions and the outsized role the military continues to 

play, while at the same time expecting moral responses from its civilian-led government. 

The U.S. Congress does not need to choose between stopping 

mass atrocities and supporting a democratic government. After all, 

a democracy in which mass atrocities are occurring is still wholly 

unacceptable. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gittleman follows:]

40


27011d-1.eps

Testimony for House Foreign Affairs Committee, Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee: Burma's Brutal 

Campaign Against the Rohingya 

September 27, 2017 

Andrea Gittleman, Program Manager, Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide 

U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum 

Thank you, Chairman Yoho and Ranking Member Sherman, for convening this hearing on such an urgent 

matter. The commission of crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, as well as the mounting 

evidence of genocide by Burma's security forces against the Rohingya minority in Burma demand an 

immediate response, from both local authorities and the international community. Thank you for 

pressing for solutions to halt the current atrocities and prevent future ones. 

I speak on behalf of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's Simon-Skjodt Center for the 

Prevention of Genocide. We draw upon lessons learned from the Holocaust, and the failure to prevent 

genocide then, in order to inform policy decisions today. It is with great alarm that we gather here to 

discuss yet another situation of mass atrocities that the world is failing to prevent and local authorities 

are refraining from halting. 

Failure to Prevent 

The Simon-Skjodt Center sounded the alarm about early warning signs of genocide against the Rohingya 

two years ago, after conducting an on the ground investigation in Rakhine State into state-led acts of 

persecution and other crimes against humanity that targeted the Rohingya population. Even then, the 

warning signs were clear- including the denial of citizenship, segregation between Rohingya Muslims 

and Buddhist Rakhine, and impunity for violence against Rohingya. The Rohingya population has been 

singled out for restrictions on everyday aspects of daily life, including limitations on freedom of 

movement that restrict access to health care, education, and the ability to pursue livelihoods. These 

were all stark warnings of the likelihood of increased targeted violence in the future. In fact, Burma has 

been listed as one of the top three countries most likely to experience a state-led mass killing in the 

Museum's early warning project, in every year since the project began. 

The warnings signs were known, yet not heeded, by leaders within Burma and others around the world. 

During this period, governments, including our own, have employed a strategy of engagement, dropping 

sanctions and other forms of leverage--in the belief that long term democratic change would be the 

most effective response to the persecution and targeting of Rohingya. However, that engagement has 

largely occurred without the Burmese government having met clear human rights benchmarks. During 

this period of renewed international engagement, the Rohingya minority remained subject to state-led 

persecution and violent attacks. The Burmese government perpetuated an enabling environment for 

mass atrocities by continuing policies of persecution, failing to hold security forces accountable for past 

crimes against the Rohingya, and failing to prevent the spread of hate speech. In fact, unchanged 

policies matched with rising anti-Rohingya sentiment in the country contribute to the risk of further 

mass killings in Rakhine State not just by the security forces, but by local Rakhine civilians who appear to 

be increasingly committing crimes against their neighbors. The inclusion of Rakhine civilians in crimes 

1 
41


27011d-2.eps

targeting Rohingya is a worrisome development that signals a heightened risk to those Rohingya who 

remain in northern Rakhine State. 

Mass Atrocities 

Earlier this year, the Simon-Skjodt Center worked with the Bangkok-based human rights group Fortify 

Rights to gather testimony from Rohingya who have fled northern Rakhine State in recent weeks. Deadly 

attacks by a group known as the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) were followed by the Burmese 

military's so-called "clearance operations"- operations that the government stated were to address the 

threat of militants, but in practice were brutal and disproportionate attacks against Rohingya civilians. 

Those who survived military attacks shared stories that consistently describe the brutality of the 

Burmese military and their associates, how they attack entire villages and kill men, women, and 

children, and employ barbaric tactics such as rape and torture, under the guise of countering militants. I 

spoke to Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh earlier this year after the first round of these "clearance 

operations," and people shared with me horrific stories of witnessing soldiers murder their family 

members, of fleeing for their lives not knowing of the fate of their loved ones. While the threat posed by 

ARSA and any militant group should be taken seriously and not be underestimated, the greatest risk to 

civilians in Rakhine state today is coming from the Burmese military. The Burmese government has the 

responsibility to respond to ARSA, but it cannot cast all Rohingya as threats nor respond so 

disproportionately. 

Crimes Against Humanity, Ethnic Cleansing, and Mounting Evidence of Genocide 

With estimates of displaced Rohingya over the past year nearing 500,000, which would represent 

approximately half of the Rohingya population before the so-called "clearance operations," we are 

witnessing the commission of crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing on a horrific scale. Without 

an immediate end to atrocity crimes and the creation of safe conditions so that those displaced can 

voluntarily return in the future, we will witness a brutally effective campaign to rid all Rohingya from 

Burma. 

There is mounting evidence that genocide is happening in Burma. There needs to be additional 

investigation on the intent in order to make a definitive legal declaration of genocide. The Burmese 

government is currently blocking efforts to investigate the crimes. The U.S. has the ability to support 

such an investigation in order to bring the full truth to light. The U.S. can support an international 

independent investigation into the mass atrocities against the Rohingya, and it can also commission its 

own. The U.S. government conducted such an investigation regarding genocide in Sudan, for example, 

when in 2003 the State Department deployed staff from its Democracy and Human Rights Bureau and 

its African Affairs Bureau to interview Darfuri refugees in Eastern Chad. These testimonies informed the 

decision by the Bush Administration to determine the intent of the Sudanese government and to term 

that violence a genocide. 

Though, while investigations should move forward, by the time an investigation can be made into 

genocidal intent, it may be too late. We should not wait for a formal finding of genocide before taking 

action. 

The Way Forward 

2 
42


27011d-3.eps

The situation before us is complex and dire, and therefore requires a strong response that acknowledges 

the power structure within Burma. The military is the primary perpetrator of mass atrocities, and should 

be pressed with all of our available diplomatic resources to cease its illegal campaign against Rohingya 

civilians. While the most urgent demand is for mass atrocities to cease, we must also address the 

underlying policies and institutions that allowed such crimes to occur. 

There remains a long road ahead of the Burmese people and its government to address the decades of 

persecution and exclusion that created the conditions for the military to commit these crimes. Burma's 

leaders should dedicate themselves to the recommendations put forth by the Advisory Commission on 

Rakhine State, led by former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, to address the policies and institutions 

that leave Rohingya so vulnerable to abuse. The Commission's recommendations, including those 

regarding the restoration of citizenship, freedom of movement, and access to justice should be 

efficiently adopted. Burma's civilian-led government has the ability to lead on implementing many of 

those recommendations, and the international community should press Burma's leaders to do so. As 

Kofi Annan remarked during the issuance of the Commission's final report, addressing these longstanding underlying problems would be necessary to avert violence in the future. Even though we find 

ourselves in the middle of violence on a massive scale, measures can still be taken to protect the 

remaining Rohingya in the country who are still at a high risk of future atrocities. 

