U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

82–844PDF 2013

AN UNCLEAR ROADMAP: BURMA’S FRAGILE

POLITICAL REFORMS AND GROWING

ETHNIC STRIFE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 19, 2013

Serial No. 113–81

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 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

AMI BERA, California 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Tom Andrews, president, United to End Genocide ..................... 5

Ms. Jennifer Quigley, executive director, U.S. Campaign for Burma ................. 16

Wakar Uddin, Ph.D., director general, The Arakan Rohingya Union ................. 23

Mr. Ralph L. Cwerman, president, The Humpty Dumpty Institute ................... 33

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Tom Andrews: Prepared statement .............................................. 7

Ms. Jennifer Quigley: Prepared statement ............................................................ 19

Wakar Uddin, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................. 25

Mr. Ralph L. Cwerman: Prepared statement ........................................................ 36

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 50

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 51

The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio, and chairman, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific: Statement 

for the record from Ambassador Ufuk Gokcen .................................................. 52

(1)

AN UNCLEAR ROADMAP: BURMA’S FRAGILE 

POLITICAL REFORMS AND GROWING 

ETHNIC STRIFE 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2013

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Chabot (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. CHABOT. Good afternoon. 

Welcome, everyone, my colleagues, and our distinguished witnesses to this Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific hearing. 

The ranking member, Mr. Faleomavaega, is not able to be here 

today because he is accompanying the body of a soldier who was 

killed in Afghanistan back to American Samoa, Mr. 

Faleomavaega’s district. 

Our thoughts and prayers are certainly with the family of First 

Lieutenant Jason Asotama Togi. Mr. Bera will be sitting in and replacing Mr. Faleomavaega this afternoon. He and I will be making 

opening statements, and other members will be recognized for 1 

minute to make a statement if they wish to do so. 

We find ourselves today in an extraordinarily unusual time in 

history, one in which political changes are taking shape in nearly 

every corner of the world. As we look across the Indian Ocean, the 

beacon of hope and change in Asia, it seems 2 years ago, was the 

relatively unknown isolated country we call Burma. Today, nearly 

everyone knows about this nation in some way, and has heard of 

democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi who sacrificed years of her 

life to improve her country’s plight. In 2011, she testified via video 

before this subcommittee expressing her resounding hope of change 

for her people. Two years later, her wish has not yet become reality. 

The Burma we see today is at first glance much different than 

the one we knew only a few years ago. Businesses around the globe 

have rushed in, seeking a stake in Burma’s economy and its untouched natural resources. Sanctions were lifted. Investors and 

tourists are moving across its borders. Some have called Burma the 

last Wild West of Asia, named as one of the top travel destinations 

of the year due to its white beaches, serene Buddhist architecture, 

2

and pristine beauty. Unfortunately, I’m not so sure how long that 

title will last. 

Countries around the world felt that they could now cross one 

more dictatorship off their list. And while Burma’s sudden and unexpected democratic changes, which opened it to the world, was indeed incredible, we are realizing that all this hype may have been 

premature. Those rose-colored glasses made the situation look better than it truly was underneath. 

The new model for reforms in Burma is ‘‘two steps forward, one 

step back.’’ At least that’s what the Obama administration is 

using—which is in considerable contrast to its overly optimistic depiction of reforms only a year ago. After 2 years of symbolic visits, 

appointments, grand gestures and ceremonial photo-ops, the tone is 

finally mellowing as the international community realizes Burma’s 

future is filled with challenges. The situation there is extremely 

fragile and all of the reforms to date could be reversed, unfortunately, with very little effort. 

A few days ago, Aung San Suu Kyi warned the U.S. that, ‘‘Now 

it is more important than ever to look at the situation in Burma 

very objectively and not to be over optimistic and recognize that 

Burma is not yet a democracy until its constitution is changed.’’ 

She also made it clear that legal challenges are essential to end the 

ethnic conflicts, including attacks led by Burmese Government 

forces against the Kachin community. The world needs to take 

note. 

The escalation of human rights abuses committed by the Burmese military, and the civil unrest between Burma’s Buddhist majority and Muslim minorities, is threatening the progression of future political reforms in Burma. The effects of the surging antiMuslim movement and ensuing violence has already been staggering. Over 250,000 people have been displaced, over 10,000 

homes destroyed and nearly 300 people killed. Evidence shows the 

Burmese military perpetrated some of these attacks directly. In 

other situations the military and police just stood by and watched 

the violence unfold without taking appropriate action. A humanitarian crisis is unfolding before our very eyes. 

What’s more, nearly 200 political prisoners remain behind bars, 

but this does not include the nearly 1,000 Rohingya and 200 

Kachin prisoners of conscience who have been arrested and detained over the past year for their religion or ethnicity. This is unacceptable. These are actions repressive regimes take and use to 

intimidate their own people. 

How has the Obama administration reacted to the blatant 

human rights violations and unfulfilled promises? They have offered more rewards, deals, and concessions. 

Let’s take a quick look: The administration lifted investment 

sanctions; lifted import bans; allowed Burma’s military to observe 

Cobra Gold—the largest military exercise in the world; lifted visa 

bans on top Burmese politicians; hosted President Thein Sein at 

the White House in May; signed a trade and investment framework 

agreement; began the process of admitting Burma into the Generalized System of Preferences program; and most recently, initiated 

military-to-military engagement with Burma. 

3

This last action, in particular, comes far too soon in light of the 

military’s strong influence in Burma and its perpetration of human 

rights abuses against ethnic minorities. Without established benchmarks, this step, in my view, is hasty and poses a risk of failure 

for the United States’ entire engagement strategy with respect to 

Burma. 

It’s clear that the U.S. is committed to helping Burma succeed, 

but why is the only thing this administration is doing is giving and 

then giving more? 

The engagement process needs to slow down until it becomes apparent that the Burmese regime intends to truly reform. I believe 

the administration needs to reassess its strategy and take a step 

back because Burma has not yet demonstrated that it is truly committed to reforming. Without a clear roadmap, it’s unclear whether 

future reforms in Burma will be consistent with goals established 

under U.S. laws. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses today 

about their assessment of the political environment in Burma, the 

growing human rights abuses among ethnic groups and the U.S. 

engagement strategy with Burma. 

Now I’d like to turn to the ranking member here this afternoon, 

Mr. Bera, for an opening statement. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Chairman Chabot, and thank you for holding this important hearing to discuss Burma’s ongoing reform efforts. 

It’s an incredibly important discussion for us to have, particularly with—particularly with how young the democracy is. While 

we know real progress has been made, we also can’t ignore that 

there’s still much to be done. 

I continue to be particularly troubled by ongoing reports of ethnic 

violence, remaining political prisoners, suppression, mass arrests 

and raids on homes and monasteries. 

But after almost five decades of brutal military repression, hope 

and optimism remain alive in Burma. But the truth is for this hope 

and optimism to continue there are major challenges that Burma 

will need to overcome. 

I believe that the United States can aid in solving these challenges but as the world’s greatest democracy we have to do more 

than just aid. 

We must also send a clear-cut message of what our values are 

and that the United States and its hope for success will not tolerate human rights abuses and oppression. 

As Burma transitions from instability to a country of democratic 

rule, this institution, Congress, and the administration must continually consider and review our actions. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of each of the witnesses. 

I look forward to learning more about the status of where Burma 

is and hearing your thoughts and ideas about the policies that Congress and the administration should be thinking about and adopting in our hopes of creating a lasting and stable democracy in 

Burma. 

And again, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to thank you for calling this 

important hearing and, again, I look forward to the testimony of 

the witnesses. 

4

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Andrews, as president and CEO of United to End Genocide, 

he also serves as senior advisor to the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. 

A former congressman from Maine, Tom most recently served as 

national director of Win Without War, a coalition of 40 national organizations promoting a national security strategy that calls for 

prudent use of military engagement. He’s worked to promote democracy throughout the world, is an advocate of human rights in 

Burma, and has worked closely with the national coalition Government of the Union of Burma. 

In the early 90s, he served as general secretary of the Nobel 

Peace Laureate campaign for Aung San Suu Kyi. Tom was elected 

to the Maine House of Representatives in 1982, the Maine Senate 

in 1984, and the United States House of Representatives in 1990. 

We welcome you here, Tom. 

Our second witness will be Jennifer Quigley. Ms. Quigley is the 

executive director for the U.S. Campaign for Burma, where she 

works to ensure international policy makers support the movement 

for freedom and democracy in Burma, provide support for human 

rights and humanitarian needs and seek to bring an end to crimes 

against humanity and impunity in Burma. 

She has worked on the movement for freedom and justice in 

Burma in different capacities for 10 years now. Prior to joining the 

U.S. Campaign for Burma, she worked for the Women’s League of 

Burma and its member organizations on international advocacy 

and capacity building. We welcome you here this afternoon. 

Next, Dr. Wakar Uddin is the director general of the Arakan 

Rohingya Union, chairman of the Burmese Rohingya Association of 

North America and a professor at Penn State University. 

He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Nevada and a Ph.D. from the University of Georgia. We welcome you 

here, Dr. Uddin. 

Finally, Ralph Cwerman, is president and chief executive officer, 

co-founder and board member of the Humpty Dumpty Institute, 

HDI, a private non-governmental organization dedicated to enhancing ties between the U.S. Congress and the United Nations. Under 

Mr. Cwerman’s leadership, the institute has brought hundreds of 

Members of Congress and their senior staff to U.N. headquarters, 

including myself, for private briefings. Previously, Mr. Cwerman 

served as senior vice president of MUUS Asset Management Company, LLC, and senior vice president of the United Nations Association of the United States. Prior to that, Mr. Cwerman served as 

director of research and speechwriter to Ambassador Benjamin 

Netanyahu at Israel’s permanent mission to the United Nations. 

He holds a bachelor’s degree in Middle East studies from Tel 

Aviv University and a master’s degree in international affairs from 

Columbia University. 

We want to thank the entire panel here this afternoon. I will remind you of our 5-minute rule. On the light system, the yellow 

light will let you know you have 1 minute to wrap up, and when 

the red light comes on, please wrap up your testimony. Each of you 

5

has 5 minutes. Congressman Andrews, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM ANDREWS, PRESIDENT, 

UNITED TO END GENOCIDE 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you so very much for holding this hearing. 

Thank you for your very comprehensive statement, Mr. Bera. 

Thank you for yours. Indeed, a humanitarian crisis is underway for 

millions and millions of people in Burma. 

And you covered much of the fundamentals. I’d just like to talk 

about my own personal experience travelling in Burma earlier this 

summer, Mr. Chairman. 

I went to Rakhine State in the west of Burma. I went to central 

and northern area of Mandalay. I visited Meiktila and I also visited 

many neighborhoods in the capital city of Rangoon. 

Throughout my travels I heard stories of violence, of systematic 

discrimination, of isolation and the blanket oppression where every 

aspect of life of so many of these people is tightly controlled by the 

military. 

People describe their life in terms of violence. Their right to move 

from one village to another, even from one street to another, the 

right to earn a living, the right to get married, the right to have 

more than two children, even the right to live with one’s own family is dependent upon the permission of authorities and most often 

only after the payment of bribes. 

Large numbers of people are forced to live in these conditions, 

Mr. Chairman, not because of anything they have done but because 

of who they are and the god that they pray to. 

I found hate speech, a key precursor of genocide, is disturbingly 

prevalent in Burma. Fueling it is the systematic, well-organized 

and well-funded campaign of hatred and bigotry known as 969. 

It is ominously reminiscent of the hateful propaganda directed at 

the Tutsi population and their sympathizers in the lead-up and 

during the Rwanda genocide, and I describe this activity in my 

written testimony, Mr. Chairman, and there’s a photograph I 

brought of one of these rallies to you. 

But let me just quote one of the most prominent leaders of this 

969 movement. When he was asked about Muslims he said this, 

and I’m quoting, ‘‘Muslims are like African carp. They breed quickly, they are very violent and they eat their own.’’ That is a Buddhist monk who is a leader of the 969 movement. 

Mr. Chairman, the authorities in Burma do not want you to hear 

what I’m telling you this afternoon. After being blocked by security 

agents at a roadside checkpoint when I attempted to visit some of 

the neighborhoods and IDP camps I was finally able to get in, and 

here’s what I wrote to some friends and colleagues from inside 

Burma.

‘‘I’m travelling to parts of Burma that the government does 

not want me to see. I now realize why. Yesterday I saw burnt 

buildings and destroyed mosques, met with those who had literally had to run for their lives after watching their homes and 

everything that they had worked for destroyed. 

6

‘‘They now live in abject poverty in makeshift camps, wanting desperately to return and rebuild their village but being utterly terrified to do so. 

‘‘Many told me yes, they are scared of the mobs and the escalating anti-Muslim fearmongering and poison that fuels that 

violence but they fear the Burma security forces and police 

even more. I’ve been running into plenty of these security 

forces. They have stopped, harassed and followed me. 

‘‘Many intelligence agents have interrupted meetings with 

courageous people who are willing to tell me their story. Three 

of these agents followed me yesterday to a meeting of an extraordinary Buddhist monk who had saved hundreds of Muslims from a mob by providing them shelter in his monastery. 

The agent sat in the back of the monastery hall taking notes 

of our conversation. 

‘‘Later I was stopped and surrounded by several security 

forces shortly after passing their compound. They let me pass 

only after I showed them the photos in my camera and trashed 

those that they did not want to leave the country. 

‘‘Yesterday at what I thought was a secret meeting at the 

home of a family of a village wracked by violence a neighbor 

came by to warn us that military intelligence agents were 

waiting across the street. I had four agents following me for 

the reminder of the day.’’

These are some of the obstacles, Mr. Chairman, to learning and 

documenting the truth. 

This is the untold story of Burma, one that is not part of the 

sunny narratives that are so commonplace and it is one that desperately needs to be told. 

I want to congratulate you for giving us this opportunity to air 

the truth that is—that is happening as we speak inside of Burma 

and I provide in some detail my findings in my—in my written testimony. 

But by no means is this simply restricted to my own experience. 

The United Nations special rapporteur, Tomas Quintana, described 

in some detail his experience. He said, and I’m quoting, ‘‘The severe restrictions on freedom of movement in Muslim IDP camps at 

Muslim villages remain in place.’’

He cited the impunity of security forces and the lack of any form 

of justice for the—for the Rohingya. I am desperately—I am deeply 

concerned as you are, Mr. Chairman, of the signals that we are 

sending as a nation. 

By the lifting of restrictions, of lifting the very sources of pressure that provided for the progress that we have seen in Burma, 

I believe this is a very dangerous course and should be reexamined 

and thoughtfully reviewed by this committee and by all. 

I am particularly concerned about the military-to-military relationships and the signals that this is—that it’s sending to the Burmese military who are responsible for egregious human rights violations that continue even as we speak. 

It is very important, Mr. Chairman, that the American public 

and that this Congress see the complete story of Burma and that 

the policies that are in place right now be reexamined so that we 

are sending the right signals to the regime, the right signals to the 

7

military, and the right signals to those people in Burma who are 

living, as you described, this human—this humanitarian crisis day 

in and day out. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:]


82844a-1.eps

Save Darfur Coalition and Genocide Intervention Network are now 

Testimony of the Hon. Thomas H. Andrews 

President and CEO of United to End Genocide 

US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs 

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific 

"An Unclear Roadmap: Burma's Fragile Political Reforms and Growing Ethnic Strife" 

September 19, 2013 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for holding this important public hearing. Despite the well publicized refonns in 

Bunna that led to the election of Aung San Suu Kyi to Parliament, there is a disturbing reality 

there that has remained largely obscured from public view. It is imperative that Congress and the 

American people are aware of this side of the Burma story and that current U.S. policy toward 

Bunna be closely examined in light of it. This hearing is an important and timely step in this 

direction. 

