U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

32–302PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

GENOCIDE AGAINST THE BURMESE ROHINGYA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 26, 2018

Serial No. 115–166

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,

or http://www.Govinfo.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah 

VACANT 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Ms. Greta Van Susteren, host, ‘‘Plugged In with Greta Van Susteren,’’ Voice 

of America ............................................................................................................. 5

Mr. Stephen Pomper, program director, United States, International Crisis 

Group .................................................................................................................... 12

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Ms. Greta Van Susteren: Prepared statement ...................................................... 8

Mr. Stephen Pomper: Prepared statement ............................................................ 14

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 56

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 57

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: 

Testimony by the Faith Coalition to Stop Genocide in Burma ........................ 59

Statement of the Honorable Sander Levin, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Michigan .............................................................................. 63

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: State Department report dated August 2018 ............................. 65

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

of Ohio, and chairman: Human Rights Council report dated September 

17, 2018 ................................................................................................................. 72

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

Commonwealth of Virginia: 

Statement of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service ........................ 80

Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 83

Written responses from the witnesses to a question submitted for the record 

by the Honorable Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Nevada .............................................................................................................. 85

(1)

GENOCIDE AGAINST THE BURMESE 

ROHINGYA 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2018

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. Members, if you’ll take your seat we are going 

to call this hearing to order. 

For more than three decades, the Government of Burma has systematically denied the Rohingya people even the most basic human 

rights. Add to that no access to education and no access to 

healthcare. 

Last year, this persecution reached a new low, horrific levels, as 

the Burmese military drove 700,000 Rohingya from their homes, 

burning villages and killing scores, doing so-called ‘‘terrorist clearance operations.’’ That’s what the military calls it as they drive 

people to their death. 

One Rohingya survivor recalled the attacks on his village, saying 

‘‘the whole village was under random fire like rain.’’

Just this week, the State Department released a report detailing 

stomach-turning, systematic, and widespread acts of violence 

against the Rohingya northern Rakhine State. 

The report includes gruesome accounts of burning elderly alive in 

their homes, gang raping women, and slaughtering fleeing refugees. 

The Burmese military made no distinction between men, women, 

and children. One woman recalls watching as, to quote her words, 

‘‘newborns and children who could barely walk, they threw them in 

the river’’ while she desperately hid in bushes across from that 

river. 

It is hard to hear these accounts without feeling queasy. But we 

must catalogue these atrocities so that we can one day hold the 

perpetrators accountable, and I want to commend the administration for speaking out against these atrocities. 

Ambassador Nikki Haley, in particular, has repeatedly demanded that the international community not ignore the plight of 

the Rohingya and that the U.S., as you know, we are providing desperately needed humanitarian assistance to the survivors, many 

who are now refugees in Bangladesh. 

2

But I encourage the administration to go further. This is more 

than just a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. To all who have 

met with the Rohingya refugees, who have heard these accounts, 

it is clear that these crimes amount to genocide. 

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime 

of Genocide, signed and ratified by the United States, defines genocide as certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole 

or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. 

Those acts include, among others, killing members of the ethnicity or religion; causing serious bodily or mental harm to that 

ethnicity; deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring 

about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and imposing 

measures intended to prevent births. 

I believe that a realistic accounting of the deliberate campaign of 

murder, of intimidation, and displacement against the Rohingya 

clearly meets this legal standard for genocide. 

Making a formal determination of genocide must be the next step 

for the U.S. Defining these atrocities for what they are is critical 

to building international public awareness and support to stop 

them. 

The protection of human rights has long been our nation’s top 

priority in Burma, dating back to freeing Aung San Suu Kyi, and 

today, that must include protection of the Rohingya people. 

The Burmese Government and its military must ensure the protection of all the people of Burma, regardless of their ethnic background or their religious beliefs. Those military leaders and security forces responsible for these atrocities must face justice. 

The U.S. must push the civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi to rise 

to this challenge. Confronting genocide of the Rohingya is a moral 

issue and a national security issue. 