Burma's military is the primary perpetrator of the recent atrocities against Rohingya, aided by a growing 

number of ethnic Rakhine civilians participating in the attacks as well. Yet, the ultimate responsibility for 

de-escalating the current cycle of violence and protecting the lives and freedom of Burma's minority 

populations- from the military as well as non-state groups like ARSA- rests with the country's de facto 

leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. 

As a basic principle, we should not fear pressing democratically elected leaders to squarely confront 

mass atrocities within their country. We can understand the nature of Burma's democratic transition 

and the outsized role the military continues to play in national politics, while at the same time expecting 

moral and uncompromising responses from its civilian-led government. The U.S. Congress does not need 

to choose between stopping mass atrocities and supporting a democratic government; in Burma, our 

government can take immediate steps to address the urgent issue of mass atrocities against the 

Rohingya while laying the groundwork for a democratic future. After all, a democracy in which mass 

atrocities, even genocide, are occurring is still unacceptable. 

In 2012, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum awarded Aung San Suu Kyi the Elie Wiesel 

Award, its highest honor, reserved for those prominent individuals whose actions advance the 

Museum's vision of a world where people confront hatred, prevent genocide, and promote human 

dignity. Today, these ideals appear absent in the defense of Burma's Rohingya population. We expect 

her to use her position in government and her even more powerful voice to uphold those very ideals 

and work to stop the longstanding persecution and violence that threaten the very existence of 

Rohingya in Burma. 

3 
43

Mr. YOHO. Those were great words. I appreciate that. You know, 

so many times we promote democracy, and a democracy, if you go 

back to Ben Franklin, was two wolves and a sheep deciding what 

to have for lunch. The sheep always loses. 

The beauty of our Nation as a republic, a constitutional republic 

that protects the rights of a minority, and when you have a—you 

know, I think you said a lot by saying that in the face of fledgling 

democracy, do we throw everything at that and forsake what is 

going on on the ground to the people that are getting abused. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Lohman, you talked about your five recommendations, and 

I agree with you. They are good. But I see those as more long-term 

to prevent future in the future. What do you do for the now, because they need help now? Are they effective enough? If we were 

to do all five of your recommendations, do you think that would 

bring the atrocities to an end? 

Mr. LOHMAN. No, I don’t. I mean, in fact, I agree with you. These 

are more long-term, broader recommendations getting at the bigger 

problem, which is the role of the military in Burma and its participation in this sort of thing throughout the country, not just with 

regard to the Rohingya. 

I mean, in my estimation, the most immediate need would be to 

bring relief to those people now and to end the atrocities and bring 

relief to them. I mean, unfortunately, we don’t have many tools at 

our disposal, but an effective tool is to actually bring it to an end 

immediately. I don’t think anyone in the U.S. is prepared to bring 

military force to bear that would do that, and certainly cutting off 

generals and putting them on the SDN list and that sort of thing, 

especially since that is going to take a lot of time, it is not going 

to do it either. 

I think the only thing we have right now is moral suasion. We 

have appeal to the U.N. Security Council. We have some of those 

things to do, but I don’t want to overestimate how much effect that 

can have on the current situation. 

Mr. YOHO. All right. I have a follow-up question. This is going 

to be to Dr. Martin. The previous U.S. administration dramatically 

removed U.S. sanctions on Burma following the electoral victory of 

Aung San Suu Kyi. The National League for Democracy. Was lifting the sanctions a mistake? Should sanctions have been eased in 

a more gradual stepwise manner, assuming or thinking that in the 

future sanctions will be put back on? 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. As you 

know, I am an analyst for CRS. In the capacity I am here, I am 

not supposed to make comment or recommendations. 

Mr. YOHO. We won’t tell anybody. 

Mr. MARTIN. Okay. But I will draw from your previous question 

in terms of immediate things that can be done. For example, currently, the President has the authority to say for national interest 

reasons the members of the military can enter the United States, 

and under JADE Act 5(b), they are not supposed to be given those 

visas to enter the United States. The administration, both the previous one and the current one, do hand those out with some regularity. So the administration could, at this point, stop handing out 

those visa waivers. It is immediate action they can take. 

44

Second, section 5(b) of the JADE Act is still in effect in terms of 

the law. It just has been waived because of the Presidential executive order that said we no longer are going to impose the economic 

sanctions on four designated categories of people, which includes 

military leadership. It is within the authority of the President, or 

whomever he designates, to reverse or undo that executive order. 

So if you are looking for something that could be done from the administration side revoking that executive order, on doing it would 

reimpose the SDN list—or excuse me, wouldn’t reimpose the SDN 

list, but would make the JADE Act 5(b) back into effect. 

So one of the things that is a little bit complicated in this situation is that many of the laws imposing sanctions are still on the 

books. They are still there. They are not being enforced right now 

because of the previous President’s waiving of those sanctions. 

Mr. YOHO. That is good information, and we will look into doing 

that immediately and give those recommendations. 

Mr. Sullivan, Aung San Suu Kyi has repeatedly stated to the 

international community, that international coverage of the situation in Rakhine state is biased and inaccurate and incomplete. Is 

there any merit to her claims? If so, in what respect, and what impact might this have on U.S. relationships with her government? 

I mean, you have been there. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. Thank you for the question. I think if you are 

there and you speak to the people about what has happened, it is 

very clear, as I laid out in my testimony, and this is backed up by 

satellite images, by videos that have come out. It is very clear that 

something is happening, so it is honestly mind-boggling that she 

would say that she doesn’t have any idea why, why people are leaving in such numbers. So it can and should have an effect on the 

bilateral relationship. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. I appreciate your comments. I am out of time. 

I am going to yield to the ranking member, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Martin, how much aid do we give to Burma, 

particularly USAID, do we know? 

Mr. MARTIN. I don’t know the precise figure off the top of my 

head. I can certainly——

Mr. SHERMAN. Can you give me a range? 

Mr. MARTIN. Roughly about $80 million a year right now, fiscal 

year. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So the first thing we could do is cut back. Is much 

of that for democracy and human rights promotion or is it mostly 

economic development? 