Earlier this summer 1 travelled to Burma to get a first-hand look at conditions there. 1 discovered 

that there are many thousands of people there who are facing hatred, discrimination and violence 

not because of anything that they have done but because of who they are and the God they pray 

to. 

United Nations officials and independent human rights groups have documented direct state 

complicity in ethnic cleansing and severe human rights abuses, the blocking of humanitarian aid 

and incitement of anti-Muslim violence. 

I travelled to Rakhine State in the west of Burma where I visited eight lOP camps and spoke with 

dozens of desperate internally displaced people. I travelled to the central and northern area of 

Mandalay and the city ofMeiktila where T visited neighborhoods and met with many people and 

families who live in fear and desperation. And, T met with many in the capital city of Rangoon, 

where fear and intimidation is on the rise in Muslim communi ties 

1100 17th Street, NW., Suite 500 I Washington, DC 20036 I 202-556-2100 I fax 202-833-1479 

www.endgenocide.org 
8


82844a-2.eps

Throughout my travels I heard stories of systematic discrimination, isolation and blanket 

oppression where every aspect oflife of members of the Muslim minority is controlled. People 

described living in constant fear of violence within their communities and intimidation by 

authorities. The right to move from one village - or even one street - to another, the right to earn 

a living, to get married, to have more than two children and even the right to live with one's own 

family was often dependent on the permission of authorities and most often only after the 

payment of bribes. 

I found that hate speech - a precursor of genocide - is prevalent in Bunna. Fueling it is a 

systematic, well organized and well funded campaign of hatred and bigotry known as "969". It 

follows a well established pattern: 

1) Campaign organizers arrive in a village, distributing DVDs, pamphlets and stickers 

that warn Buddhists that their religion and their country were in peril as Muslims seek 

to eliminate both and establish a Muslim caliphate; 

2) Villages are invited to a special community event to hear a message from venerable 

Buddhist monks about how they can protect their families, nation and religion; 

3) Radical nationalist monks arrive at the designated time and deliver fiery hate-filled 

speeches warning that Muslims are plotting to destroy Buddhism and take control of 

the nation. Villages are encouraged to support the movement by signing petitions, and 

displaying "969" stickers on their homes and businesses. They are encouraged to only 

patronize those who displayed the stickers and boycott any Muslim owned or 

operated business 

The hateful rhetoric of these radical Rakhine monks and the "969" campaign is ominously 

reminiscent of the hateful propaganda directed at the Tutsi population and their sympathizers in 

the lead up and during the Rwandan genocide. Demanding the expulsion of all Rohingya from 

Bunna, these monks urge the local population to sever all relations with not only the Rohingya, 

but also with what are described as their "sympathizers". Labeled as national traitors, those 

Buddhists who associate with Rohingya Muslims also face intimidation and the threat of 

violence. 

Mr. Chairman, T discovered a highly flammable toxic mix of conditions in Burma that can 

explode into massi ve violence and genocide unless action is taken to stop it. 

The Rohingyas are one of the most persecuted minorities in the world. They were effectively 

stripped of their citizenship in 1982 through the discriminatory Citizenship Law. There has been 

little political will to repeal the law as widespread prejudice against Rohingya prevails. The 

government has long restricted their rights to freedom of movement, education and employment 
9


82844a-3.eps

Government restrictions on humanitarian access to the Rohingya community have left tens of 

thousands in dire need offood, adequate shelter, and medical care. 

The authorities in Bunna do not want you to hear what I am telling you this afternoon. After 

being blocked by security forces at roadside checkpoints from visiting lDP camps, I told officials 

that I was a fonner Member of Congress who was in communication with many fonner 

colleagues who were eager to learn about conditions in Burma. This is what I wrote to friends 

and colleagues from inside Bunna soon after I found my way to Muslim minority communities 

and IDP camps: 

I am Irm'e11ing 10 paris of Burma Ihal Ihe governmefll does not wafll me 10 see. I now realize 

why. Yesterday r saw hurnt oul huildings and deslroyed Mosques, mel with Ihose who had to 

literally runfor their lives after watching their homes and everything that they had workedfor 

destroyed They now live in ahject poverty in makeshift camps waming desperately to return and 

rehuild Iheir viffage hul aIm ullerly lerrified Many lold me Ihal yes. Ihey are scared of Ihe mobs 

and Ihe escalaling ani i-Muslim fear mongering and poisonlhalfilels Ihe violence. Bul, Iheyfear 

Myanmar secllrityforces and police even more. 

I have been running into plenty of these security forces. They have stopped, harassed and 

followed me. Military intelligence agents hare interrupted meetings with courageous people 

willing to tell me their stmy. Three of these agents followed me yesterday to a meeting of an 

extraordinary Buddhist monk who saved hundreds of Muslimsfi'om a mob by providing them 

shelter in his monastely. The agents sat in the hack of the monastery hall taking notes. 

Fven more than the anger r haw felt over what r have ohserved, r have heen deeply moved hy the 

courage of the people here - starting with those who have he en willing to translate, drive and 

guide me. Theyfeel so slrongly ahoul Ihe need 10 gel Ihis slory 0111 Ihal Ihey have been Ivi1ling 10 

pullhemsell'es and Iheirfamilies al greal risk - as are Ihe people who are wi11ing 10 meel wilh 

me despite the inlimidaling stares of g'JI'ernmenl agefllS. 

There hm'e been several difficult moments. Iv!)' guide got a call from his ,!'ife as we talked to 

residents ola camp .lor Internally Displaced Muslims a !iring hell that they aptly describe as a 

prison. She was alarmed, telling him that the police hadjust left their house, a warrant had been 

issuedfor his arrest and a search for him was undenvay. With apologies he immediately went 

into hiding. Later 1 was stopped and surrounded by several seclirity/iJrces shortly after passing 

Iheir compound They lei me pass only afler 1 showed Ihem Ihe pholos in my camera and lrashed 

Ihose Ihallhey did nol wanllo leave Ihe counlry. Yeslerday, al whailihoughl was a secrel 

meeling allhe home of afamily in a village wracked by violence, a neighbor came by 10 warn us 

that militwy intelligence agents were waiting across the street. 1 hadfour agents following me 

for the remainder of the day. 

3 
10


82844a-4.eps

1I1ese are only some of the obstacles to learning and documenting the truth here. This is the 

unlold slory of Burma - one Ihal is nol pari of Ihe sunny narraliws Ihal dominale milch (J{ Ihe 

media and official briefings. 11 is one Ihal desperalely needs' 10 be laId 

Nor am T alone in my experience. The United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in 

Burma, Tomas Quintana, traveled to Burma a few weeks ago and was confronted by an angry 

crowd that prevented him from visiting IDP camps in the town of Meikthila. As Quintana said 

"D1C jear that Ijdt during this incident, being left totally unprotected by the nearby police, gal'e 

me an insight into the fear residents would have felt when being chased down by violent mobs 

during the violence last March, as police allegedly stood by as angry mobs beat, stabbed and 

hurned to death some -13 people. " 

I was told that the population of the provincial capital Sitwe was once fairly evenly divided 

between Rohingya Muslims and Rakhine Buddhists. Now, all Rohingya have been moved out of 

the city to camps with the exception of one ward, Aung Mingalar. Over 5,000 Muslims have 

been living there since violence broke out in June 01'2012 Last month, hundreds of Muslims 

were moved trom the Aung Mingalar quarter to the IDP camps. While the government claimed 

the relocation was voluntary, my guide and translator reported that those displaced were very 

unhappy about leaving, worrying that they will lose their support system including access to 

food. His home and family have been moved to Aung Mingalar but he remains confined in an 

IDP camp in Sittwe and is prohibited from leaving, even to visit his family. 

I attempted to visit Aung Mingalar but was turned away by guards who control the movement of 

anyone wanting to enter or leave. Quintana was able to get in, He observed: 

"The severe restrictions onji'eedom of movement in Muslim ITJP camps and villages remain in 

place. 1 visiled Aung Minga1ar, Ihe on1), remaining Mus1im ward in Sithre, where a 1arge number 

ofpeop1e are 1iving in a confined ,space, wilh Ihe periphel)! marked oul with barbed wire and 

guarded by armed poNce ... The poNce and army have noll' laken charge ofsecurilY in R!..,khine 

State, Although there are legitimate security concerns which the police and army are addressing, 

I have received many seriolls allegations of the disproportionate use offorce in dealing with 

large crowd~ of Muslim protestors. The latest incident saw live ammunition used to disperse a 

crowd of Muslims in Sittwe, with two killed and several injured Security jorces need to stop the 

lise a/excessive jorce. " 

In short, what I observed. and what others like Quintana continue to observe, is a dangerous mix 

of isolation, intolerance and impunity, 

The United Nations' Special Rapporteur also cited the impunity of security forces and the lack of 

justice for the Rohingya: 

4 
11


82844a-5.eps

"Sittwe and in particular Buthidaung prison are{illed with hundred~ of M1lslims men and 

women detained in connection with the violence of June and October 2012. Many "fthese have 

been arbitrarily detained and tried ill flawed trials. 1 met the State Chief Justice and urgedfor 

the re.spect of due process of law. The lise of torture and ill treatment, including some cases of 

death, during theftrstthree months of the June outbreak, needs to be property investigated and 

those re,sponsibTe held to account, ,. 

In November 2012, United to End Genocide sounded the alarm on "ominous warning signs of 

genocide" calling on the Obama administration to take strong and immediate steps to stop the 

systematic violence and attacks against the Rohingya Muslim ethnic population of Rakhine State 

in western Burma, 

President Thein Sein had earlier proposed what amounts to the ethnic cleansing of the entire area 

where Rohingya citizens have been settled for generations, He went so far as to request 

assistance from United Nations to remove all Rohingya people from Burma orbe sent to camps 

within the country [Democratic Voice of Bunnaj. While he has since modified how he speaks 

about the Rohingya, the actions of the Bunnese military speak volumes about the failure of his 

government to provide the protection - and recognize the fundamental rights - of this besieged 

ethnic minority, 

The dire conditions faced by the Rohingya people have pushed thousands to flee on overloaded 

boats, It is believed that more than 35,000 Rohingya have fled Bunna by sea and Refugees 

International estimates 785 Rohingya have drowned since October 2012, More will likely try as 

the rainy season ends in October. Matt Smith of Fortify Rights International says, "We're likely 

to see tens of thousands of more asylum seekers take to the sea in coming months," 

Burma has a long and disturbing record in dealing with other minority ethnic and religious 

groups as well. In the past year alone, the Burmese army has bombed civilian areas in Kachin 

State and continued to block international aid from reaching thousands, In March, the UN 

Human Rights Council cited concerns about abuses in Kachin State citing and "arbitrary 

detention, forced displacement, land confiscations, rape and other forms of sexual violence, 

torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as well as violations of humanitarian law," 

Even as government official laud the push for a national peace conference with various ethnic 

groups, violence and abuses have increased in Kachin State over the last two weeks, Trusted 

sources recently told me of killings of civilians there by Burmese military forces, forced labor on 

the front lines of the Bunnese army (forced portering of munitions and rations in northern Shan 

State), soldiers entering villages and destroying property, and the gang rape of Kachin women, 

5 
12


82844a-6.eps

The Burmese government also continues to block humanitarian aid to those in need. On 

September 7'h - just two weeks ago - the UN reported its first aid delivery in two years to the 

key town of Laiza in Kachin state. While an improvement trom nothing, the aid was limited in 

scope and failed to reach many other areas in desperate need. 

Mr. Chairman, your willingness to look behind the good-news narrative of Bunna is 

extraordinarily important for several reasons. The most important was described to me by a 

political operative who works with political party officials, MPs and others engaged in 

government and politics in Bunna. After describing what I had seen, he explained that the issue 

of the Rohingya and Muslim minorities was a "politicallandmine" in Bunna. Prejudice against 

the Muslim minority, particularly the Rohingya Muslim minority is so pervasive, he explained, 

that politicians are very eager to avoid the subject altogether - and certainly not defend 

minorities under attack. Defending the Muslim minority, I was told, would invite attack and 

ridicule by political opponents who would only be too eager to defend Burma and Buddhism 

from radical Muslims. 

This frankly means that the only source of genuine pressure on the military dominated 

government of Bunna - particularly when it comes to the plight of the Muslim minority 

community - is from the outside. And, the single most important source of that pressure is the 

United States. Everyone I spoke with strongly agreed with this observation. 

As I testified last year before this committee: 

"Our recognilion of progress in Burma musl be prudell/ and dear-eyed because Ihefaci of Ihe 

mailer is, a greal deal has not changed ill Burma. The United Stales has played a key leadership 

role in generating and sustaining the illtemational pressure that has been instrumental in 

making the changes that we are witnessing in Burma possible. To ahandon this leverage 

prematurely would he to jeopardize the movement forward that we have seen and condemn those 

who continue to slIffer in Burma more of the same. ,. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am afraid that more of the same is the rule for 

significant numbers of citizens of Burma who continue to be brutalized at the hands of the 

military and military dominated regime. 

The Administration's "calibrated engagement strategy" must be re-examined in light of these 

conditions. This re-examination should include the pace at which sanctions have been lifted 

without substantial progress by the Bunnese government. It was good that President Obama 

acted with an Executive Order to maintain sanctions on the trade of gems, one of the most 

notorious sectors in tenns of links to human rights abuses. It was unfortunate, however, that the 

sanctions up for annual renewal under the Bunna Freedom and Democracy Act were allowed to 

6 
13


82844a-7.eps

lapse. The sad reality is that there are no conditions for the re-imposition of sanctions should 

there be no significant improvements. 

These steps to relax pressure on the regime are sending a dangerous message. The U.S. is 

sending yet another dangerous message as the Pentagon's increases engagement with the military 

of Bunna without any requirements for reform or benchmarks to measure that refonn. Abuses -

tied both directly and indirectly to the military - continue apace without any demands for 

accountability or change. 

The first step in lending legitimacy to the Bunnese military took place last year when military 

officers from Burma were allowed to observe the joint U.S.-Thai military exercises known as 

Cobra-Gold. Over the last two months, U.S. defense legal experts have traveled twice to Bunna 

to meet with Bunnese military officers. And last month the first bilateral meeting of Defense 

Ministers in over 20 years took place when U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel met his 

counterpart from Burma on the sidelines of the ASEAN Defense Ministers meeting in Brunei. 

While the Obama administration argues that these initial steps will help encourage reform, it is 

dangerous to provide ever increasing legitimacy to a military responsible for countless human 

rights abuses before there is accountability and change. Where there is progress there should be 

reward. But where there is back-sliding there must be consequences. Further relations between 

our militaries must be based on standards of conduct. Business as usual should not be allowed to 

continue if these standards are not met. 