No one is more secure when fanaticism and unchecked violence 

are growing in this part of the world. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these issues 

today and now I turn to Mr. Eliot Engel, our ranking member, 

from New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

calling this hearing. To our witnesses, welcome to the Foreign Affairs Committee. 

Mr. Pomper, I am aware of the good work that you do and, Ms. 

Van Susteren, it’s good to see you again. From the first time I appeared on your show, I was always a big fan. So thank you both 

for being here. 

Our last hearing on this topic, roughly a year ago, took place at 

the height of the horrific violence against the Rohingya. 

We saw startling evidence of what was taking place and heard 

about the desperate humanitarian crisis which, despite heroic efforts, is, sadly, no less dire today—more than 700,000 refugees, 70 

percent of whom are women and children. 

It’s interesting because our congressional districts all have about 

700,000 people each in them. So every Member of Congress could 

imagine—if every person who lived in your congressional district 

were a refuge, imagine what it would be like. That’s the magnitude 

of the problem. 

3

Seventy percent of these 700,000 are women and children and 

they now live in the world’s largest refugee camp, in its entirety—

the constant risk of losing their temporary shelters to monsoon 

rains and all kinds of other tragedies. 

In the last year, though, we have also learned more about who 

was responsible. The Burmese military has claimed that this brutal 

crackdown is the response to a clash that took place on August 

25th of last year. This is simply not true. Ample evidence shows 

that the Burmese military and police forces used this campaign to 

specifically target Rohingya civilians, to target them with rape, 

with indiscriminate killing, with slash and burn tactics that have 

destroyed dozens of villages. 

The U.N. Independent International Fact-Finding Mission Report 

has undertaken the most comprehensive investigation to date. It 

recently called for the U.N. Security Council to authorize the ICC 

to investigate and prosecute senior officials in the Burmese military for crimes against humanity and ‘‘so that a competent court 

can determine their liability for genocide.’’

So after a year of unrelenting violence and suffering, what will 

American policy be? The State Department quietly published its report on these atrocities last week. No announcement, no legal determination about what occurred, no indication of what comes next. 

I ask, Mr. Chairman, that it be included in the record. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Will Secretary Pompeo determine that ‘‘crimes against humanity’’ 

occurred, which is, clearly, the case? Will he go further and say 

that crimes occurred with genocidal intent? Will he make the evidence behind the report available to use against the perpetrators 

of these crimes? 

I believe he should, as the Burmese Government is currently 

bulldozing Rohingya villages and destroying any evidence that remains. 

Ambassador Haley announced $185 million in additional humanitarian assistance for the Rohingya and communities in Bangladesh 

who are hosting refugees. This is welcome news, because funding 

humanitarian relief is necessary. But it isn’t a sufficient response, 

in my opinion, to such a grave human tragedy. There is a range 

of other steps we should be taking. There are ways we could exercise real leadership to help mitigate this crisis. 

First of all, the United States should advocate for the U.N. Security Council to refer this case to the ICC. Instead, the President 

went in front of the world yesterday and trashed the ICC. 

We should use our global statute to call this crime what it is—

clearly, a crime against humanity and likely also a genocide, then 

rally a strong international commitment to fully fund the latest appeal for humanitarian assistance. 

Instead, the State Department is using language that lets perpetrators off the hook. The President lobs insults at the international institutions that could make a difference instead of using 

our leverage to garner more support to address this crisis. 

We should be true to our history and our values and provide safe 

haven for men, women, and children who have been driven from 

their homes. 

4

Instead, we are slashing the number of refugees allowed onto our 

shores—a pittance of 30,000. It’s really shameful. The United 

States, of course, is not to blame for this crisis. The Burmese military, starting with commander in chief of the army, Min Aung 

Hlaing, bears primary responsibility. The blood is on their hands. 

Aung San Suu Kyi, the civilian leader once also hailed as her 

country’s moral leader, has proven herself, unfortunately, to be 

part of the problem by failing to speak out, by denying the abuses 

that have taken place, and for not addressing the apartheid policies 

and conditions in Rakhine State that set the stage for this catastrophe. I know that Mr. Pomper points this out in his written testimony. 