Mr. MARTIN. There is a combination of economic development/

promotion, but also, we have been a significant supporter of the 

peace process that is underway under the terms of what is called 

the national ceasefire agreement. Bear in mind, only eight of the 

roughly 22, 23 EAOs have signed that ceasefire agreement. And I 

will throw in that——

Mr. SHERMAN. There is the slogan no justice no peace, the idea 

that we would be giving money to the Burmese Government to help 

it achieve its objectives. Now, human rights and democracy may 

not be its objectives, but anything that is consistent that we would 

be giving them money for that seems absurd, especially when we 

are talking about doing things that would cost the U.S. taxpayer 

45

money, such as sanctions or humanitarian aid, all of which may be 

warranted, but we should first do the thing that reduces expenditures. 

I am going to ask this question probably for the record, unless 

somebody knows, but I hope Dr. Martin and his team at the CRS 

will get me an answer. What is being done to publicize to the Muslim world China’s support for this murderous regime? And what is 

being done to publicize the fact that we are doing more to protect 

the Rohingya than any other state, other than those in the immediate neighborhood? 

I don’t see anyone anxious to answer that question right now, so 

I will ask that for the record. 

Now, an uncomfortable question: Is ARSA engaging in some 

smaller atrocities? And given our support for the Rohingya, can we 

persuade them to limit their actions to those against the Burmese 

military? 

Mr. Lohman, or anyone else? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. There are reports of ARSA carrying out attacks 

and——

Mr. SHERMAN. Against civilians? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. And, of course——

Mr. SHERMAN. And for the record, they are tiny in quantity compared to what the Rohingya people are facing. At the same time, 

they undermine the moral case that we are trying to make. They 

also undermine the ability of the Burmese Government to change 

its policy and become more reasonable. One atrocity against Buddhists in Rakhine State could make it difficult for those inside the 

Burmese Government to change its policy. 

Let’s see. Is Voice of America carrying the message that it 

should? Does the average person in Burma know what the world 

thinks of what their government is doing? 

Mr. Lohman? Anybody know? If we don’t have an answer, I will 

ask for the record. 

Mr. MARTIN. I can get you more information, sir. I know Radio 

Free Asia, for example, has regular stories about what is going on 

in Rakhine State. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And are those in——

Mr. MARTIN. They focus primarily——

Mr. SHERMAN. Are those in the Burmese language? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, there is a Voice of America-Radio Free Asia 

Burmese broadcast. 

Mr. SHERMAN. One would hope that they would have the courage 

at the Burmese service to push these stories, not just in the—I assume we have a—that we also broadcast in the language of Bangladesh. It is a lot easier for that service to cover this message. 

I will just throw this out here: If the Burmese Government disenfranchises some of its people—I mean, a government has a certain amount of territory for the benefit of its people. They have disclaimed over 1 million of their people. If they permanently show 

that they are unwilling or unable to protect the Rohingya, is a 

long-term solution the transfer of territory to Bangladesh? 

We obviously, as a Nation, don’t like to see sovereign borders 

change, but when a nation refuses to allow its own people to live 

on its territory, it loses the right to control that territory. 

46

Dr.Martin? 

Mr. MARTIN. Real quick. Since you bring that up, because in the 

early days when there was a previous insurgent group among the 

Rohingya, what they wanted at that time was to be part of what 

was Pakistan, East Pakistan. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Which is today Bangladesh. 

Mr. MARTIN. Which is today Bangladesh. 

So I do not know if Aung San’s leadership or the Rohingya people 

in general would want that——

Mr. SHERMAN. Obviously, the first choice is the return of the refugees’ citizenship, protection, and living in harmony with the other 

people of Rakhine State. But if that cannot be achieved, then a 

transfer of population has been achieved through this ethnic 

cleansing; perhaps a transfer of territory would go along with it. 

For the record, I want to point out that the Ambassador for Bangladesh has no comment. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We will now go to Mrs. Ann Wagner. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very, very much. I appreciate it, as I said in my opening statement, your willingness to 

hold this hearing. 

In 2013, there was an article in the Emory International Law Review calling for an international investigation into mass atrocity 

crimes against Rohingya Muslims. I know this because one of my 

staff members, Rachel Wagley, actually published the article. 

Sadly, everything written then is just as pertinent today, and 

this was back in 2013. It is heartbreaking how little the conflict 

has changed. 

Ms. Gittleman, you wrote that even if an investigation is conducted, we cannot wait for a formal finding of genocide to take action. I agree. 

What are the obstacles to establishing an international investigation? Where is the United Nations? And how do you believe the 

U.S. should leverage its influence to spur some sort of international 

investigation? 

Ms. GITTLEMAN. Well, thank you for the question, Representative 

Wagner. 

I think this is a really important issue. The reason why we might 

not have sufficient information in order to make a legal declaration 

about the situation is because it is so difficult to access the areas 

of northern Rakhine State where the military has been committing 

these crimes. There has been a fact-finding mission that was created by the United Nations Human Rights Council. 

So far, the Burmese Government has resisted any efforts to cooperate with that mission to allow them to undertake their investigation in a way that would get them the access that they require. 

I think the situation now in the face of denials and obstacles placed 

by the Burmese Government that requires a greater push internationally for an independent investigation. 

I think the United States is well placed as one of the key players, 

both on the Security Council and as one of the forces that I think 

would help mobilize more support for an international investigation. 

This would be an extremely important next step. 

47

Mrs. WAGNER. It has been going on, well, for 60 years, but for 

5 years now with Rohingya Muslims. Well past time. 

Ms. Gittleman or Mr. Sullivan, we hear so many stories of rape 

and sexual abuse coming out of Burma, and you outlined some of 

that, Ms. Gittleman. The Bangladesh Embassy has reported that 

many of the Rohingya flowing into Bangladesh are women and children. 

Can you talk about the risks facing women and girls in Rakhine 

State and help us understand how the international humanitarian 

response can better confront sexual violence? 

Ms. GITTLEMAN. Sure, I will address quickly and then turn to my 

colleague. 

What we have seen from people who have fled such horrific violence and who have come into Bangladesh, many have shared stories of use of rape and other forms of sexual violence. The way that 

they describe these crimes being committed makes it appear that 

they are being done systematically so that it is being used as a 

weapon specifically against women and girls, against Rohingya 

women and girls. This is not ad hoc. This isn’t something extraneous. It certainly isn’t part of any kind of counterinsurgency operation. 

This is something that has been—we have heard stories from 

people from across different geographic areas, which leads us to believe this might be something that is quite widespread. 