Gi ven the ongoing killing of ci vilians, restriction of humanitarian aid and gross violations in 

Kachin State, the severe plight for Rohingyas in Rakhine State, broader anti-Muslim violence, 

widespread displacement caused by pandemic land grabbing, reversible refonns, dominance of 

the military over civilian authorities and remaining political prisoners; the U.S. government 

should insist that the Burmese government make substantial progress in key areas including: 

Ending gross violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law, 

including an end to attacks on civilians in all regions, and the provision of meaningful 

access for international human rights monitors; 

Keeping its pledge to allow the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to establish an 

office in Burma and fully investigate conditions there; 

Entering into meaningful collective nationwide negotiations that lead to a political 

settlement with ethnic minority groups; these should include negotiations over the 

grievances of ethnic nationalities including demands for constitutional decentralization/ 

7 
14


82844a-8.eps

federalism, power-sharing, a fair federal fiscal system and the rights of individual 

minorities including religious, cultural, and linguistic rights; 

Implementing constitutional changes that enable a civilian government to hold the 

military accountable, including reform ofthe judicial system to ensure independence and 

enabling the provision oflegal mechanisms to hold perpetrators of human rights 

violations accountable; 

Drawing upon public participation and civil society input, establishing institutional 

reforms that will effectively hold perpetrators of human rights violations accountable for 

their crimes according to all relevant international legal standards; 

Allowing humanitarian access to people in areas of conflict; including unhindered access 

for humanitarian agencies; 

The unconditional release of all remaining political prisoners and the repeal of laws that 

prohibit basic freedom including freedoms of assembly, speech and press; 

Establishing the rule oflaw, including the creation of an independent judiciary with the 

proper training to fairly and transparently adjudicate cases; 

Ensuring the transparency of all revenues from taxation and the natural resources sector; 

and 

Fully implementing TLO Commission ofInquiry directives to end forced labor 

If Burma fails to meet these criteria, U.S. government should: 

Renew the lapsed sanctions provided for under the Burmese Freedom and Democracy 

Act to send a strong signal to the Burmese government and add pressure on the Burmese 

Army to cease hostilities in ethnic areas; 

Re-impose the ban on investment, retroactive to July 2012, when the restriction were 

lifted; 

Restore the export restrictions on financial services, reverting the conditions of the 

general license issued on April 17, 2012, which makes exceptions for not-for-profit 

activities in basic needs, democracy building, and good governance, education activities, 

sporting activities, non-commercial development projects directly benefiting the Burmese 

people and religious activities. 

8 
15


82844a-9.eps

In addition, the US should support the establishment of an International Commission of Inquiry 

to investigate the recent violence in Arakan state and central Burma as well as abuses in other 

parts of the country including Kachin and Shan states. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 1 understand the desire to declare Bunna a 

success story. I've been working on Burma for decades and want nothing more than to see true 

democratic transformation and an end to human right abuses. But, success isn't marked by 

removing sanctions - it's marked by lasting change for the people of Burma who have endured 

endless sutJering under a brutal military regime. We must choose our next steps wisely. Let us 

reward genuine progress, but let us not condemn the people of Bunna - particularly those living 

in ethnic minority states - to the consequences of a long oppressive military regime that is 

suddenly freed of accountability and consequences for its behavior. 

Again, thank you for holding this extremely important hearing. I am hopeful that it will be an 

important step toward a re-examination and re-setting of U.S. - Burma policy. 

1 am more than happy to answer any questions. 

9 
16

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Andrews. 

Ms. Quigley, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MS. JENNIFER QUIGLEY, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, U.S. CAMPAIGN FOR BURMA 

Ms. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the subcommittee. I’d like to thank you for the opportunity 

to speak today. 

It’s been 2 years since Burma shifted from outright military rule 

to a nominally civilian government. During the first year, President 

Thein Sein surprised the international community with his willingness to engage and implement a series of reforms, culminating with 

Aung San Suu Kyi’s by-election victory in April 2012. 

Many governments, including the Obama administration, responded quickly, rushing to lift sanctions. The human rights community and Burma’s ethnic minorities were sceptical that the Burmese Government was interested in genuine reform. 

Rather, that they would do the minimal necessary to secure the 

removal of sanctions. We cautioned governments not to lift sanctions too soon, considering the constitutional barriers to democratic 

rule, national reconciliation, independence of the judiciary and civilian control over the military. 

Once governments began to lift or suspend their sanctions the 

pace of reform slowed dramatically. Primary focus was placed on 

securing economic benefits from foreign investment and trade. 

In rural and ethnic minority areas land confiscation became pandemic. Farmers and entire communities are being forced off of their 

land by government officials, the military or their business cronies 

in anticipation of lucrative foreign investment partnerships. 

The Burmese Parliament passed laws that legalized land confiscation, taking away people’s ability to legally fight for their land. 

The Burmese authorities’ desire to benefit from foreign investment has led to the breakdown of cease fires with ethnic minorities. The Burmese military broke the cease fire with the Shan 

State Army North in March 2013, attacking them, using villagers 

as forced labor and displacing thousands, all in an effort to clear 

out an area that the Burmese Government had signed a deal with 

a foreign company to build a hydro power dam. 

The Burmese Army continues to break cease fires, calling into 

question the sincerity of the Burmese Government’s commitment to 

national reconciliation. 

Shortly following the euphoria of Aung San Suu Kyi officially becoming a member of Parliament, the human rights situation turned 

from bad to worse. 

Violence broke out between Rakhine Buddhists and Burmese security forces on one side and Rohingya Muslims on the other. In 

the course of a few days, the violence displaced 100,000 people, the 

vast majority of whom are Rohingya Muslims who remain still 

today in squalid internally displaced person camps. 

Burmese authorities destroyed mosques, conducted mass arrests 

of Rohingya Muslims and blocked humanitarian aid to displaced. 

The violence against the Rohingya continue to be fueled by hate 

speech throughout Burma including by government officials. 

17

Alarmingly, many people throughout Burma including prominent 

members of Burma’s democracy movement participated in the hate 

speech against the Rohingya and supported military authority in 

Rakhine State. 

On July 11th, 2012, President Thein Sein told the U.N. High 

Commissioner for Refugees that the only solution for the anti-Muslim conflict is to deport Rohingya to other countries and confine 

them to refugee camps, reminiscent of Hitler’s message in the 

1930s. 

Later that same day, President Obama issued waivers lifting the 

financial and investment sanctions on Burma. The Obama administration’s waiver sent a strong message—meeting human rights conditions and addressing concerns of ethnic minorities are no longer 

a requirement for receiving U.S. investment and relaxing sanctions. 

In September and early October 2012, the U.S. lifted restrictions 

on international and financial institutions’ assistance to Burma 

and invited the Burmese military to observe the prestigious Cobra 

Gold joint military exercises. 

Seemingly emboldened by the international community’s 

prioritization of Aung San Suu Kyi over anti-Muslim policies and 

human rights abuses, the Burmese Government ramped up restrictions on the Rohingya. 

In late October 2012, Burmese security forces carried out an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya Muslims, resulting in 

countless deaths, hundreds of women raped, the displacement of an 

additional 40,000 people and destroyed villages. 

The following month, President Obama waived the majority of 

the Burmese import ban and became the first President to visit 

Burma. With nearly all sanctions lifted and repercussions from the 

international community nil, the Burmese authorities ramped up 

their crackdown on activists and ethnic and religious minorities. 

Less than 2 weeks after President Obama visited Burma, police 

cracked down on nearly 100 protestors using white phosphorous, a 

chemical agent, to burn them. In December 2012 and January 

2013, the Burmese military escalated its attacks against the 

Kachin, for the first time launching air strikes and shelling. 

Shortly after that, the Paris Club of Creditors announced its attention to clear nearly $6 billion of Burmese debt. 

In addition to the lack of a robust response from the international community to allegations of ethnic cleansing and crimes 

against humanity, the Burmese Government’s decades long promotion of Buddhist nationalism, anti-Muslim propaganda, divide 

and rule strategy and system of impunity created an environment 

that fostered anti-Muslim violence. 

Between February and August of this year, anti-Muslim violence 

spread throughout Burma with violence occurring in 23 townships 

across the country. 

The participation and complacency of security forces during the 

attacks, coupled with a lack of justice and accountability for any 

authority figures involved in the attacks, strongly indicates the 

need for an international independent investigation into crimes 

against humanity and a system of impunity to determine who is reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:19 Nov 26, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\091913\82844 HFA PsN: SHIRL
18

sponsible, the culpability of the government and access to judicial 

remedy. 

Without international action, anti-Muslim violence and discrimination will likely continue unabated. The United States must 

change the way it approaches Burma policy. 

During President Obama’s trip to Burma last year, President 

Thein Sein made several promises of reform to address human 

rights issues. Nearly all of those promises remain unfulfilled. 

Clearly, the current approach is not working. U.S. Government 

policy should incorporate and reflect the needs of the most persecuted populations. 

The Burmese Government demonstrated that they relent to 

international demands before you relax sanctions, not after. It 

would be a mistake to continue to offer carrots without first demanding concrete reforms in advance. 

Military-to-military relations should not proceed until the Burmese military demonstrates a genuine interest in reform by stopping all attacks throughout the country in both cease fire and noncease fire areas. 

Training junior officers and soldiers on human rights does not 

address the main problem, that soldiers are committing human 

rights abuses on the orders of their military and political leaders. 

The Burmese military wants a relationship with the U.S. military. Ethnic minority communities want the U.S. to use this interest as leverage to attain concrete genuine reform before allowing a 

relationship to move forward. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Quigley follows:]

19


82844b-1.eps

u.s. House of Representatives 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific 

1444 N Sir",,,,!. :..IW. Suit-.;.'\2 

Hearing: "An Unclear Roadmap: Burma's Fragile Political Refonns and Growing Ethnic Strife" 

Thursday, September 19, 2013 

Testimony of Jennifer Quigley 

Executive Director, U.S. Campaign for Burma 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members ofthe Subcommittee, 

Twould like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the current state of political 

reforms and human rights concerns in Burma. Between July 2011 and April 2012, Burma's 

President Thein Sein surprised the international community when he began a dialogue with Aung 

San Suu Kyi, leader of Burma's democracy movement, and agreed to ease some of the 

restrictions on political parties, paving the way for Aung San Suu Kyi's by-election victory in 

April 2012. Thein Sein released several hundred political prisoners and began ceasetire 

negotiations with ethnic minority groups. Many governments, including the Obama 

Administration, responded quickly to what it perceived to be an astonishing pace of reforms in 

the country, rushing to lift sanctions in an attempt to encourage more reforms and profit from 

Burma's untapped economic potential and resources. 

The human rights community and Burma's ethnic minorities were skeptical ofthe motives ofthe 

Bunnese Government and cautioned governments not to lift sanctions too soon. After all, the 

Burmese Government had not released all political prisoners, the political prisoners who had 

been released, were released conditionally, under threat they could be re-imprisoned to serve the 

remainder of their long prison sentences and the repressive laws used to imprison democracy and 

human rights activists remained. The military showed no signs of reform, in June 2011, shortly 

after the old military regime transfonned itself into a nominally civilian government; they 

attacked the Kachin Independence Army ending their 17 year ceasefire. The attacks against the 

Kachin continued despite calls for a ceasefire by President Thein Sein. Constitutional barriers to 

democratic rule, national reconciliation, independence of the judiciary, and civilian control over 

the military are firmly in place. 
20


82844b-2.eps

Once governments began to suspend or lift their economic sanctions in April 2012, the pace of 

refonns slowed dramatically. With the exception of token political prisoner releases that 

immediately proceed or follow President Thein Sein's travel abroad or visits from Heads of State 

to Burma, to garner international good will, little political refonn has taken place. Primary focus 

was placed on securing economic benetits from foreign investment and trade. Tn Rangoon and 

Mandalay, Burma's largest cities, there was optimism around the economic benefits of foreign 

investment and trade but in rural and ethnic minority areas, land confiscation has become 

pandemic. Farmers and entire communities are being forced off their land by government 

officials, the military, or their business cronies in anticipation of lucrative foreign investment 

partnerships in extractive sectors, plantation agriculture, special economic zones, and industrial 

parks. The Burmese Parliament has passed two laws that legalize land confiscation, the 

Farmland Law and the Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Land Law taking away people's ability to 

legally fight for their land rights. 

The Bunnese authorities desire to benetit from more foreign investment has led to the 

breakdown of ceasefires with ethnic minorities. The Burmese military broke the ceasefire with 

the Shan State Army - North in March 2013, attacking them, forcing civilians to tlee, using 

villagers as forced labor, as human shields and land mine sweepers, all in an effort to clear out an 

area that the Burmese government had signed a deal with a foreign company to build a 

hydropower dam. The Burmese Army continues to break ceasefires, calling into question the 

sincerity of the Burmese Government's commitment to national reconciliation. 

Shortly following the euphoria of Aung San Suu Kyi officially becoming a Member of 

Parliament and the proclamations to lift sanctions, Bunna's human rights situation turned from 

bad to worse. In June 2012, on the western coast of Burma, in Arakan/Rakhine State, violence 

broke out between the Rakhine Buddhists and Burmese security forces on one side and Rohingya 

Muslim on the other. In the course of a few days, the violence displaced 100,000 people, the 

vast majority of whom were Rohingya Muslims who remain still today in squalid internally 

displaced persons (IDP) camps. Government authorities and Rakhine worked together to 

physically destroy the buildings in the emptied Muslim communities in Sittwe, ensuring that 

IDPs could not return. Meanwhile, the anny dug pits and dumped the bodies ofRohingya people 

in mass graves outside TDP camps near SiUwe and throughout the state. Burmese authorities 

destroyed mosques, conducted mass arrests of Rohingya Muslims and blocked humanitarian aid 

to displaced Rohingya Muslims. The violence against Rohingya continued to be fueled by hate 

speech throughout Burma, including by government officials Alarmingly, many people 

throughout Bunna, including prominent members of Burma's democracy movement, 

partici pated in promulgating hate speech against the Rohingya and demonstrated support for 

military authority in ArakanlRakhine State. On July 11,2012, President Thein Sein told UN 

High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Antonio Guterres that the "only solution" for the 

anti-Muslim conflict is to deport Rohingya to other countries or to confine them to UNHCR 

refugee camps. "We will send them away if any third country would accept them," he said. Such 

lanb'llage is directly reminiscent of the Nazi's 1930's recommendation that the "solution" for 

Gennany's Jewish "problem" was for other nations to take the Jews otfGermany's hands. The 

UNHCR promptly rejected Thein Sein's proposal, saying that Rohingya could not be refugees in 

their own nation. Later that same day, President Obama issued waivers lifting the financial and 

investment sanctions on Bunna 
21


82844b-3.eps

The Obama Administration's waivers sent a strong message; meeting human rights conditions 

and addressing concerns of ethnic minorities are no longer a requirement for receiving US 

investment and relaxing sanctions. In September and early October 2012, the US lifted 

restrictions on international tinancial institutions assistance to Burma and invited the Burmese 

military to observe the prestigious Cobra Gold joint military exercises in February 2013. 