So, if you imagine women and girls fleeing from their homes, seeing horrific violence, being subjected to sexual violence, running, 

getting over the border, which may take days or weeks, once they 

arrive with very little possessions, little money, then they need to 

set about accessing the kind of healthcare and services that they 

would require. And you can only imagine how daunting that must 

be for people who have experienced so much trauma. So there 

needs to be assistance to make sure that those many people can 

get the aid that they need. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Let me just jump in here because I have limited 

time, as I have another question that I want to—thank you very 

much. It is just horrific. 

I am so disappointed and angered, frankly, by Suu Kyi’s actions 

or lack of actions. To whoever can best answer, has she made some 

sort of agreement with the Burmese military to enable violence 

against Rohingya? Does she have any political room whatsoever to 

provide any moral leadership at this point with respect to the 

Rohingya? Surely other minorities in the country can sympathize 

with the plight of the Rohingya. Please. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yeah, I can’t speculate as to what her motivations 

are, and I share the disappointment. But the fact is she does have 

a powerful voice and she was voted in overwhelming, has lots of 

support that she can garner. 

Just quickly on your previous question, I would just point to, as 

I mentioned in my testimony, I was in Bangladesh a few months 

ago, and Refugees International released a report at that time in 

July based on what had happened since the influx of 87,000 

Rohingya after October 2016 and talked about the gender-based violence and the accounts that we heard. So you can only imagine 

that today, with over 400,000——

48

Mrs. WAGNER. Right. 

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. Approaching 500,000 now, what level 

of a challenge that is. And there were doctors from the U.N. just 

yesterday or the day before who came out and talked about documenting dozens of cases. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Ms. Wagner. 

We will now go to Dr.Bera from California. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the ranking member, and also thank you to the 

witnesses. 

You know, this is tragic. I mean, as Mr. Sullivan pointed out, we 

are seeing genocide and ethnic cleansing repeating itself. If we just 

think about our moral character and our values as a Nation, we 

can’t sit idly by. You have outlined a few ways that we can approach this in terms of trying to leverage the Burmese Government 

and the Burmese military. 

From the public perspective, in my own community back in Sacramento, different groups are starting to come back, religious 

groups, public advocates, et cetera. They are trying to raise awareness. So, again, a lot of people aren’t paying attention to the plight 

of the Rohingya, but they are trying to raise local awareness. 

Mr. Sullivan, maybe from your perspective, what can the public 

do right now because we also want to see that public pressure? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. Thank you. I think going back to what you 

do in democracy, you contact your representatives, and hopefully 

there are more like those on this subcommittee that are hearing 

about this and speaking out and realizing how urgent of a situation 

this is. As I mentioned, it is just patently different from pretty 

much anything I have ever seen. It is just really urgent. I think 

there are a lot of advocacy groups out there that try to get this information out and get people motivated. 

Mr. BERA. So just trying to raise the volume on it——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Raise the volume——

Mr. BERA [continuing]. So more and more people are aware——

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. Reach out to local newspapers that 

kind of thing. 

Mr. BERA. Maybe sticking with you, Mr. Sullivan, I am a physician by training with a background in public health. Thinking 

about the number of refugees who have fled to Bangladesh, you 

mentioned that you were recently in the camps there. Can you talk 

about the conditions in the camp? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sure. As I say, it was just starkly different from 

just a few months ago where areas that had been all green are just 

overrun. People carrying bamboo sticks and tarps and rope to try 

to prop up shelters. The monsoon rains are going on, so people 

walking through ankle-deep mud. It is just an immense challenge 

just to record who is coming in. 

The Bangladesh Government, working with UNHCR and others 

have begun to take biometric information and give out cards to try 

to keep track of who is there. But they have maybe done around 

13,000 of the nearing 500,000 that are there now. 

49

Mr. BERA. Okay. The majority are in camps, and what we have 

seen in Jordan with Syrian refugees is they have tried to assimilate them and get them into urban communities. But I have to 

imagine the majority in Bangladesh are living in camp-like settings. That raises public health concerns, and real public health 

concerns because not just the tragedy of being forced from their 

home; now we very much have to think about the possibilities of 

disease and so forth and the toll that would take on morbidity. 

Are they seeing those public health issues right now? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, it is a huge risk. I mean, there was already, 

there were outbreaks after the October influx. This is just on a 

much larger scale. So, yeah, it is a very high risk. 

Mr. BERA. Bangladesh is not a wealthy country. What can and 

what should we be doing at the congressional level and at the 

international level to help support the refugees? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. As I mentioned, there was $32 million that the 

U.S. Government gave, but the needs are a lot more. So getting 

that financial support out there and making sure that there is 

proper coordination and going along with guidelines, internationally accepted guidelines, building shelters, and providing medical 

care. 

Mr. BERA. My colleague, Mr. Sherman, has identified $80 million 

that potentially we could move over. 

You know, it is tragic. I know we can’t speculate on Aung San 

Suu Kyi’s motives here, but for someone who has previously been 

held in pretty high regard by many of us, the lack of not using that 

bully pulpit to speak out and push back—I mean, this is a person 

who previously has shown moral courage. If they are paying attention and listening, if she is watching this, there was never a time 

for moral courage like the time right now. 

So this is the time to use that bully pulpit. 

Thank you, and I will yield back. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Dr.Bera. 

Now, we will go to Mr. Rohrabacher from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just 

a suggestion, and first of all, I appreciate your holding this conference. I have learned a lot. That is the purpose of the conference. 

We would have learned more, I believe, had we had someone from 

the Burmese Government here to give their side of the story. 

I have been chairman of various subcommittees. No matter how 

reprehensible the other side is on whatever issue, I have always 

made sure that both sides had a chance. I think it would have been 

interesting to hear an interaction and charges and refutations and 

how someone would have responded to the charges we have heard 

today. 

I have learned a lot, as I say. Let me ask some more fundamental questions here. In the Rakhine State, how many of those 

people are Rohingyas—I am sorry I mispronounced it—what percentage are that, and what percentage are other ethnic groups? 

Mr. MARTIN. Congressman Rohrabacher, let me try to give you 

a rough idea. First off, the easiest answer is no one actually knows. 

A couple years ago, Burma tried to conduct a nationwide census of 

its population, the first one in decades. But when it came to 

Rakhine State, when they wanted to do a census of the Rohingya 

50

households, the provision was they had to self-identify as Bengalis. 

That was objectionable to all those——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. What is your guess as to——

Mr. MARTIN. Well, the figure that is normally put around is 1 

million to 1.1 million Rohingya. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. And the population of——

Mr. MARTIN. And then I can’t remember the exact figure off the 

top of my head of the Rakhine. The Rakhine, who tend to live in 

the southern part of the state, are the majority of the population, 

but scattered throughout the state are other ethnic groups. Interestingly enough, there is another group called the Kamar, who are 

also Sunni Muslims. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Mr. MARTIN. They are citizens——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Mr. MARTIN [continuing]. But they are a very small percentage. 

Then you have——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So, overall, what is the guess of the population? 

Mr. MARTIN. I believe the figure is around 5 million. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Two million? Five million? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yeah, I would have to double check that on you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. We don’t know. 

Okay. Anybody else have a guess? 

Okay. I don’t want to even guess, but there are 1 million people 

that are part of this ethnic group that now has been targeted. We 

know that. And they were denied citizenship. This ethnic group 

that we are talking about today has been present in this state since 

Burma became a country in 1948. This is not a new group that 

showed up. 

So to claim that they are illegal immigrants, which Burma does, 

is inaccurate in that they have been there the whole time. 

Let me just note, in Burma, having a little background in 

Burma, I know about the Chins, the Kachin, the Karens, the 

Karennis. And now we know this ethnic group as well as—they are 

in the same area. There are several ethnic groups. 

So the idea that if there is ever going to be any peace in that 

country, basically the Burmese who control the capital and control 

the country as a whole, had better be accepting of that or there is 

just going to be one big blood bath as we have seen, by the way. 

There were, again, hundreds of thousands of Karens and Karenni 

who were Christians, who had to leave Burma in order to flee for 

Thailand, 20, 30 years ago. I know I visited them and I visited 

Aung San Suu Kyi when she was under house arrest. And let me 

just say I, too, am disappointed that she has not spoken up. 

Only a respect for human rights by that country as a whole with 

all of these people is going to bring about, you know, any type of 

peace or an end to this. 

Let me just note that there—and thank you very much for the 

good job you did with the Congressional Research Service on giving 

us a background. I notice that the militant group that is supportive 

of, and again, the Rohingyas, actually, in August 2017, conducted 

a coordinated attack on 30 police and army outposts. So this isn’t 

51

a bunch of passifists who are now being slaughtered by the Burmese military. 

On October 2016, there was, again, attacks by this particular, 

the army representing this ethnic group. I think if we are going to 

be peacemakers in the world, which I think the United States 

should be—and I agree with you that we need to participate, go 

down there and participate in an international investigation. But 

we need to be really honest about what we see and not, again, just 

take sides because you will get a headline for today, or it seems 

that this is what the reality is, even though we haven’t investigated it. 

So this reminds me a lot, Mr. Chairman, of the—pardon me for 

talking too long here—reminds me of another crisis we went 

through early on between the Serbs and the Kosovars. It reminds 

me a lot of that. The Serbs were involved with all kinds of violent 

activity, and the Burmese remind me a lot of the Serbs at their 

worst. 

But let me just say that we should be a force for good in this 

world and to find out truth. And with truth, we do need both sides 

to be telling us their story. And I would hope that someday that 

we can play a positive role with the Burmese. 

With that said, thank you very much for your testimony. I have 

learned a lot. 

I will be looking forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to 

make sure that we play a positive role. 

One last question. How much have our Muslim friends in other 

countries, especially oil-rich countries, contributed to the plight of 

these poor people who are now being pushed into Bangladesh and 

are under such horrible circumstances? 

Has there been any major help being offered by their fellow Muslims? Do we know? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has been outspoken, as has Malaysia recently, in terms of seeking support for 

this community. And I can’t think of the name right now, but one 

of the multilateral Islamic groups has tried to go into Rakhine 

State to provide assistance in the past but has been rebuffed by the 

government. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Rebuffed by the Bangladesh Government? 

Mr. MARTIN. No, this is inside Burma. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh, inside Burma. 

Mr. MARTIN. Inside Myanmar. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Well, I am not looking for people who 

are outspoken. I am looking for someone who is outspent. So I hope 

we could get some assistance down, because what was described 

today, these people are in a desperate situation. Good people 

around the world should try to save them in this desperate situation. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you both for your comments. 

We will next go to Mr. Connolly from Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome to our panel. 

Mr. Sullivan—well, any of you—I mean, is this, from an international legal point of view, ethnic cleansing? 

52

Mr. SULLIVAN. Ethnic cleansing doesn’t have a clear, legal definition, but by any kind of standards of what it has been described 

of as displacing an entire group of people forcibly, then yes, it absolutely—and as the High Commissioner for Human Rights has said, 

it is a textbook case of ethnic cleansing. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. So you are right: It is not exactly a legal 

concept, I suppose, in the Hague, but when the Commissioner for 

Human Rights uses it, it has some force of meaning. 

Do we believe that it is the intention of the Burmese Government 

or Burmese military, or both to, in fact, cleanse Burma of the 

Rohingya, period? 

Any of you can feel free. 

Ms. GITTLEMAN. There are many legal terms that can be used to 

describe this situation. Crimes against humanity appears——

Mr. CONNOLLY. No, no. Ms. Gittleman, my question is: Do we believe that it is the intention of the military or the Government of 

Burma to, in fact, eliminate the Rohingya from Burma or 

Myanmar? 

Ms. GITTLEMAN. What we are seeing today is a campaign of ethnic cleansing. What we don’t know——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Gittleman, I know that. 

Ms. GITTLEMAN.—is the exact intent——

Mr. CONNOLLY. We have established that. I am asking a different 

question. 

Is it the intention, do we believe, of the current Government or 

the military of Myanmar to essentially be Rohingya-free? Is that 

what they are doing? 

Ms. GITTLEMAN. What we don’t know is the exact intent of those 

perpetrators? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Lohman, do you have any views on that matter? 

Mr. LOHMAN. No, I mean, I agree. We don’t——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Please speak into the microphone, Mr. Lohman. 

Mr. LOHMAN. We don’t know their intent. I mean, how can we 

know their intent? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Can you make a wild guess given the fact that 3⁄4 of 1 million people are in Bangladesh? 

Mr. LOHMAN. Yes, absolutely. I would say, by the looks of it, yes, 

it is ethnic cleansing. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Dr.Martin? No, I am not asking that question. 

Mr. LOHMAN. Okay. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Are they trying to make sure that Burma or 

Myanmar is in fact free of all Rohingyas? Is that their goal? So 

that that ethnic minority no longer is present in their country? 

That is my question. 

Is there a strategic goal here, besides, ‘‘We just don’t like them, 

and we are responding,’’ as you in your testimony said, clearly 

overreacting, ‘‘to insurgent attacks on the Burmese military’’? 