Seemingly emboldened by the international community's prioritization of Aung San Suu Kyi and 

the partial release political prisoners over anti-Muslim policies and human rights abuses against 

ethnic minorities, the Burmese government ramped up restrictions on the Rohingya. In late 

October 2012, Burmese security forces and Rakhine Buddhists carried out an ethnic cleansing 

campaign against the Rohingya Muslims resulting in countless deaths, hundreds of women 

raped, the displacement of an additional 40,000 people and destroyed villages. The following 

month, President Obama waived the majority of the Burmese import ban and became the first US 

President to visit Burma 

With nearly all sanctions lined and little to no repercussions from the international community to 

the ethnic cleansing ofthe Rohingya, the Burmese authorities ramped up their crackdown on 

activists and ethnic and religious minorities. Less than two weeks aner President Obama visited 

Burma, during the night, police attacked nearly 100 land rights protestors, farmers and their 

supporters including Buddhist monks, who had their land confiscated and farms destroyed by a 

joint government - foreign investment copper mine, burning them with white phosphorous, a 

chemical agent In December 2012 and January 2013, the Burmese military escalated its attacks 

against the Kachin, launching air strikes and shelling in Kachin State. On January 25, the Paris 

Club of creditor nations announced its intention to clear nearly $6 billion of Burmese debt, 

constituting 60% of Burma's total debt 

Tn addition to the lack of a robust response from the international community to allegations of 

ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity against religious and ethnic minorities, the 

Bunnese government's decades-long promotion of Buddhist Nationalism, anti-Muslim 

propaganda, divide and rule strategy, and system of impunity created an environment that 

fostered anti-Muslim violence. Between February and August 2013, anti-Muslim violence that 

had previously been isolated to ArakanlRakhine state spread throughout Bunna, with violence 

occurring in 23 townships across the country. In one particularly vicious incident, in Meiktila 

Township in central Burma, Physicians for Human Rights documented the massacre of 32 

students by Buddhists and local authorities after hunting them down during the night An MP, 

the police commissioner, security forces, and hundreds of Buddhists watched on as a group of 

men calculatingly murdered the students one-by-one. The pits where the students' bodies were 

burned had been pre-dug, indicating the planned nature of the attack Contrary to some 

assertions that the violence was spontaneous, patterns have emerged to suggest there is 

organization behind the attacks. The participation and complacency of security forces during the 

attacks, coupled with a lack of justice and accountability for any authority tigures involved in the 

attacks, strongly indicates a need for an international independent investigation into crimes 

against humanity and the system of impunity to determine who is responsible, the culpability of 

government, and access to judicial remedy. Without international action, anti-Muslim violence 

and discrimination will likely continue unabated. 
22


82844b-4.eps

Tn total, more than 250,000 people have been displaced and more than 10,000 homes destroyed 

in the last two years. We are concerned the majority, ifnot all, of those displaced, particularly 

the Rohingya, will never be allowed to return home but will be forced to live in ghetto like 

conditions in IDP camps. We have received reports that Kachin IDPs in Government controlled 

areas have been approached to sign documents agreeing not to return to their land. Both the 

Rohingya and Kachin lDPs originate from areas that can provide lucrative foreign investment 

opportunities, adding another level of concern to how the international community must avoid 

exacerbating the existing human rights crises. Continued neglect of the human rights and ethnic 

conflict will prove detrimental to any chance for national reconciliation and genuine democracy 

in Bunna. 

The United States must change the way it approaches Burma policy. US government policies 

should incorporate and reflect the needs of the most persecuted populations in Burma. The 

Burmese government has demonstrated that they relent to international demands before we relax 

sanctions not after. It would be a mistake to continue to offer 'carrots' without first demanding 

concrete reforms in advance. Military to military relations should not proceed until the Burmese 

military demonstrates a genuine interest in reform by stopping all attacks throughout the country 

in both ceasefire and non-ceasefire areas. Trainingjunior ofticers and soldiers on human rights 

does not address the main problem, that soldiers are committing human rights abuses on the 

orders of their military and political leaders. The Burmese military wants a relationship with the 

US military and the legitimacy and prestige the relationship conveys, ethnic minority 

communities want the US to use this interest as leverage to attain concrete genuine reform. 

This applies to trade benetits as well. The US should not grant Burma, Beneticiary Developing 

Country status under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) until the Burmese 

Government makes concrete progress in addressing child labor, including child soldiers, forced 

labor, inadequate labor laws and protections, and land confiscation and rights. We should not 

allow thousands of products from Burma to be imported to the United States duty free if they 

were produced on contiscated land, or connected to human rights abuses, forced labor, labor 

violations or child labor 

Ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, torture, sexual violence, extrajudicial killings, and 

forced displacement are taking place in Burma. Domestic attempts at investigation, including 

the Rakhine Commission Report, have no call for justice or accountability, nor has the Burmese 

government provided adequate attempts at stopping violence or holding leaders accountable. It 

is time for the international community to establish an international independent investigation 

into ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Without international pressure, human rights 

abuses will continue unabated. 
23

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Uddin, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WAKAR UDDIN, PH.D., DIRECTOR GENERAL, 

THE ARAKAN ROHINGYA UNION 

Mr. UDDIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving me 

the opportunity——

Mr. CHABOT. Hit the mike here. Thank you. 

Mr. UDDIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving me 

the opportunity to testify before the Foreign Affairs Asia Subcommittee. I would like to start with the the post-election political 

situation in Burma the past 2 years. 

The political climate in Burma has not fundamentally improved 

for over the past 2 years, despite great expectations by the people 

of Burma and the international community for a genuine change. 

The junta’s strategy of maintaining the status quo was effectively 

implemented through the national election in 2010. The impact of 

this false democratic process has disproportionately impacted the 

ethnic minorities including Rohingya, Kachin, and Myanmar Muslims over the Burmans and Bamma. 

The military juntas in position of its apartheid policies for 

Rohingya such as travel restrictions, marriage restrictions, land 

confiscation, deprivation of education, deprivation of freedom to 

worship, closure of places of worship is still continuing. 

In fact, there has been further tightening of these recently in 

Arakan/Rakhine state. Currently, there are some elements within 

the Burmese Government colluding with the Rakhine/Arakan state 

officials to make IDP—the internally displaced people—camps permanent or semi-permanent. 

The media is still not free for all people. Certain groups of people 

enjoy these rights more than others who has connection to the Burmese Government. Rakhine National 

Democratic Party—RNDP—in collusion with some segment of 

the Burmese Government as well as the Ministry of Immigration, 

has recently introduced legislation in the Parliament to launch a 

reinvestigation into Rohingya MPs and their ancestral backgrounds. 

These Rohingya MPs have been elected legally in the election in 

2010. About U.S. administration’s easing sanctions, I think the administration has moved very quickly to ease the sanction and relax 

the sanction. 

We believe that this is very shortsighted. The relaxation of the 

sanctions should have been more gradual, firmly incremental with 

benchmarks. The Burmese Government should meet each expectation by the international community before the second bar may be 

lifted. 

About military-to-military relations—the relationship with 

Burma, I am not a military strategist who can provide a detailed 

analysis of proposed military-to-military relations between Burma 

and the United States. 

However, as a concerned citizen knowledgeable enough about the 

Burmese military establishment, I strongly urge our Government 

to avoid military relations with a government that is guilty of the 

worst crimes of our time. 

24

Establishing this relationship is way far too premature, we believe. About the growing conflict between the majority Buddhist 

and the minorities, the conflict between Buddhist and Muslim populations are overwhelmingly one sided. 

Although this is termed as conflict, it is truly not a conflict. It 

is an attack on the minority by the majority. It is one sided. 

It’s backed by the Burmese forces, as we have seen that on videos and on the Internet, on other news media coverage. Denial of 

basic rights, systematic discrimination against Rohingya by the 

Burmese Government created the fertile ground for nationalist 

Rakhine leadership and radical Buddhist monks to instigate fresh 

violence against Rohingya that has now spilled over to mainland 

Burma. 

About the implication of this conflict, the Burmanization policy, 

which is the purity—the ideology of purity of race and religion in 

Burma that has been there, the central part of this problem—situation in Burma, the violence against Rohingya and Burmese Muslims is part of a pattern of ultra nationalism led by the 969 movement and spearheaded by this monk. 

Monk Wirathu has—is spearheading that and Time Magazine 

has extensive coverage. So has other major newspapers of the 

world. This cannot be allowed. This Myanmar Government cannot 

remain silent on this. 

Myanmar Government must take—investigate this and stop 

this—the terror network—969 terror network—which is clearly 

committing all this violence and instigating violence through hate 

speech. 

Recently, the Burmese Government in coordination with the 

Rakhine State officials reportedly designated Rohingya prisoners as 

nonpolitical prisoners. In recent days, hundreds of Rohingya prisoners from eight, 11, 12 to 60, 65 quickly sentencing them to life 

imprisonment or long terms—20, 30 years in jail for committing violence or instigating violence. 

In fact, these people are the victims of violence who has lost their 

homes, their business, some losing family members. Achieving national reconciliation with the ethnic group is not as complex as 

Myanmar Government has portrayed. It is simple. 

It is achievable. It is within the reach. Myanmar Government is 

very powerful. It has strong influence on Rakhine ethnic groups 

and Myanmar Government key a central role—a powerful role—

can play a powerful role to mediate the reconciliation if it comes 

to the middle and play a central role as a true and sincere conciliator. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Uddin follows:]

25


82844c-1.eps

120 Meawdowview Drive, State College, PA 16801, USA; (814)777-4498; dg@arunion.org 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and 

the Pacific Hearing: "An Unclear Roadmap: Burma's Fragile Political Reforms and 

Growing [thnic Strife." 

Thursday, September 19, 2013 

Suhmitted hy 

Dr. Wakar Uddin 

Director General 

Arakan Rohingya Union 

The post-election political situation in Burma 

The political climate in Bunna has not fundamentally improved over the past two years, 

despite great expectations by the people of Burma and the international community for a genuine 

change, after half a century of dictatorial rule. The national election in October 2010 was largely 

manipulated by the military establishment and was deemed neither free nor fair by both the 

international community and people of Burma. The most significant example of this is the 

continuing grip on power that the ruling junta maintains. The junta's strategy of maintaining the 

"status quo" was effectively implemented through the national election in 2010. An 

overwhelming number of military hardliners in the junta simply shed their unifonns to continue 

their grip on power as civilians without changing their philosophy of governance. In fact, the 

"transition to democracy" has been used as a vehicle to drive the hardliners' agenda in central, 

state, and local government. The parliament has a significant number of members from the 

military establishment, and while it discusses national issues, and these debates are not genuinely 

reflects democracy. 

The current Bunnese government's path to democratic reform is reminiscent of the 

Revolutionary Council of the fonner military regime's "Bunnese way to socialism" in the 1960s. 

Then, the junta used the "Burmese way" as a tool for ruling the country with a dictatorship 

philosophy. Today, the military-dominated government is again manipulating the "transition to 

democracy" to fulfill its agenda that is rife with strategies for deprivation of ethnic minority 

rights. In its socialist ideology in the past, the regime's military apparatus used "guns and forces" 

to deprive ethnic minorities of their rights. Similarly, today the military-dominated government 

uses the so-called "people's desire" to abuse ethnic minorities through humiliation and terror. 

The hardliners in the government use radical monks as tools to mobilize the Buddhist Burmese 

population in support ofBunnese Buddhist nationalism through the preaching of hate and 

bigotry against ethnic and religious minorities. The best example of this is the apartheid-style 

campaign known as "969" led by the monk Ashin Wirathu, the self-ascribed "The Bunnese Bin 

Laden" who international media and analysts have called "The Face of Buddhist Terror". It is 

shocking that Ashin Wirathu has touted to the international media "I am proud to be the Burmese 

Bin Laden", while the Burmese Government remains silent. Furthermore, there is no Buddhist 
26


82844c-2.eps

voice of conscience except probably that ofU Gambira, leader ofthe Sam-on Revolution, who is 

condemning ethnic cleansing against Rohingya. Although the primary targets of the "969" 

network are the Rohint\ya and Burmese Muslims, it may not take much longer for the Buddhist 

nationalist movement to turn their fire and machetes against the Christian Kachin and other 

ethnic and religious minorities. 

The impact of the false democratic process has disproportionately impacted the ethnic 

minorities including Rohingya, Kachin, and Myanmar Muslims over the Burmans (known as 

Bamma in Burmese language), the ruling class/ethnicity of the military. The overwhelming 

majority of political prisoners who were released, including Noble Laureate Daw Aung San Suu 

Kyi, were Btjrman. Today there are over a thousand Rohingya prisonersofconscience 

lant\uishing in various prisons throughout Rakhine/Arakan state. Recently, the Burmese 

government in coordination with Rakhine State and local otlicials reportedly designated the 

Rohingya prisoners as non-political prisoners. Although the overwhelming majority ofRohingya 

prisoners have been arrested arbitrarily without charges, recently many have been falsely 

charged with inciting violence or participating in violence against Buddhist Rakhine. But the vast 

majority of these Rohingya prisoners were in fact the victims of violence by Rakhine mobs 

backed by Burmese forces, particularly the Rakhine police and Nasaka force (now reconstituted 

as the Lon Htein force). Many of the Rohint\ya prisoners have lost their homes, property, 

businesses, and in some cases, family members. The reason for suddenly bringing charges 

against the Rohingya prisoners is to exclude them from inclusion in the "political prisoner" 

category because the Burmese government has reportedly been working on releasing political 

prisoners due to mounting international pressure. In recent days, hundreds of Rohingya prisoners 

(ages 12 to 60+), have been sentenced to life imprisonment or extended terms such as 20, 17, 10, 

and 7 years. 

The military junta's imposition of its apartheid policies for Rohingya such as travel 

restrictions, marriage restrictions, land confiscation, deprivation of education, deprivation of 

freedom to worship, closure of places of worship, confiscation of national registration cards 

and/or evidence of ancestral residency, and non-issuance of birth certificates, have not changed 

during the past two years. In fact, there has been further tightening of these impositions on the 

Rohingya in recent months in Rakhinel Arakan state. The Burmese government has made clear its 

intentions to rid Bunna of Rohingya Muslims not only through policy but also through public 

statements. President U Thein Sein reportedly told UNHCR that all illegal Rohingya should be 

sent away to a third country or kept in camps because they are a national security threat. 

Currently, there are some elements within the Burmese Government colluding with 

Rakhine/Arakan state otlicials to make the internally displaced persons (lDP) camps pennanent. 

A segregation policy in Rakhine/Arakan state is reportedly being developed, though segregation 

is already being imposed by means of Muslim ghettos and lDP camps. Currently, there are 

nearly 140,000 Rohingya in IDP camps in Rakhine/Arakan state and some thousands in central 

Burma. The long and deep-rooted ethnic cleansing policy based on hate and bigotry against 

Rohingya by Burmese government otlicials has even spilled over to Burmese communities and 

diplomatic missions overseas. The description of Rohingya by a diplomat in the Burmese 

mission in Hong Kong as "ugly as ogres" is not very diplomatic. Such expressions go a step 

beyond the commonly used derogatory term "Kala" (used to describe people with physical 

features similar to those of Indian descent) that is used against Rohingya by the general Burmese 

society. The government currently uses "Bengali" for Rohingya, which is also a derogatory term. 

Among the ethnic minorities, Kachin nationals have also suffered among the worst 

human rights violations over the past two years. During one brutal offensive, the Bunnese Army 

reportedly killed hundreds of innocent Kachin ci vilians during Christmas and New Year 
27


82844c-3.eps

celebrations in 2012. The ongoing peace dialogue with the Kachin Independence Organization 

(KIO) is not genuine; it is another insincere overture to the Kachin people and the international 

community by the Burmese government in an effort to secure the lifting of the remaining US 

sanctions while the Burmese military continues its attacks. 

The Burmese government has etTectively lured the international community into its 

business/investment schemes with the opportunity to profit from its unexplored natural resources 

in the country. It has shown the international community some cosmetic changes such as 

relatively more freedom of the press. However, the media is still not free for most people. 