Mr. MARTIN. I will speak to the record of what we know from 

what has been said. Aung San Suu Kyi in her speech of September 

19 to the international community said that she would welcome the 

return of the Rohingya. However, it is under a 1993 agreement 

with Bangladesh and its provisions about documentation or 

53

verification of the fact that they were residents, not necessarily citizens, of Burma before. 

So I believe there is some indication, at least on her statements, 

of a willingness to see a return of some portion, exactly what portion, of the roughly 1⁄2 million who have left. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But she——

Mr. MARTIN. Now, in terms of the military, I did speak to a lieutenant general when I was in Naypyitaw just 2 weeks ago. They 

do not portray this as any effort on their part to try to make the 

people move out of the area. All they are doing is pursuing ARSA’s 

members and their sympathizers. 

However, I cannot find the quote right now, but there was a 

quote from a few years ago when there was a similar incidence of 

Rohingya leaving, where somebody senior in the military said, ‘‘If 

some friendly nation will take all 1 million of them, we would be 

happy to see them all leave.’’

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. 

Mr. MARTIN. And that is on the historical record. So I would suspect one could infer that, at least in the Tatmadaw, there are some 

who would——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Mr. MARTIN [continuing]. Welcome it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. Because I think we have to be clear 

about that. I mean, frankly futzing around about, ‘‘Well, we are not 

sure about their intent, who can read their minds,’’ their behavior 

is what tells us what is happening. This isn’t some localized action. 

This is mass relocation of people to another country. And thank 

God Bangladesh is there and willing to accept them. I mean, the 

international community owes Bangladesh, a very poor country, a 

great debt of gratitude for receiving the Rohingya, it seems to me. 

They are a poor country. They already had large numbers of the 

Rohingya already there, and now they are almost doubling, more 

than doubling that population. 

Have people in, besides Aung San Suu Kyi, have people in the 

legislative body in Myanmar spoken out against what is happening? Anyone know? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I haven’t seen any speaking out within the Parliament. The popular opinion is very much against the Rohingya 

and——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. 

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. It is a very dangerous kind of thing 

to speak out, which is why the international pressure is so much 

more important. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And, Dr.Martin, I think you cited the Aung San 

Suu Kyi, but she is severely circumscribed by the military. I mean, 

she doesn’t control the military directly. So, if the military wants 

to continue doing this, it is not entirely within her ability to influence that situation. 

I was in—I am sorry—Myanmar, last year, and I was very struck 

by the competing centers of power in Naypyitaw and the great caution with which each side sort of wanders past the other. 

Mr. Lohman, you look like you wanted to comment on that. I 

would welcome the comment. 

54

Mr. LOHMAN. I was going to say, I mean, I agree with that sentiment. And I——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Please speak into the microphone. 

Mr. LOHMAN [continuing]. I may be in the minority here, but I 

think we have to be careful not to be too hard on Aung San Suu 

Kyi as I do think she is very tightly restrained. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. 

Mr. LOHMAN. I find it hard to believe that in the last 20 years, 

she has completely changed her character to the point where she 

would support this kind of thing. 

If anything, I think her remarks are a demonstration of how 

tightly constrained she is. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. 

Mr. LOHMAN. She could come out tomorrow and be very vocal 

about it, but how is that going to change the situation? That 

doesn’t pull on the heartstrings of the military. They could care 

less what she thinks or anybody else in the civilian government 

thinks. 

They could end this whole experiment in democracy tomorrow if 

they want, and I think she well understands that. So I don’t want 

to give her a complete benefit of the doubt. I know she said some 

things that are a little bit puzzling and disturbing, sort of in a positive sense. She said things about Rohingya that make you wonder. 

But I think we do have to give her a little bit of the benefit of a 

doubt. We haven’t supported her for 25 years for nothing. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I am going to end, Mr. Chairman, but I just 

think that is a very critical point. I thank Mr. Lohman for making 

that point. 

I was struck by the same thing. The latitude she has, especially 

when the military is involved, is very limited. It is a very delicate 

dance with two powers coexisting very uneasily in Myanmar. None 

of that is to say one should not speak out about a blatant human 

rights violation such as we are witnessing now. But as to her intent and how she is reacting, there are some severe limitations on 

her that could have severe consequences if she stepped over unwritten boundaries. 

So we do need to understand that as we approach this massive 

human rights problem. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOHO. I appreciate your input. We will next go to Mr. Perry 

from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen on 

the panel. 

How many Rohingya are left? What is the estimate? Is there 1 

million to start or do we know? 

Mr. MARTIN. Like I said earlier, there is no accurate figures on 

exactly how many were there beforehand. But if we say roughly 1⁄2

million have fled at this point since August——

Mr. PERRY. August 25th, accordingto this. 

Mr. MARTIN. August 25th, that would reduce that population to 

half. You had 87,000 before, earlier in the year. So roughly somewhere between a quarter to half. 

Mr. PERRY. Quarter to half a million left, right? 

Mr. MARTIN. Of the percentage; 200,000 to 500,000. 

55

Mr. PERRY. 200,000 to 500,000. And according to this, this is 

what I referenced. I read it last night. Wall Street Journal article 

from a week or so ago: Since August 25th, an estimated 430,000 

have fled Rakhine State. 

So, if the numbers are accurate here, in about a month, I mean, 

we are all talking here, right? These people are being—heck, if 

they are lucky, they are being kicked out. If they are unlucky, they 

are not going to make it anywhere. They are dying in place. That 

is what it seems to me. It seems like it was about a month ago. 

So my question is, what can be done right now? How is an investigation going to happen in a sovereign nation that refuses to let 

anybody come in to investigate? 

Ms. GITTLEMAN. Well, I think you raise an important question 

about all the Rohingya who remain in northern Rakhine State. We 

know the numbers of people who have crossed to Bangladesh, but 

there remains a significant fraction who are still in northern 

Rakhine State, whether they are displaced from their homes we 

don’t know because we can’t access the area. But those people, of 

course, remain at extremely high risk of atrocities, if they haven’t 

been targeted yet. 

Mr. PERRY. Yeah, I imagine. 

Ms. GITTLEMAN. So they would require protection. They require 

aid, just as people who have crossed the border have. 

Mr. PERRY. So no sooner is Burma or Myanmar, or whatever you 

want to call it, going to allow, as a sovereign nation, going to allow 

the United States or Bangladesh or China or anybody else come in 

and tell them how to run their railroad; the answer seems to be 

somewhere in the U.N., right? 