Certain groups of people enj oy these rights more than others due to their connections or 

influence over the local or central government. For example, journals owned by cronies or 

people whose interests are somehow not contrary to the political interests of the government are 

allowed to write or produce most anything they wish. Some media operations such as Eleven 

Media, the Voice, and others have taken advantage of the freedom of press and have promoted 

hate propaganda against minorities such as the Rohingya and Burmese Muslims. For example, 

Eleven Media is responsible for publishing false news against Rohingya. Their journalists 

cooperated with Burmese police forces that shot Rohingya and Myanmar Muslims. Although 

Rohingya MPs are elected lawfully from the Rohingya community, the Rakhine National 

Democratic Party (RNDP), in collusion with the Burmese government and the Ministry of 

Immigration, has introduced legislation in the parliament to launch a re-investigation into the 

Rohingya MPs' ancestral background. Rohillb'Ya political parties are at risk as the RNDP leaders 

and Immigration Minister are jointly working on an amendment to the political parties 

registration law to block Rohillb'Ya from forming political parties and electing MPs in tuture. 

Obama Administration easing sanctions and overall engagement with 

Burmese Government 

The Obama Administration has moved too quickly in easing the sanctions on Burma. We 

believe that moving too quickly to ease sanctions is shortsighted. The relaxation of the sanctions 

should have been more gradual and finnly incremental with benchmarks. The Burmese 

government should meet each expectation by the international community before the second bar 

may be lifted. Despite the US Administration's apparent engagement with the Burmese 

government in good faith, the Burmese government has failed to deliver on promises that it has 

given to the United States and the international community. Most of the refonns by the Bunnese 

government have been superficial and partial, benefiting mainly the ruling Burman class in 

central Burma. Very little to none of the ethnic minority issues have been concretely addressed 

by the Burmese government despite its rhetoric geared toward ensuring the international 

community that the government is serious about solving ethnic minority issues. 

The Burmese government is maneuvering in the international arena to have it both ways: 

maintaining the traditional strong ties with the Eastern bloc, particularly China, and also 

attempting to improve relations with the West in order to have sanctions lifted, particularly those 

implemented by the United States and Europeans. The ruling hardliners in the government 

remain as deceptive as they were during the reign of the military junta by showing off their 

"openness" and "market-oriented emerging economy". For example, the Burmese government 

has failed to find a solution to the Kachin crisis despite assurances given to the international 

community. Meanwhile, the number of internally and externally displaced Kachin persons has 

reportedly increased dramatically during the past two years to over 100,000. 
28


82844c-4.eps

The plight of the Rohint,'ya people dates back to 1962; however, they experienced the 

worst violence and bloodbath in Rakhine/Arakan state in 2012 and 2013. The violence and 

massacre of Burmese Muslims in central Burma in 2013 follow the anti-Muslim attacks in 

central Burma in 2001,2003, and 2006, but this year's attacks were far more dramatic. Another 

piece of evidence for the Burmese government's dishonesty about reforms is its move to release 

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and then disqualify her from running in the national election. President 

U Thein Sein's letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, addressing 

the citizenship issue of the Rohingya before the visit of President Obama to Rangoon is another 

example of the government's attempt to buy time and silence the international community. But 

this resulted in the government's ongoing hostile verification program that has motivated 

massive arrests and torture of Rohingya people who refuse to write "Bengali" in the verification 

form. 

The government's failure to properly address escalating human rights abuses in 

Rakhinel Arakan State and Kachin State is at least in part the result of the untimely and rapid 

relaxing of sanctions by the Obama Administration. The superficial changes in Burma primarily 

affecting only the ruling Burman class were a clever way ofluring the Obama Administration to 

lift all the sanctions. Each time a sanction is lifted without verifying genuine change in Bunna, or 

requiring the Burmese government to meet a pre-condition, the leverage that the US government 

has maintained for so long is wasted. 

United State's military-to-military relations with Burma 

T am not a military strategist who can provide a detailed analysis of proposed military-tomilitary relations between Burma and the United States. However, as a concerned citizen 

knowledgeable about the Burmese military establishment, I urge the US government to avoid 

military relations with governments guilty of some of the worst crimes of our time. Establishing 

military-to-military relations between the United States military and Burmese armed forces 

would be premature. This should not be on the table at this stage of Burma's development The 

rapid move by the Obama Administration in relaxing sanctions is a perfect example of a counterproductive strategy that prioritized rushing to reward the Burmese government without actually 

holding the government accountable for its actions. The military institution in Burma has abused 

civilians for the past half a century through brutal crackdowns on democracy activists, 

democratically elected officials, and vulnerable ethnic minorities. Further, empowering the 

military despite its long and ongoing record of human rights abuses by allowing it to build 

relations with Western military institutions is an outright insult to the democratic values of 

respect for human rights and human dignity in Burma. The Burmese government has not proven 

that it has made tangible progress in showing respect for ethnic minorities and human dignity, 

and these should be very basic preconditions before military-to-military relations are allowed. 

It is understandable that some officials maintain that we should be realistic about our 

expectations for the democratic reform process in Burma; however, what has been achieved in 

Burma is too little over a two and a half year time span and the government has failed to deliver 

on most of its rights-based promises while capacitating more otTensive attacks against ethnic 

minorities despite purported "ceasefire agreements" and while escalating crackdowns on 

religious and ethnic minorities and activists across the country. The United States' military 

cooperation with the Burmese forces will not significantly help counter Burma's relations with 

China; it is rather another distraction from establishing basic rights for ethnic minorities, human 

rights for all citizens, and addressing lawlessness and impunity, violence against minorities, and 
29


82844c-5.eps

massive arrests in minority areas. Again, the abuses against the Rohingya and Kachin are good 

examples of human rights violations by the military and government forces in regions that it says 

it governs lawfully. 

In Kachin State, the Burmese military has reneged on its agreement with the Kachin 

concerning a peacetul settlement of the war. In Rohint\ya areas in Rakhine/Arakan State, the 

Burmese government could have prevented the violence against Rohingya through its security 

apparatus with massive military force as it did during the handling of the uprising of monks in 

central Burma. The Burmese government did not have the willpower to protect the Rohingya 

from violence by Rakhine mobs backed by BurmeselRakhine police forces The US State 

Department's 2013 report on human trafficking shows that the Burmese military is keeping 

Rohingya women as sex slaves on bases in Arakan State. Given ongoing violations and systemic 

impunity, military-to-military relations should not yet be part of the policy equation. Military-tomilitary relations should be paused until the Burmese government gives basic rights to ethnic 

minorities in both legislation andpractice. The rhetoric of peace and stability coming out of 

President's Thein Sein's office in Nay Pyi Taw is not actual government policy or practice. 

The growing conflicts between the Majority and the Minorities 

Conflicts between Buddhist and Muslim populations are overwhelmingly one-sided 

attacks on the small Muslim minority by the Buddhist majority that have been backed by 

Burmese security forces The root of this problem is the systematic ethnic cleansing policies 

adopted by the first military junta in 1962. Then the Revolutionary Council of the military 

regime along with the Rakhine leadership had largely disregarded the fact that the Rohingya are 

an indigenous population ofRohang region of Rakhine/Arakan State, with their history predating Burmese rule of the region. The ultra-nationalist vision of the Rakhine leadership 

centered on making the State emblematic of a single race and religion - a vision that the 

Burmese government has also long perpetuated. 

The government has historically devised strategies to conduct systematic ethnic cleansing 

in Rohingya areas. Operation Nagamin (Dragon King) in the late 1970s and Operation Galong (a 

mythological bird symbolic of Burmese nationalism) were some of the government programs 

that aimed to drive Rohingya people off of their land by accusing them of being illegal Bengali 

migrants. These operations resulted in many deaths and widespread destruction ofRohint\ya 

property and forced many Rohingya into Bangladesh, where they were confined to camps or 

even pushed into areas with no infrastructure at all by the unwelcoming Bangladesh government. 

The Burmese government cleverly used this logic of "Bengali" or "Kala" by conflating the 

Rohingya with immigrants trom the Indian subcontinent to Burma during the British colonial 

rule. The five-decade-long denial of basic rights and systematic discrimination against Rohingya 

by the Burmese government created fertile ground for nationalist Rakhine leadership and radical 

Buddhist monks to instigate fresh violence against Rohingya that has spilled into Burmese 

Muslim areas across Burma. 

The Implications of the conflict on ending inter-ethnic conflict and national 

reco n cilia ti 0 n 

The violence against Rohingya and Burmese Muslims is part of a pattern of ultraBuddhist nationalism led by the 969 movement spearheaded by the radical Burmese monk 

Wirathu and his supporters. The ideology of hate and bigotry of the 969 extremist movement 
30


82844c-6.eps

aims to "purify" Bunnese society. The movement has gained popularity across the country; 

however, it is unlikely that the great maj ority of its supporters actually know the real agenda of 

the movement. The average Burmese citizen is naturally not an initiator of any kind ofviolence 

at individual level, but as evidenced in Arakan State, Meiktila, Okkan, Lashio, and Sagaing 

Division, normal people can be mobilized by radical religious leaders who are revered highly by 

the average Buddhist Burman. 

Goals of the 969 movement include not only violence but apartheid and segregation, an 

imposition of a ban on inter-faith marriages, boycotting Muslim owned business, reducing the 

Muslim population, and the eventual elimination of Muslims from Burma. The Burmese 

government has largely ignored the hate speech and instigation of violence by the 969 movement 

that has resulted in killings of Rohinl,,'ya and Burmese Muslims and has instead bolstered the 

movement by praising its leader Wirathu. 

The inter-ethnic cont1icts in several ethnic regions in Burma have been a serious issue for 

Burma since independence in 1948, and there was never a meaningful peace between the 

government and many of the ethnic groups despite sporadic ceasetire agreements or peace talks. 

The "Bunnanization" policy of the Burmese government has been the primary cause for warfare 

in ethnic areas for the past several decades. The "Bunnanization" is primarily a government's 

ideology of "purity" of race, language, and religion of people of Burma by imposing that of the 

Burman's (Bamma's) on ethnic minorities that do not have much in common with the ruling 

class, Burman (Bamma), in these attributes. True peace and stability in ethnic minority areas are 

unattainable unless the Burmese government recognizes equal social and political justices for all 

the ethnic groups. 

Achieving national reconciliation with the ethnic groups is not as complex as the 

Burmese government has painted it to be. In the past, military hardliners envisioned national 

reconciliation to be powerful enough to pose some sort of threat to the military's power. This is 

particularly true for Rakhinel Arakan State where unity between ethnic Rakhine and Rohingya 

has been deemed a threat to military rule; therefore, the government capacitated nationalist 

Rakhine leaders to mobilize the ethnic Rakhine population against the Rohingya. Actually today, 

ethnic reconciliation in Bunna is within the reach and the Burmese government holds the key to 

this. Reconciliation between ethnic Rakhine and Rohingya can be achieved within a short period 

of time as the government has tremendous int1uence on nationalist Rakhine leadership. The 

Burmese Government must abandon its hostile policies against the Rohingya and position itself 

in the middle with neutrality. The government could choose to be the facilitator for dialogue 

between ethnic Rakhine and Rohingya for peace, stability, and communal hannony in 

Rakhine/Arakan State. But the Bunnese government appears to have delegated this to minor 

parties on the ground while staying in the background and continuing to perpetuate anti-Muslim 

policies and even call for the deportation of the Rohingya, even while knowing that most 

Rakhine refuse even to talk to Rohingya. The Rakhine who are willing to talk with Rohingya are 

subj ect to harsh intimidation and threats from their own community. Dialogue with the potential 

to bring true and lasting peace, stability, and communal harmony in Burma must be tripartite (i.e. 

Rakhine, Rohingya, and Burmese government) facilitated by international mediators. 
31


82844c-7.eps

Recommendation to the Government of the United States for its response to 

the escalating human right abuses 

1) Sustain the momentum and step up the efforts by the State Department in developing 

comprehensive strategies to find a solution for Rohingya, Kachin, and other ethnic groups. 

2) Stop relaxing or lifting sanctions until the Burmese government meets preconditions, and 

reverse the previous relaxing of sanctions as the government has refused to halt violence 

against minorities 

3) At the United Nations, the US should continue to press the European Union to include 

language in the UN General Assembly Burma resolution this fall that includes calls for the 

establishment of international independent investigation into allegations of ethnic cleansing 

of the Rohingya and anti-Muslim violence and discrimination and the system of impunity for 

these serious crimes. 

4) The Administration should maintain Burma's "country of particular concern" or CPC 

designation for 2013 because there continue to be egregious and serious religious freedom 

restrictions that coincide with sectarian and societal violence targeting Muslims and ethnic 

minority Christians and military campaigns in ethnic minority areas. 

5) Abolish or amend the military's 1982 citizenship law to be compatible with international 

norms and human rights standard. 

6) Demonstration by the Burmese Government that rights for Rohingya, Kachin, and other 

ethnic minorities have been tully given before considering any military-to-military relations. 

7) Mediating a national political dialogue between the government of Burma and ethnic 

nationality groups, including Rohingya, with the primary goal of building a successtul 

federal system in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious Burma. 

8) Burmese Government provides international relief groups and media unfettered access to all 

violence-aflected areas in Rakhinel Arakan and Kachin states. 

9) Establishing independent inquiries into the status of the Rohingya, to evaluate their historical 

claims to citizenship and assess the root causes of ethnic and sectarian violence in Rakhine 

(Arakan) State. 

10) Burmese Government takes concrete actions against radical elements, including the monks 

preaching hate. 

11) Burmese Government outlaws the radical Buddhist 969 network and its activities and hold 

those individuals accountable who incite violence, either in speeches or online, against 

Muslims or other ethnic groups. 

12) Creating programs to counter anti-Rohingya and anti-Muslim sentiment in the Burmese 

population, specitically focusing on undermining fears of "religious extremism" and 

"exaggerated Muslim birthrates", which dri ve popular support for a Rohingya and Muslim 

exclusion campaign. 

13) Placing those who instigate, carry out, or publicly support anti-Rohingya and anti-Muslim 

violence and discrimination on the US. Treasury Department's Specially Designated 

Nationals (SDN) list, including Buddhist monks, organizers of the "969" anti-Muslim 

exclusion campaign, and government or other officials. 

14) President Thein Sein officially retracts his statement to UN officials that the Rohingya people 

are national security threat, and they should be transferred to a third country or kept in 

camps. 

15) Expedited return of the displaced persons from IDP camps to their respecti ve homes and 

properties with full protection provided to them by the Burmese Government. 
32


82844c-8.eps

16) Burmese forces immediately cease night-time raids of Rohingya households, the massive 

arrests of Rohint,'ya men, and sentencing them to life or long j ail terms. 

17) President Thein Sein nulls and voids the unjust and unlawful sentencing of Rohingya to life 

or long jail terms. 

18) Burmese Government re-classify the Rohingya prisoners (over a thousand) scattered in jails 

throughout Rakhine/Arakan state as political prisoners. 

19) Burmese Government returns all the residency and nationality documents confiscated from 

Rohingya by the Burmese authorities overtime since 1962. 

20) Burmese Government removes arbitrary regional regulations on Rohingya restricting travels 

locally or nationally, requiring permission to marry, deprivation of education and freedom of 

worship, confiscation of lands, rejection in employment in government, and others. 

21) Burmese Government otIicially renounces the two-child policy adopted for Rohint,'ya only. 

22) Burmese Government allows international monitors, specially US and UN, for the 2015 

national election. 
33

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Cwerman, you’re recognized. Before you start, could I ask 

Dr. Uddin, what’s the edition or what is the date on the Time Magazine that you referred to in case other people might like to know? 

Mr. UDDIN. This is July 1st, 2013. It is a non-U.S. edition. It’s 

an edition for Europe, Middle East, Asia and Africa. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Very good. It’s July 1st of this year? 

Mr. UDDIN. July 1st of 2013. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. In case the staff want, to get it or any of the 

folks in the audience today. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Cwerman, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. RALPH L. CWERMAN, PRESIDENT, THE 

HUMPTY DUMPTY INSTITUTE 

Mr. CWERMAN. Chairman Chabot, Representative Bera, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for——

Mr. CHABOT. If you could hit the mike there just——

Mr. CWERMAN. Is that better? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. 

Mr. CWERMAN. Thank you very much for the opportunity to give 

testimony here today. As you mentioned, we do have a lot of interaction with Capitol Hill in our program with the U.N. 

But as the president and chief executive officer of the Humpty 

Dumpty Institute, we also do a lot of international development 

work around the world. 

Mr. CHABOT. For those in the audience, the title is unusual. 

Would you explain where the title comes from? We won’t take this 

out of your time. 

Mr. CWERMAN. Sure. We were in the—I was with some colleagues in the back of a truck in Rwanda a few weeks after the 

genocide there and these were people who wanted to try to change 

things. 

And we were in the back thinking about how we could create an 

effective small organization that would do good work around the 

world and we all came up with the tag line of putting the pieces 

back together because things were so broken. And it is also a very 

memorable name. Lots of people forget—don’t forget it. 

When there are 10,000 NGOs that are affiliated with the U.N. 

you have to try to find a way to keep people remembering what 

you’re doing. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. CWERMAN. As I mentioned, we have this program with the 

U.N. and Members of Congress but we also do a lot of development 

work around the world. 

We build schools, provide medicine, construct health clinics, feed 

children, clear land mines and UXO. We dig wells, we put up latrines, we plant gardens, we grow fruit orchards and we organize 

local business opportunities for indigenous populations. 

I’m here today because we do some work in Burma and I want 

to come to you with my perspective from boots on the ground, from 

the actual development work that we’re doing there, from our 

unique partners with whom we work and with whom we’ve engaged and from the many, many people that I have talked to and 

run across during my travels throughout the entire country. 

34

My general impression is that most of the Burmese who I have 

talked to are absolutely extraordinarily thrilled by the speed and 

substance with which change and reform continues to take place in 

Burma. 

The Humpty Dumpty Institute was the first American NGO to 

begin a land mine program and a mine risk education program in 

Burma that was funded by the State Department. 

It is a huge problem in Burma. And also through this program 

we developed a very close and official relationship with one of the 

most important Buddhist organizations in the country. 

The name of that organization is the Sitagu Association under its 

very, very influential leader, the Venerable Sitagu Sayadaw. He 

has and his organization has provided humanitarian support to 

millions of people throughout Burma. 

They have a network of clinics and hospitals all over the country. 

He’s raised hundreds of millions of dollars for disaster relief in 

Burma and his national food deliveries are very well known. 

The Sitagu Sayadaw’s interfaith work is also very well known 

around the country and the region. For our program, we worked 

and partnered with the—this organization and we chose to work in 

Kachin. 

That, of course, is the province very troubled, bordering China 

with a Christian majority. 

It is the only state where there is current fighting taking place, 

resulting in the displacement of large numbers of people and the 

landmine problem there is huge and unchecked and actually very 

little is still known about it. 

Very little if any international support is reaching this area and 

our organization chose to start working there because the need 

there was the greatest. 

On my last trip to Burma, I spent an evening with Monsignor 

Francis Tang, the Roman Catholic bishop of Kachin, Sitagu 

Sayadaw and a few other people. 

We had a very, very interesting conversation about Burma and 

its future and this conversation continues to be a deep source of optimism for me. 

We were 15 kilometers away from the border of China. We could 

hear mortars falling as we were speaking. Despite these very, very 

dire circumstances, these religious leaders that I was meeting with 

are very enthusiastic and very excited about the future. 

They work with one another. They talk to each other constantly 

and believe that Burma is heading in the right direction. There are 

very, very serious bumps and bruises that are very painful along 

this path of reform. 

But the incredible progress made over the past 2 years has 

opened the doors to freedom and democracy for the people of 

Burma. 

It has infused the population with hope and optimism for a better life for themselves and for their children. This process, in my 

view, is irreversible and these religious leaders have come to rely 

on this country, the United States and you, to be strong partners 

and leaders to help guide their country along the path to democracy and rule of law. 

35

In terms of the sectarian violence between the Buddhist majority 

and the Muslim minority, the situation, as we have all heard, remains tense and serious. The vast majority of the victims here are 

Muslim. 

The displacement of these people and the violence directed toward them must be stopped. The perpetrators of this violence must 

be brought to justice and at the end of the day religious tolerance 

and the pursuit of interfaith cooperation must be a priority in 

Burma. 

There are Roman Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Muslims and 

Hindus. Freedom of worship is guaranteed by law and in practice. 

In major cities, pagodas, churches, mosques, Hindu temples are 

often side by side. And for any of you who have been there, there 

is an actually wonderful synagogue that is functioning in Yangon. 

Many of Burma’s religious leaders believe that the BuddhistMuslim violence has been stirred up by a handful of Burma’s 

500,000 monks and that the overwhelming majority of monks support interfaith cooperation and want to see an end to this violence. 

U.S. assistant—USAID has a very robust program in Burma and 

is making a lot of headway. In the interests of time, I just want 

to end by saying that freedom—that religious tolerance, again, that 

there are many opportunities for efforts led by the State Department’s Office of Religious Freedom to bring the different religious 

communities of Burma together in common cause to advance the 

nation’s march to full freedom and democracy and the rule of law. 

Buddhist, Christian and Muslim communities should all benefit 

from working together to solve problems through stronger collaboration and cooperation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cwerman follows:]

36


82844d-1.eps

Congressional Testimony 

"An Unclear Roadmap: Burma's Fragile Political Reforms and Growing Ethnic Strife" 

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific 

September 19, 2013 

Oral Statement by Ralph L. Cwerman, President, The Humpty Dumpty Institute 

Chairman Chabot, Ranking Member Faleomavaega, Representative Bera, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am 

very grateful for your continued interest in how US policies and assistance can help the 

government and people of Burma build a peaceful, strong and stable democracy in which 

freedom and prosperity is available to aiL 

I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Humpty Dumpty Institute, a private nonprofit organization engaged in humanitarian activities around the world. We implement largescale agricultural development programs, organize school-feeding programs, deliver healthcare to women and children in very remote areas of the world through mobile medical clinics, 

and provide opportunities for the most vulnerable people - single women who head 

households, ethnic minorities, and the disabled - to pull themselves up from despair through 

unique livelihood assistance programs. Our signature program around the world, however, 

remains our land mine and UXO clearance programs, as well as our Mine Victim Assistance and 

Mine Risk Education programs. We build schools, provide medicine, construct clinics, feed 

children, clear landmines and UXO, dig wells, put up latrines, plant gardens, grow fruit orchards 

and organize local businesses. As the tagline of the Humpty Dumpty Institute indicates, we 

work hard to "put the pieces back together". 

Today, I am delighted to add my views on Burma to those of the expert witnesses who are 

present here. My perspective on Burma comes from "boots on the ground" -from the actual 

development work in which we have engaged, from our partners who are helping us with these 

projects, and from the many people across the country with whom I have t<llked ,md who are 

extraordinarily thrilled by the speed and substance with which change and reform continues to 

take place in Burma. 

The Humpty Dumpty Institute was the first American NGO to begin a Mine Victims Assistance 

and a Mine Risk Education Program in Burma that was funded by the State Department. And 

through this program, we also became the first American NGO to develop an official and close 

partnership with one of the most important humanitarian Buddhist organizations in Burma, the 

Sitagu Association. Under its influential leader, the Venerable Sitagu Sayadaw, this Buddhist 
37


82844d-2.eps

organization has provided humanitarian support to millions of people throughout Burma. The 

Association's network of 20 eye clinics around the country, its disaster relief work, and its 

national food deliveries serves all Burmese, regardless of ethnic group or religion. And the 

Sitagu Sayadaw's interfaith work is very well known around the country and region. 

The Humpty Dumpty Institute, with the support of the Sitagu Association, selected Kachin State 

in Burma's far north to set up its landmine programs. Bordering China, and with a Christian 

majority, Kachin State is one of Burma's most troubled provinces and today remains the only 

State where fighting is currently taking place, as is the displacement of large numbers of 

people. The land mine problem in Kachin is considered to be one of the fastest spreading 

problems in the country. And there is little or no assistance available for the people of Kachin. 

Very little, if any, international support is reaching this area. Our organization chose this place 

to begin our work because this is where the need was greatest. And no other international 

landmine organization was working in that area. 

On my last trip to Burma, Monsignor Francis, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Kachin, Sitagu 

Sayadaw and I spent the better part of an evening talking about Burma and its future. This 

conversation continues to be a deep source of optimism for me. We were 15 kilometers away 

from the frontline of fighting between Government and Kachin Forces. You could hear the 

mortar shells. But despite these rather dire circumstances, both religious leaders are 

enthusiastic about the future and strongly believe that Burma is heading in the right direction. 

There may be serious and painful bumps and bruises along the way, but the incredible progress 

made over the past two years has opened the doors to freedom and democracy for the people 

of Burma. It has infused the population with hope and optimism for a better life for them and 

their children. This process is irreversible and these religious leaders, both of whom met with 

President Obama during his visit to Yangon earlier this year, have come to rely on the United 

States as a strong partner and leader to help guide their country along the path to democracy 

and rule of law. 

In terms of the secretarian violence between the Buddhist majority and the Muslim minority, 

the situation remains serious and tense. Approximately 250 people have died since June 2012 

and more than 200,000 people are still displaced by last year's violence. The vast majority of 

these victims are Muslim. The displacement of these people and the violence directed towards 

them must stop. And the perpetrators of this violence must be brought to justice. At the end 

ofthe day, religious tolerance and the pursuit of interfaith cooperation must be a priority in 

Burma. 
38


82844d-3.eps

Buddhism is, of course, the religion of the majority ofthe people of Burma. But there are 

Roman Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Muslims and Hindus as well. Freedom of worship is 

guaranteed by law and in practice. In major cities, pagodas, churches, mosques and Hindu 

temples are often side by side, affirming that religious tolerance has a strong foundation in 

Burma. There is even a long established functioning synagogue in Yangon. Many of Burma's 

religious leaders believe that the Buddhist-Muslim violence has been stirred up by only a 

handful of Burma's 500,000 monks and that the overwhelming majority of monks support 

interfaith cooperation. In addition, there are three very recent events that give cause for hope. 

1. Recent news reports from Burma indicate that religious leaders from the Buddhist and 

Muslim communities have signed a "peace" agreement. 

2. Senior leaders from both communities are also engaged in a series of on-going meetings 

since May to promote interfaith cooperation. 

3. A government-appointed body that oversees Burma's Buddhist monks has issued a 

directive intended to end a monk-led movement accused directing the violence against 

minority Muslims. 

US assistance to Burma has begun. USAID has opened an office in Yangon and is evaluating 

different sectors of the Burmese economy. The organization has a plan and it seems to be 

working. USDA has announced that it is working with the private sector, academic institutions, 

and civil society to expand collaboration in the following priority areas -- democracy, human 

rights, and rule of law; transparent governance; peace and reconciliation; health; economic 

opportunity and food security. USAID has spent nearly $200 million so far, but much more is 

needed and is well worth the investment. At the same time, other departments within the 

executive branch must also join the effort. I make three personal recommendations here: 

1. Landmines: The relevant Congressional Committees might want to consider some 

additional funding for the State Department's Weapons Removal and Abatement office. 

Burma faces one ofthe most severe land mine problems in the world today. Altogether, 

ten of Burma's 14 states suffer from some degree of mine contamination, primarily 

from antipersonnel mines. The most recent figures available (2008) suggest that mine 

accident rates in Burma are in fact amongst the highest in the world, only surpassed by 

Afghanistan and Colombia. It has been reported that millions of people live in 34 minecontaminated townships and more than 10,000 survivors are in need of immediate 

rehabilitative care. There are huge challenges here. Unfortunately, a particularly 

3 
39


82844d-4.eps

difficult period of violence in Kachin State a few months ago led to a suspension of u.S. 

funded assistance for this State. With a more stable environment taking hold, I hope 

this assistance can be restarted soon. 

2. Agriculture: The US Department of Agriculture should place Burma on the eligibility list 

for both "Food For Progress" and "Food for Education" programs as soon as possible. 

Both programs could do very well in Burma and there is a strong propensity among local 

civil society organizations to initiate large scale agricultural development immediately. 

3. Religious Tolerance: And finally, there are many interesting opportunities for efforts, 

led by the State Department's Office of Religious Freedom, to bring the different 

religious communities of Burma together in common cause to advance the nation's 

march to full freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Buddhist, Christian and Muslim 

communities could all benefit by working together to solve problems through stronger 

collaboration and cooperation. 

For its part, the Humpty Dumpty Institute will continue to assist Burma through a series of 

development and assistance programs. Our Institute recently organized a shipment of vital 

medicines, valued at a quarter million dollars, to the Kachin State Hospital and other clinics. 

We are also continuing our relationship with the Sitagu Association and planning a major 

medical assistance program in which American physicians will work with hand-in-hand with 

Burmese doctors to carry out special eye-care surgeries throughout the country to all segments 

the population. We also hope to restart our mine victims' assistance project in Kachin State. 

In conclusion, a successful transition to democracy and freedom in Burma will be a very long 

and hard journey. And the Burmese nation faces massive and critical challenges in the years 

ahead. The democratic government in Burma is just two years old. And the political and 

economic reforms that have already taken place have been quite extraordinary. Still, Burma 

has much to learn and do in order to overcome the challenges ahead. It is a very poor country. 

There are very few job opportunities. It has little experience with democratic practice, norms 

or values. Burma today is at a critical stage in its history. It is making relentless efforts to 

achieve social and economic progress. At this juncture, when it comes to U.s. support and 

assistance for Burma, the prescription is "full speed ahead". Strategically, Burma can become a 

significant ally to the United States in a volatile region ofthe world. Burma needs the 

understanding and cooperation of the United States and the international community now 

more than ever. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

4 
40

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. We’ll go ahead and start 

questions. At this time, I’ll recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

First of all, I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony 

this afternoon. I thought all of them were really excellent. As I expressed in my opening statement, it’s my belief that U.S. military 

engagement with Burma, at this time, is premature. 

There’s no doubt that the Burmese military wants the U.S. to engage because it will bring them the legitimacy and prestige that 

most other countries have. I think most of you today, according to 

your testimony, shared that concern. Unfortunately, the administration seems to really have turned a blind eye to congressional 

concerns and has continually refused our invitations to testify before the subcommittee about its plans. 