The clock is ticking. So, since we are not probably going to be 

able to force anything as a sovereign nation, any more than we 

would want Burma to force anything on the United States, what 

is the United Nations doing, and what are we doing in concert with 

the United Nations right now to take action right now, today, within a few days? Because in 30 days, we probably won’t talk about 

this anymore because it will be history, right? We will be writing 

about it. So what is happening now? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yeah, tomorrow, the U.N. Secretary General will 

be addressing the U.N. Security Council for the first time in open 

debate. There has been closed discussion. 

It was very welcome that the Trump administration, after about 

3 weeks, came out with a call for the U.N. Security Council to take 

swift action. 

I would say that, you know, I laid out some of the things I would 

recommend, including the multilateral sanctions, arms embargo. 

On the accountability——

Mr. PERRY. Sir, with all due respect, I don’t think the U.N. needed to wait for President Trump to come out. This is what we have 

a U.N. for. Talking about sanctions when this is going to be over 

in a month, according to these numbers, or substantially if these 

hold, a discussion tomorrow is meaningless. What you need is a 

vote. And Burma has to accept some kind of envoy to go into their 

country and witness and have an investigation. Everybody in the 

room knows it. Other than that, all we are talking about is platitudes and we wish this could happen. 

56

Sanctions aren’t going to do anything in that amount of time. By 

the time sanctions matter, it is all going to be over. And they are 

not even having the discussion yet. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I agree. But I think you can’t wait for that. 

And there are things that are being done. Like the U.N. fact-finding mission is going to Bangladesh, where they can access people, 

and collecting evidence. 

Mr. PERRY. Are they going to be allowed to be in Rakhine State, 

this fact-finding mission? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The government has said they will not allow 

them. 

Mr. PERRY. So all that is pointless as well. 

While I appreciate the information, I appreciate your passion, 

compassion, and your interest in this, it is very frustrating. But all 

we are doing is talking right now, and it doesn’t seem like there 

is a solution in this room that is recognized. The solution is at the 

U.N. 

And somebody ought to not wait until tomorrow. Somebody ought 

to be meeting right now and not having a discussion about, ‘‘Is this 

happening,’’ but have a vote right now tonight, today, on going in 

there and doing something, right? That is what needs to happen. 

Otherwise, this is all just unfortunate conjecture, and these poor 

people are either going to leave or be killed. That is the answer, 

unfortunately. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Mr. YOHO. I appreciate your comments and your passion. And 

you bring up a very good point. 

Mr. Sullivan, reading your—I believe it is your testimony. Yeah, 

it was yours—your recommendations, ‘‘Congress should,’’ and you 

listed several things: Press the Trump administration to work 

through the U.N. Security Council. 

One of your bulleted points were support for a referral to the 

International Criminal Court unless Myanmar authorities take significant measures to address the human rights. 

I am thinking the same thing Mr. Perry did. Why? 

I mean, we see what is going on. We need to put the pressure 

on now. Our recommendations that are going to come out of this 

meeting because of you guys are going to be for JADE Act to be 

revoked immediately. The $63 million that was requested for aid 

to Burma, our recommendation is we are going to hold that. Our 

team doesn’t know that yet. I guess they do now. Then to go to the 

U.N. and say, ‘‘you need to do something now. We demand you act 

now.’’

This is something, again, that we are in the 21st century, and 

I see these atrocities going on that makes you not even want to be 

part of the human race to see these going on. Everybody out here, 

in here, has a Representative that you vote for. Demand that they 

do something about that. Please do something about that. 

Let’s see, what else do I have here? This is a question I want to 

ask. If you all can comment on this, if you have time for one more 

question: Burma is a member of the ASEAN nations, one of the 

members of 10 nations. What is the sentiment of the other nations 

in ASEAN with this kind of action? Do they have the wherewithal, 

57

the fortitude to say, ‘‘What you are doing is wrong, and you need 

to bring it to an end’’? 

What are your thoughts on that? We will start with Dr.Martin, 

if you have time and patience. 

Mr. MARTIN. Sure. Real quickly. ASEAN actually just recently 

released a statement with respect to what is going on in Burma, 

or Myanmar, as they call it. It was expressing concern, would be 

the way I would phrase it. Malaysia objected to that statement saying that it did not address sufficiently the situation in Rakhine 

State or the situation for the Rohingya. 

Two other aspects with respect to ASEAN: They have a traditional policy of noninterference in internal affairs, and so this 

would be considered possibly an internal affair; they don’t want to 

get involved. However, they also have set up an ASEAN Human 

Rights Commission, which has been criticized for being ineffective 

and not taking much action. So one could argue that this is a time 

where the ASEAN Human Rights Commission could step up and 

take an active interest. 

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Lohman? 

Mr. LOHMAN. Yeah, if you think the U.N. is ineffective addressing the situation, ASEAN is completely useless. 

So, I mean, because of their noninterference principle and other 

considerations, you know, they have watched this over the last 25 

years or so and done really nothing about the whole range of issues 

in Burma. 

So I wouldn’t expect much, at least in being able to help this current situation. 

The one area that might be able to be of some assistance is helping to get humanitarian aid into the country. Back in 2008, they 

played a role in cyclone. In August, I was there and they did play 

a role; it was very late. The Burmese prevented humanitarian assistance from coming in to address the results of a natural disaster, 

but eventually they did, and they did through ASEAN. So they 

may be able to be of some help in that regard. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would just add that the Prime Minister of Thailand will be meeting with the White House early next week. So 

that is an opportunity to express their need to put more pressure 

on Myanmar and to accept Rohingya who are fleeing. 

Ms. GITTLEMAN. I think we are seeing growing concern from 

other countries in the region, which as I said, is a different tack. 

With ASEAN, of course, they have been premised on cooperation, 

and I think it is the sheer urgency of this crisis that is making 

some countries in the region change their tune. 

Mr. YOHO. I just want to say how much I appreciate you all 

being here because you are bringing to light, you know, you are 

shining a light on just a terrible tragedy and atrocity that is going 

on around the world. 

As you brought up, Mr. Sullivan, how many times are we going 

to go through this? We have seen this throughout history. We have 

seen it, you know, Auschwitz, in World War II and all the genocide 

that happened there. Rwanda, Bosnia, Serbia, Darfur. 

How many more times do we want to tolerate this? There has got 

to be a better way. The U.N. is an effective—but there needs to be 

an enforcement mechanism within the U.N., a multinational enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:03 Nov 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\092717\27011 SHIRL
58

forcement, that can bring this kind of garbage to an end. These 

kinds of crimes against humanity just need to be brought to an 

end. And the people that are responsible for this, we need to prosecute those people, and it needs to be done rapidly to send a signal 

out to the rest of the world. 