Congressman Andrews, let me start with you first. You stated in 

your testimony that ‘‘further relations between our militaries must 

be based on standards of conduct.’’ I agree, and I believe benchmarks need to be established. Ms. Quigley, I know you mentioned 

benchmarks should be used as conditions before the U.S. continues 

engagement with the Burmese military. Could you describe what 

benchmarks you think should be established before the U.S. proceeds militarily with the Burmese? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just say, first of all, the impunity has to stop. Those who 

have committed these gross human rights violations, and they’re 

very well documented, need to be held to account. There has to be 

an international investigation of these atrocities. 

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights—the President 

of Burma promised our President that he would allow an office to 

be opened and permanently operating to investigate these atrocities. That still has not happened. 

So first of all, impunities. Secondly, civilians need to be in control 

of the military in Burma. That’s not the way it is today. 

Aung San Suu Kyi, as you know, 2 years ago ran the table in 

the elections and her reward was to get 5 percent of the seats in 

the Parliament. The military, on the other hand, are guaranteed 25 

percent of the seats in Parliament, an effective veto over whatever 

happens there. 

So civilian control needs to occur. The air strikes on civilian populations has to stop and those responsible for ordering those strikes 

need to be held accountable. 

I talked with someone 2 days ago who just returned from Kachin 

State and he says attacks on civilians, sexual violence, destruction 

of property by soldiers continues to go on to this very day. 

He said he had evidence. He saw it just the other day—use of 

child soldiers. Burma has pledged not to use child soldiers but they 

continue to recruit children as young as 12 years old into the military. 

This is not rocket science. There are fundamental codes of conduct that need to be established and it seems to me that if we’re 

going to be engaging in military-to-military relations we should 

first establish these benchmarks based upon these factors. 

Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that just last month was the 

first bilateral meeting of defense ministers in over 20 years when 

U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel met with his counterpart 

41

in Burma on the sidelines of the ASEAN defense ministers meeting. 

These send dangerous signals. To have these atrocities going on, 

to have the military directly implicated in these atrocities and for 

us to be engaging in further and further military-to-military engagement without benchmarks I think is dangerous. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Quigley, let me go to you next, if I can. The U.S. Ambassador 

to Burma said that during his last visit to Kachin State, people 

were approaching him, begging the U.S. to talk to the military, to 

work with them and thanking the U.S. for sending the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies teams to Burma. 

Now, you stated in your testimony that ethnic minority groups 

want the U.S. to use the military’s interest in engagement as leverage to attain concrete genuine reform. At the same time, my understanding is that civil society and ethnic groups believe this type of 

engagement has come too soon. Would you explain why we’re hearing these two competing messages and which one should guide U.S. 

policy? 

Ms. QUIGLEY. Yes. We’ve been well aware that the administration has wanted to pursue military-to-military engagement for several months. This actually became a big focus of mine when I did 

my trip to Burma earlier this year. 

I also was in Kachin State. I was in Rangoon and I was on the 

Thai-Burma border and we made sure to ask everyone we met with 

what it was that they wanted, being well aware that some of them 

had already been approached by the U.S. Government. 

When the U.S. Government approached whether that be Ambassador Mitchell or somebody on a State Department delegation, the 

question that the communities are asked are would you like our 

military to train your military on human rights—you know, international humanitarian law and international human rights and 

people are, like, yeah, that’d be great, and there’s no follow-up 

questions. 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. 

Ms. QUIGLEY. When I ask, do you want the Burmese military to 

have done something first?, their response is, oh, of course. They 

just assumed that the U.S. would place a precondition on militaryto-military engagement. 

We then got into conversations and it’s an ongoing one now that 

we’ve had for several months is well, what do you want those preconditions to be. They’ve laid out across multi-ethnic groups, not 

just Kachin but Kachin, Karen, Shan, sort of you name it—the idea 

is they have to demonstrate they have an interest in reform by 

stopping the attacks. 

The Burmese military has done nothing so far to show that they 

are actually interested in reform. They feel as if that should be the 

most immediate of precursors to future engagement. 

They also want—and this one is a bit bigger—they want troop 

withdrawal. That is the biggest. It’s why refugees don’t want to return home. 

It’s why IDPs won’t return home. The Burmese Army is there, 

they don’t want to be where the Burmese Army is. And so they feel 

42

as if the U.S. Government has that opportunity to use this leverage. In fact, they want this relationship to be used to get that. 

Then, of course, they have—that’s just for human rights training. 

If you get onto the idea of any other: Attending Cobra Gold next 

year, other joint military trainings, they have a whole slew of preconditions that they want and we’re working with them right now 

to present that to Congress and to present that to the administration. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Thank you, Chairman Chabot. 

Congressman Andrews and Mr. Cwerman, both of you in your 

opening comments referenced Rwanda and also referenced genocide. 

Can you expand on that in terms of what you’re seeing when 

you’re in Burma and, you know, what that context is? And then 

also what we can do to certainly help avoid that because none of 

us wants to see another Rwanda take place. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Bera. It’s an excellent question. 

I was in Congress when the genocide of Rwanda was going on, 

and when I visited Rwanda I literally sat down as I was at one of 

the memorial centers where 250,000 people are buried and asked 

myself, my God, where was I when all this was going on—where 

was I when the true warning signs and signals of a genocide were 

in place? 

It’s very clear to me as president of United to End Genocide that 

the building blocks of genocide are being—are in place in Burma 

right now and the hate speech, the fear and intimidation, the isolation, the severe restrictions on people, the violence against people, 

the sending off of people to camps where they’re totally isolated 

and totally controlled, all of this is a precursor to genocide and the 

building blocks of hate. 

And, you know, someone has described this as inter-ethnic violence. You know, I believe that it’s much more than that. 

When you have the complicity documented by the United Nations, for example, and the special rapporteur—complicity of the 

state and the military in these acts then there’s a very, very serious problem that needs to be addressed and no country in the 

world is better positioned to influence the situation than the 

United States. 

Everyone that I talk to when I mentioned this said unequivocally 

of all the nations in the world the United States is in the strongest 

position. 

Mr. CWERMAN. Thank you. I—as the son of two Holocaust survivors and someone who has had extensive experience visiting different sites where genocide has occurred, I don’t think that such 

a foundation is laid in Burma. 

I have not seen it. I have talked to many, many political leaders. 

I have talked to many religious leaders. Yes, there are human 

rights abuses. 

Yes, there is injustice going on. But you have to remember that 

this is—this process of democratic reform is only 2 years old and 

there are going to be, as I mentioned, lots of problems and lots of 

43

challenges that both the government will—that the government 

will have to face over the course of the next many, many years. 

And yes, there is—of course, our role as the United States to help 

guide them, help influence them onto all of the issues that and positions that have been talked about here. But I want to emphasize 

that this is not some national movement. 

There are many, many people who are Buddhist who are opposed 

to the violence. There are people who are opposed to many of the 

human rights abuses that—in other areas. But at the same time, 

the leaders of these communities are talking to one another. 

There have been a number of meetings since May between Muslim leaders and Buddhist leaders to bring an end to the violence 

and, certainly, there is a very close relationship between the leaders of Kachin and many prominent Buddhist leaders as well. 

Mr. BERA. Would you say that most of the violence is confined 

to the Buddhist community and the Muslim community or are you 

seeing it across all the ethnic minorities? 

Mr. CWERMAN. No, there’s conflict going on in Kachin along the 

Chinese border where government forces are fighting with the 

Kachin independent army and they—there is, I think though, much 

more to it than that. 

There are strategic areas. But they have come in with a much 

heavier engagement—the use of airplanes, for example. But at the 

end of the day, there is a lot of interaction between Kachin and the 

rest of Burma. 

Leaders are talking and there is, I believe, a reason to be hopeful 

and a reason to be optimistic. 

Mr. BERA. Because I’m going to run out of time I would just—

the second part of the question is what should the United States 

Government do to address this and, you know, help—give Burma 

the best possibility and——

Mr. CWERMAN. Yes. Well, I believe somewhat differently than the 

rest of the panel. I believe that the relationship should be deepened. 

I think more investment in the country is necessary and that all 

sorts of entanglements and more relationship should be built on 

every level in development, in, of course, democracy reform because 

if we don’t do it there’s no one else who’s going to do it and it’s 

our role and obligation to do so. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Holding, is recognized 

for 5 minutes, unless he’d like to defer to the gentleman——

Mr. HOLDING. I’m going to——

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. We’ll recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much. 

And Mr. Chairman, I’d like to express my appreciation to you for 

holding this hearing. 

Burma has for many years been very symbolic of the issues of 

freedom that are challenging civilization throughout the world. 

And shortly after I was elected to Congress the first time I ended 

up going into the jungles in Burma and meeting with the students 

who had just been involved with a revolt against the military junta 

44

that were—and they were being—chasing them through the jungles 

and mortaring their villages. 

These were unarmed groups of young people who were college 

students, basically. And since that time, they finally found refuge 

in the areas of the Karen and the Karenis and the border tribal 

peoples. 

And since then all these years, all these 25 years, there’s been 

this ongoing murder of innocent people by the Government of 

Burma that made it a pariah of the nations of the world, of course, 

probably except of the Chinese who were using the Burmese junta 

as their puppets. 

They were indeed doing the bidding of the Chinese and have got 

to such a point that it was too much for even the Burmese military, 

and that’s why I think they’ve started in the right direction. 

Although what we’re hearing about today should be a warning to 

all of us who felt that things were beginning to go in the right direction—that they are not necessarily going to go in the right direction unless we continue to be engaged in a very positive way and 

forceful way. 

U.S. military engagement, Mr. Chairman—as you have stated, 

U.S. military engagement with the Burmese Government at this 

time because of what we’ve heard at this hearing today is clearly 

premature unless we are to be taken—unless it is to be taken as 

excusing the type of abuses that we have heard spoken about and 

detailed today. 

There should be no—especially there should be no military cooperation with the regime until the major atrocities being committed against the Muslim population ceases. 

Otherwise, it will be seen by the people who are committing the 

atrocities as a green light to go and murder innocent people and 

it will be seen by people throughout the world as hypocrisy on the 

part of the United States because of our ready willingness to condemn Muslims anytime they are committing such acts of violence 

and atrocities against other peoples. 

There has been ethnic cleansing over these years that I have 

been in Congress that’s very easy to identify. Where did the word 

ethnic cleansing come from? It came from Christian Serbs exterminating communities of Muslims in the Balkans, intentionally doing 

that. 

We now have a Buddhist ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Burma, 

just as we have seen Hindu ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the 

Kashmir. 

None of this excuses any Muslim for killing any unarmed person 

anywhere in the world. But if we’re going to reach out to the Islamic community on this planet and tell them that they are not 

meeting the standards of civilization by backing the radicals among 

their own religious faith who are committing horrible acts of terrorism against unarmed people throughout the world, we’ve got to 

make sure that when Muslims are the victims we stand up for 

them as well, and nowhere is that clearer than here in Burma. And 

let us note now about others, yes, the Muslims are being attacked. 

But from my sources of information the attacks, especially air attacks on the Karenis and the Karens and the other ethnic groups 

along the border, continues. 

45

And if they—if it is indeed then there’s been reform and they’re 

heading toward more freedom in Burma, well, then those air attacks should have ceased a long time ago. Any air attack on a portion of Burma by the Burmese military is an admission that the 

repression of peoples in Burma continues. 

We must be strong about it. I hope this hearing delivers that 

message, Mr. Chairman, to the Burmese military that we don’t expect a big announcement and then we’re going to walk away and 

let them have their way. 

No, they made a big announcement that they’re changing direction. We must see a continued movement in the right direction and 

not continued atrocities and human rights abuses. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. We don’t necessarily need a 

response. I don’t think there was a question in there. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Holding. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Picking up on the role of the Burmese military, I mean, obviously 

it’s ingrained into the rule of the country of Burma. 

We know that any future constitutional reform or elections are 

going to have to have the Burmese military on board, and the Burmese military is reported as one of the top militaries in the world 

in terms of size. 

But, you know, as far as to their exact budget and the spending 

on the Burmese military we don’t know that. Now, while this lack 

of transparency is a big concern given Burma’s neighbors, I think 

before the United States needs to—before we move any closer to 

military-to-military cooperation we need to ensure that the Burmese military does not have excessive ties with China and North 

Korea or those ties are severed. 

So which one of you on the panel could elaborate for us exactly 

what are the ties that the Burmese military has with the Chinese 

or North Korea? 

Ms. QUIGLEY. We won’t be able to undo the extensive ties between the Chinese and the Burmese military. They are linked both 

militarily through—they have been the largest weapons supplier, 

the largest arms dealer for the Burmese military for decades. 

They are also economic partners. The Burmese military owns 

very large economic holdings in Burma and that’s predominantly 

who the Chinese do their business with, particularly in the extractives and the energy sector. 

And so untangling the military, political and economic relationship between the Burmese and Chinese is, I think, an unattainable 

goal. 

I think it’s one that the U.S. is trying to slowly pull the Burmese 

away from the Chinese and I think that’s one of the primary reasons of our engagement policy. 

I think that the U.S. feels as if there is a greater potential to remove them from a relationship with North Korea, which includes 

a transfer of weapons and technology—missile technology. 

And then there is concern potentially about a nuclear relationship. The Burmese Government did just sign the additional protocol and will be allowing IAEA into the country. 

46

And so there is some promise, I would say, on trying to at least 

ascertain the nuclear relationship between Burma and North 

Korea, and several shipments have been stopped. Weapons shipments have been stopped from North Korea to Burma. 

I think that that actually was the focus of Secretary Hagel’s 

interaction with the Burmese defense minister was to try and more 

successfully pull them away from the North Koreans. 

Mr. HOLDING. So how—what are the ways or what ways are we 

using and what ways would you suggest for driving a wedge between the relationship between Burma and China? 

Ms. QUIGLEY. Well, to be honest, I think that the first thing that 

the U.S., I think, is trying to achieve is to separate the Burmese 

military from economic activity. 

And so if you separate the Burmese military from economic activity you separate an economic relationship that they have with the 

Chinese. And so——

Mr. HOLDING. So how do you do that? 

Ms. QUIGLEY. Well, at the moment the U.S. has said that if you 

want to invest with—if the Burmese military and their economic 

holdings want to invest with the Americans, which they do, that 

they have to divest. 

The Burmese military has to go from being an economic power 

inside Burma to being a professional military in Burma. 

And so we’re holding out sort of like I guess you’d consider it like 

we’re dangling the carrot—that if they divest that they would have 

more of a relation—that the Burmese military would benefit more 

from a relationship with the United States. And so they’re——

Mr. HOLDING. On a military level if they divested their economic 

holdings and so forth that——

Ms. QUIGLEY. Yeah. One of the administration’s criteria for the 

Burmese military to, say, be taken off our sanctions list is to divest 

their economic holdings and so that would be one way in which 

they would be able to pull them away from the Chinese because the 

military would then no——

Mr. HOLDING. Is there anything that we’re not doing that you 

would suggest would be a way to drive a wedge? 

Ms. QUIGLEY. I think we should be more engaged when it comes 

to the ethnic negotiations that are taking place. The Chinese have 

a predominant role. 

So most of the fighting that’s taking place is happening on the 

China border with the Shan, the Palaung and the Kachin, and the 

U.S. has resolutely stayed out of those negotiations whereas the 

Chinese have played a very active role. 

And I’ve—we have suggested that these communities have actually asked the U.S. to actively participate in the negotiation process 

to—so that therefore the Chinese don’t have as much control as 

what happens in those regions in the country. 

Right now, that’s primarily a relationship between the Burmese 

military, the Chinese and those ethnic groups. And so those ethnic 

groups have actually asked that the U.S. Government become a 

more active player in those negotiation processes as a counterbalance to sort of neutralize the role that the Chinese have in that 

region of the country. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

47

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you for your remarks. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. Let me make a remark—a chairman’s prerogative 

here. 

I think sometimes there’s a tendency in this country—I may be 

seeing this under this administration. I don’t want to be too harsh 

with them because you see it occasionally, I think, throughout history—where it’s natural for an administration to do this. I think 

they look for foreign policy successes wherever they can find them 

and I think initially, with respect to Burma, it looked like this was 

going to be a tremendous success story. If it happens under your 

watch you get some credit for it, so I think there was perhaps a 

rush to put a happy face on Burma and be very optimistic about 

the outcome, do a lot of positive things, give them everything, and 

hope that everything would go well. 

Unfortunately, we’ve seen that there are still tremendous challenges in Burma in addressing human rights abuses. The military 

is still literally killing people, and so I think it’s appropriate for us 

to reconsider our policy there and to move forward in a more cautious manner, making sure that our actions and our outreach will 

actually have a positive effect and not just reward bad behavior. 

I don’t think, Dr. Uddin, we actually directed any questions to 

you, so I would give you this opportunity, if you would like, to perhaps comment on anything that you heard here this afternoon. 

Mr. UDDIN. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity 

again to make a statement. 

I want to emphasize on ethnic minority issues where I’m—I’ve 

been working as an ARU director general the rights of the ethnic 

minorities, particularly the Rohingya issue. 

Currently, Ambassador Derek Mitchell has been working very 

diligently on this Rohingya issue, trying to work—find out the solution for these Rohingya people. 

So I think we should continue that path through State Department’s effort working on this. But, you know, the biggest problem 

we are having right now with the Rohingya issue is what Myanmar 

Government—Burmese Government says from Naypyidaw is not 

consistent what’s happening on the ground. 

The more conciliatory talk, sometimes very negotiable talks coming out of Naypyidaw. Each time that happens you see more violent—more violence on the ground in Arakan State. 

There seems to be a disconnect between what’s happening on the 

ground and what’s coming out of Naypyidaw. So in terms of the 

community led by the United States, the most powerful country in 

the world, you need to take a look at that. 

Where is the missing gap? What’s happening? Is that signal coming from the Napyidaw to the forces on the ground to continue to 

commit this horrendous violence against Rohingya or they are a 

breakdown of law and order? 

So I think that’s one thing—that’s something that I want to ask 

our Government to pursue that the security of the Rohingya people 

are addressed by the Myanmar Government because this took 

place—Rakhine State is the place which the Myanmar Government 

governs. 

48

So there has to be law and order. It cannot be a lawless state 

in Burma where the Myanmar Government is governing that region. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

I’d like to thank all the panel members this afternoon for their 

excellent testimony and responses to the questions. 

I think you do a very, very good job in a particularly important 

country in the world right now that really does need a lot of focus. 

I would ask unanimous consent that members have 5 days to 

supplement their comments or submit questions. If there’s no further business to come before the subcommittee, we’re adjourned. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(49)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

50

f


82844n.eps

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

u.s. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6128 

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific 

Steve Chabot (R-OH), Chairman 

September 12, 2013 

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 

v.;ww. ford gnaffai rS.housc. gov): 

DAn:: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Thursday, September 19, 2013 

2:00 p.m. 

An Unclear Roadmap: Burma's Fragile Political Reforms and Growing 

Ethnic Strife 

The Honorable Tom Andrews 

President 

United to End Genocide 

Ms. Jennifer Quigley 

Executive Director 

U.S. Campaign for Burma 

Wakar Uddin, Ph.D. 

Director General 

The Arakan Rohingya Union 

Mr. Ralph L. Cwerman 

President 

The Humpty Dumpty Institute 

*NOTE: Witnesses may be added. 

By Direction of the Chairman 

The Committee on ForeIgn A/jmrs seek;; to make lts/aCilmes accesrnbie to persons '>l-7th dIsabIlitieS. ~(1'OU are 111 neeJ oj speC/ell accommodations, please call 

]U]']]5-5()21 (lllem/jimr bIJl'ini'\\" dm's m "drulJ( e (!(Ihe erenl, ",ilene]'er pmc/Kuhle. (jU(,I/WI1S ""Ih TE'gwd 10 Ipei wi (/I: (ommodalJUns m generoi (JlJi luding 

avmlabil/(r of Comnlltiee !lhlfe,'I<.l/s 111 <lite, l1<.lt/l'e formats <lid aSSlMil'e llstemn:;; del'lCe5! !lir.ly be directed to the COl/unlttee. 
51

f


82844m.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MINUTES OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON _______ --'-Accsit'-' cc&_'I_te_p __ "c-"ifl_'c _______ HEARING 

Day·_---"1c."11"'1I'-"1',"',·d"'a"')I __ Date __ ~9~Y'~19~Y'~2~O~13~ __ RooDl ___ -"'2"'1.!.c72"--__ _ 

Starting Time _---"-'?·CUOlL0l''''''U1L---_Ending Time 3: 1 0 pm 

Recesses ~I L-lo __ ) L-to __ ) L-to __ ) L-to __ ) L-to __ ) L-to __ ) 

Presiding Member(s) 

Clwil'11WI1 Steve Chabot (R-OH) 

Clteck all oflltefollOlving Iltal apply: 

Open Session [ZJ 

Executive (closed) Session D Televised [ZJ 

TITLE OF HEARING: 

Electronically Rccord~tal,.d) [ZJ 

Stenographic Record LlJ 

All Vlle/ellr Road1l1ap: BI/rllla's Fmgile Political R~for11ls ant! Growing Ethnic Strife 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), Rep. Dalla Rohrahacher (R-CA), Rep, George HoMing (R-NC), Rep. Ami Bera 

(D-CA) 

NON-SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: (Mark with an * if they are nol members '!ffirll committee) 

HEARING WITNESSES: Same as meeting notice attacbed? Yes 0 No 0 

(If "no", please list hehIlv and include titlc, agency, department, 01' organization.) 

8T ATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: (Ust any statements submitted for the record) 

TIME SCHEDULED TO RECONVENE ___ _ 

or 

TIME ADJOURNED _-=3 __ :1::..0,"1'",1,-,11_ 
52

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE STEVE CHABOT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC


82844e-1.eps
53


82844e-2.eps

The OIC General Secretariat also exerted efforts to raise awareness worldwide to the ongoing 

plight of the Rohingya Muslims. 

Just last month, during August, the Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dato 'Sri Anifah 

Aman, addressed the ASEAN Summit by making a strong statement which called upon the 

Myanmar Government to take immediate actions to address the increasing violence in the 

country. Those actions should be concrete and definitive that includes the prosecution of the 

perpetrators in a fair and transparent manner. The Minister also stated that the government of 

Myanmar should extend its fullest cooperation and access to the Ole. 

In a move to support the Rohingya minority that resides in Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah Bin 

Abdul Aziz, extended a formal granting by the government of residency status to Rohingya 

refugees in the Kingdom. 

While these two examples are of support to the Rohingya, concrete changes must take place in 

Myanmar to ensure that the ethnic Rohingya are able to live peacefully in Rakhine State. These 

changes include providing a possible path to citizenship for the Rohingya, acknowledging that 

the Rohingya population is ethnic to Rakhine State, ensure that adequate humanitarian 

assistance is allowed to reach those Rohingya who need it unimpeded, and to provide support 

and assistance to those who have been forCibly removed from their townships and have had to 

watch their homes burned to the ground by extremist elements. The Government of Myanmar 

also needs to take steps to mitigate the effects of extremist hate speech towards the Rohingya. 

Due to the escalation of violence early in the year, the OIC Contact Group on the Rohingya 

Muslim Minority met a second time in April (2013) to discuss possible remedies and adopted a 

final communique which prescribed significant recommendations, including a mandate for the 

OIC Group in New York to actively engage parties related to the conflict, including the Myanmar 

Government. To this end, the Contact Group called for the OIC Member States to take 

appropriate action for the adoption of a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council, a letter 

from the OIC Secretary General on behalf of 57 Heads of OIC Member States, and for the OIC 

General Secretariat to intensify efforts to open an OIC Humanitarian office for all those affected 

in Rakhine State and to arrange a series of interfaith dialogue meetings between Muslim and 

Buddhist religious leaders. 

At the Human Rights Council, the OIC Group in Geneva was able to pass a Presidential 

Statement with regards to the Rohingya after facing significant resistance from Myanmar and 

other countries, while is was welcomed, the document did not reflect a concrete plan of action, 

which is sorely needed to address the issue. The OIC Group in New York has met with several 

UN Member States and key figures throughout the spring and summer and is planning on 

continuing to pressure Myanmar to address the complex issues of the Rohingya this fall during 

the United Nations General Assembly, culminating in a resolution with an appropriate plan of 

action that takes into account all the issues of the Rohingya including citizenship and 

humanitarian assistance. 

Despite the condemnation of Myanmar by the U.N. and the OIC, many foreign actors remain 

hesitant to criticize the burgeoning democracy that is still taking root in Myanmar. Many 

AJdrcss: 320 Lust 51,1 Strcet, New York. NY 10022 ret (212) 883-0140 1'£L'';:: (212) 883-0143 email: oicn\~ii.Un.llit 
54


82844e-3.eps

leaders are concerned that an over-zealous reproach of the government may result in a 

backlash that compromises the fragile democracy within the country. To this end, carrying out 

the instructions of the Contact Group has not been easy. The OIC despite its best, wellintentioned efforts continues to face resistance to all its offers of assistance. 

Within Myanmar, it is because of extremist Buddhist elements who have been able to paint a 

negative picture of Ole. While there are many extremist movements, the most vocal and antiMuslim is the 969 Movement. 

Much of the ongoing violence is now being attributed to the 969 movement, a nation-wide 

campaign led by extremist Buddhist monks that claim to act in the interest of preserving 

Buddhist social and economic interest. Despite the innocent claims of monks affiliated with the 

969 movement, recent reports by several major media outlets including TIME Magazine, The 

Diplomat, Huffington Post, The NY Times, and The Guardian fault the movement and its 

outspoken leadership for inciting much of the interfaith violence that has occurred in the last 

year. The 969 movement openly encourages Buddhists in Myanmar not to do business with, sell 

property to, marry, or hire Muslims. In sermons, the Buddhists monks who preach the 969 

movement frequently accuse Muslims of being rapists and terrorists and even go as far as to 

call them the "the enemy." In May, leaders of the 969 movement drafted a 15 page law that 

would restrict marriages between Buddhist women and Muslim men, claiming that the law 

would be paramount in "protecting the freedom of Buddhist women." 

The unofficial leader of the 969 movement is a monk by the name of U Wirathu. In June, 

Wirathu was featured on the cover of TIME Magazine with the superimposed caption, ''The 

Buddhist Face of Terror." Even as a part of the rarely prosecuted Buddhist-majority, Wirathu 

was jailed for eight years during the military junta for inciting hatred. Wirathu claims that he is 

proud to have standing as a radical Buddhist stating that, "If we are weak, our land will become 

Muslim." The most unsettling reality of the 969 movement is not simply that it exists, but that it 

is widely supported throughout Myanmar. The 969 movement is an embodiment of the 

ignorance and stubborn lack of accountability that continues to hinder religious equality in 

Myanmar. 

This disturbing trend made itself readily apparent through the experiences of members of an 

OIC observer mission to Myanmar conducted in 2012. The hatred by local residents of Rakhine 

towards the UN and NGO's was based on nothing more than influential individuals telling them 

to act in this manner. More often than not, this centered on the misguided notion that 

humanitarian efforts were favoring the Rohingya, which caused further animosity among the 

Buddhist majority population. Moreover, due to the increasing levels of violence and outright 

threats, humanitarian aid workers now rarely reaches the areas which are most in need of it. 

While some army and law enforcement officials have taken steps to protect and provide for the 

Rohingya while respecting the rights of Rakhine locals, this is normally on a individual basis and 

the barbarous intimidation that they must contend with often results in transfers of position or 

simply keeping silent due to the possibility of retribution. 

Many politicians in Myanmar, including President Thein Sein and Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu 

Kyi avoid the subject matter due to its tremendous potential effect on elections. After every 

AJdrcss: 320 Lust 51,1 Strcet, New York. NY 10022 ret (212) 883-0140 1'£L'';:: (212) 883-0143 email: oicn\~ii.Un.llit 
55

Æ


82844e-4.eps

attack or occurrence of discrimination the government pledges to investigate the incident, yet 

the majority of the time it fails to prosecute any individuals. As for the individuals who are in 

conflict areas, the government must ensure that they can have access to humanitarian aid. 

NGOs and foreign aid services need to be permitted unobstructed entry into problem areas, so 

that they can tend to as many individuals as possible. Finally, the 1982 Citizenship Law must be 

modified to guarantee that no individuals will be denied citizenship rights due to their ethnic, 

religious, or racial background. Discriminatory laws need to be abolished immediately to allow 

Rohingya Muslims to enjoy the same freedoms as the other ethnic and religious groups in the 

country. 

With estimates from as recently as 2012 placing the number of IDPs in Myanmar at more than 

450,000 people, the need for strong international involvement and facilitation is greater than 

ever. Limited involvement from outside powers will not be enough for handling such large 

numbers. Foreign nations must make it clear that the persistence of this discrimination and 

violence will harm both political and economic relations. Only when the international 

community gets more involved in the issue facing Rohingya Muslims, will substantial and 

effective changes take place. 

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon recently gave a speech featuring his stance on the conflict in 

Myanmar stating, 

" ... 1 remain concerned about the plight of the Rohingya population and their disturbing 

humanitarian situation. The actions that resulted in many deaths and widespread 

destruction are deplorable and unacceptable .... commitments must be translated into 

concrete action ... There is a dangerous polarization taking place within Myanmar. If it is 

not addressed urgently and firmly, underlying tensions could provoke more upheaval, 

undermining the reform process and triggering negative regional repercussions." 

The Secretary General's statement reflects the urgency surrounding the humanitarian conflict 

in Myanmar. After more than 200 years of persecution of the Rohingya people, the threat of 

delay is more severe than ever. The longer violence is allowed to continue, the more 

entrenched the people of Myanmar will become in conflict and the more elusive a solution for 

peace will become. 

The Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar are considered by many organizations, including the U.N., 

to be one of the most persecuted groups on the planet. Their lives are plagued with uncertainty 

and fear due to the current discriminatory troubles that they face every day. The acceptance 

and tolerance of this violence by the government of Myanmar will further worsen this situation. 

Now is the time to pressure the Myanmar government and require it to take measures to 

ensure that Rohingya Muslims are no longer victims of discrimination and communal violence. 

Ensuring the Rohingya people have the protection of the state through citizenship is a major 

asset to ending violence. Still, citizenship does not ensure equality; it is necessary that 

increased interfaith dialogue and initiatives to cultivate awareness and understanding among 

the many ethnic and religious factions within Myanmar accompany the pathway to citizenship. 

Failure to accomplish this task will only lead to greater destruction and death, which could 

greatly destabilize the emerging democratic government of Myanmar. 

AJdress: 320 Lust 51,1 Street, New York. NY 10022 ret (212) 883-0140 1'£L'';:: (212) 883-0143 email: oicn\~ii.Un.llit