And for clarification, it was not a very revocation of the JADE 

Act. It was the no waiver on the—I can’t read that—what does that 

say—on the sanctions. 

So we are going to act on what you guys told us. I appreciate it. 

Ambassador Ziauddin, thank you for being here and what your 

country is doing. Our office is going to reach out to you to work on 

this more specifically. 

With that, the meeting is adjourned. 

The notes will be added to the congressional record, and we 

thank you again for your time, your patience, and your tolerance. 

[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

60

f


27011n.eps

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

W ASHJNGTON, DC 20515-6128 

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific 

Ted Yoho (R-FL), Chairman 

September 27,2017 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to be held by 

the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building (and available live 

on the Committee website at http://www.ForeignAffairs.house.gov): 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Wednesday, September 27, 2017 

2:30p.m 

Burma's Brutal Campaib'll Against the Rohinb'Ya 

Mr. Walter Lohman 

Director 

Asian Studies Center 

Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy 

The Heritage Foundation 

Mr. Daniel P. Sullivan 

Senior Advocate for Human Rights 

Refugees International 

Michael F Martin, Ph.D. 

Specialist in Asian Affairs 

Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division 

Congressional Research SeJVice 

Ms. Andrea Gittleman 

Program Manager 

Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide 

U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum 

By Direction of the Chairman 

w1Lh dlsahiiille,\. !f.rou are 111 need 

m (!fihe even/, whenever practicable. 

of Committee materials ill alternative formats and assistil·e 
61

f


27011m.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MlNUTES OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ________ A_s_ia_a_"_tf_tl,_e_P_"c-=·if_ic_· ------~HEARING 

Day Wednesday Datc. __ ___c9._c_V_'2-'71_'2_0_1_7 ___ Room_---'RH=-=0-=1J'--2"'1"'7--'2'-----

Starting Timc _ __,3~:3"4'-''"'""'"-_Ending Time 4:10pm 

Recesses i~-~ L_to __ ) L_to ~-) L_to __ ) L_to __ ) L_to __ ) L_to __ ) 

Presiding Member(s) 

Chairman Ted Yoho 

Check all of the following that apply: 

Open Session [2] 

Executive @sed) Session D Televised D 

TITLE OF HEARING: 

Electronically Record!l!L(tapcd) D 

Stenographic Record U 

"Burma's Brutal Campaign Against the Rohingya" 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

Rep. Ted Yoho, Rep. A11n Wag11er, Rep. Dana Rohra/mcher, Rep. Scott Peny, Rep. Steve Chabot 

Rep. Brad Sherman, Rep. Ami Baa, Rep. Gerald Connolly 

NON-SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: (Mark with an* if they are no/members qfjit/1 committee.) 

Rep. Ed Royce 

HEARING WITNESSES: Same as meeting notice attached? Yes m NoD 

(If "no", please list beloH1 and include title, agency, department, or organization.) 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: (List any statements submitted for the record.) 

Connolly SFR 

TIME SCHEDULED TO RECONVENE ___ _ 

or 

TIME ADJOURNED ____ _ 
62


27011f-1.eps

Statement for the Record 

Rep. Gerald Connolly 

AP Subcommittee Hearing: ''Burma's Brutal Campaign Against the Rohingya'' 

September 27, 2017 

On August 25, Rohingya militants attacked around 30 police and army outposts, leaving 12 Burmese 

officers dead. Following these attacks, the Burmese military has embarked on a violent retaliation 

campaign, including razing Rohingya villages, placing landmines along the border, killing civilians, 

and committing sexual violence. While the Burmese military claims that this campaign is a "clearance 

operation" against an insurgent terrorist group, their actions targeting civilians tell a different and 

abhorrent story. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein has 

ca11ed these atrocities a "textbook example of ethnic cleansing· 

Tragically, state-sponsored persecution and violence against the Rohingya in Durma is nothing ne\v. In 

2014, I joined several of my colleat,'l!es in writing to the Administration to outline a few disturbing 

trends in Burma's democratic transition, including continued discrimination and violence against the 

Rohingya. The latest violent crackdown has only compounded such concerns. Last year, I visited 

Burma with the House Democracy Pattnership to meet with members of the legislature and the new 

democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kui. The United States needs to strike a balance 

between supporting Burma's democratic transition, while urging an end to violence and discrimination 

against Rohingya. The outsize power of the military within Bunna's civilian government is an obstacle 

to Burma's democratic progress and hinders the government's attempts to prevent an explosion of 

sectarian violence in Rakhinc State. Burma's government must cease its policv of keeping the minority 

Rohingya population stateless. displaced. and in a constant state of humanitarian crisis. 

The recent wave of violence in Burma's northern Rakhine State has sparked the region's largest 

refugee crisis ever, and the world's fastest growing humanitarian crisis. An estimated 480,000 refugees 

and counting have fled to Bangladesh. The sheer volume has quickly overwhelmed Bangladesh's two 

formal refugee camps, and the vast majority of refugees are now living in fragile and unsanitary 

conditions in informal camps, roadside settlements, and even in uninhabited forest. Bangladesh has 

shown incredible generosity in welcoming these refugees, especially given that 350,000 Rohingya 

refugees were already in the country prior to this latest crisis 

Lack of clean water, poor hygene conditions, and acute shortages of food and medicine could lead to a 

full-blown health crisis. The Bangladesh authorities have already reported thousands of cases of 

diarrhea, respiratory problems, and skin diseases, and the World Health Organization has warned of a 

growing risk of a cholera epidemic. I urge the Bangladesh Government to lift existing restrictions on 

international non-governmental organizations so that a coordinated global effort can stave off a health 

emergency 

During the 72"" Session of the United Nations General Assembly last week, the United States 

announced an additional $32 million in humanitarian assistance for Rohingya internally displaced in 

Rakhine State and the refugees and host communities in Bangladesh. This supplemental provision 

1 
63

Æ


27011f-2.eps

brings total U.S. humanitarian assistance for Rohingya to nearly $95 million in FY 2017. Nonetheless, 

the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has called for a redoubling of the international 

humanitarian response in Bangladesh, citing the pace and extreme vulnerability of refugees. 

The Rohingya are one of the most persecuted communities around the world. They have endured 

horrific abuses at the haud of the Burmese Government for far too long. As Bangladesh prepares to 

host more than one million Rohingya refugees, the international community must band together to 

address both the urgent humanitarian needs and the long-tenn societal needs of the Rohingya people. I 

look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how Congress can continue to assist in both of these 

respects. 

2