But even though we are not responsible for the crisis, for decades 

American leadership has meant having the moral courage to stand 

up and do the right thing in the face of this kind of suffering. 

The administration’s policies send a clear message—we are no 

longer willing to carry that mantle. When it comes to standing up 

for human rights, for justice, for the rule of law, for the world’s 

most vulnerable and oppressed, the United States has taken itself 

out of the running. 

Complex challenges require multifaceted solutions and real leadership and we are not, in my opinion, exercising either of those. 

Shame on us. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses what our path forward might look like if the administration were inclined to take it. 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. 

And before we move to our witnesses’ testimony, we have a video 

from Ms. Van Susteren that we are going to play which includes 

footage from her recent trip to the refugee camps in Bangladesh. 

[Video played.] 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Greta. 

Let me explain to the members here and to our witnesses. There 

is some background noise from construction going on in the building and our staff director, Tom Sheehy, is in the process of trying 

to get that stopped. 

So we will continue here with our hearing. But this morning, I 

am very pleased to welcome Ms. Greta Van Susteren and Mr. Stephen Pomper to the committee. 

Greta Van Susteren currently anchors Voice of America’s foreign 

policy show ‘‘Plugged in With Greta Van Susteren,’’ and you can access that online, by the way. She has spent 14 years at Fox News, 

where she hosted the prime time news and interview program ‘‘On 

the Record with Greta Van Susteren.’’

She has traveled the world to cover international news stories, 

and most recently, of course, to Burma to observe the current genocide against the Rohingya. 

Stephen Pomper currently serves as the United States program 

director for the International Crisis Group. Previously, he was a 

senior policy scholar at the U.S. Institute of Peace and a Davis Distinguished Fellow at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. 

He also served on the staff of the National Security Council 

where he served as the senior director for multilateral affairs in 

human rights. 

5

And we appreciate them both being with us here today. Without 

objection, the witnesses’ full prepared statements are going to be 

made part of the record. 

Members here will have 5 calendar days to submit any statements or questions or extraneous material for the record. 

So, if you would, Ms. Van Susteren, please summarize your remarks and we will go to you at this time. 

STATEMENT OF MS. GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST, ‘‘PLUGGED 

IN WITH GRETA VAN SUSTEREN,’’ VOICE OF AMERICA 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

The video you just saw is a shortened version but it’s a powerful 

witness to the tragedy unfolding for the Rohingya people. This is 

pure suffering. 

I am here today with Voice of America, part of the U.S. Agency 

for Global Media, and I volunteer to host a weekly affairs program, 

as the chairman noted, at VOA. 

And as a journalist, my job is simply to tell you what I saw, to 

tell you the truth. Today, I am sharing my personal observations 

of the crisis informed by my reporting and I’d like to share the 

work of VOA to report on and reach the Rohingya people. My observations should not be construed as official positions of the administration. 

I’ve made four trips to Myanmar and the surrounding region. My 

first trip to the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh was in December 2017 in my own capacity. 

I literally hitchhiked on the back of a cargo plane with an NGO, 

Samaritan’s Purse, and I returned with VOA Director Amanda 

Bennett, again, to the refugee camp in June 2018, and as you saw 

in the video, in June the monsoon season just devastated the 

camps. 

Shelters slipped away in mudslides, walls collapsed around huts 

and people, and attempts at just basic sanitation were obliterated. 

The United Nations High Commission on Refugees estimates 

800,000 Rohingya refugees from Myanmar are now living in those 

camps that are adjacent to each other. 

These people are forgotten. They are stateless. They are homeless. They are nameless. 

In Myanmar, the government has rejected the use of the term 

‘‘Rohingya.’’ The Rohingya are non-people to them. They have been 

dehumanized. This attitude was evident in nearly every interaction 

I’ve had when I’ve been in Myanmar. 

The trauma of the refugees’ violent departure from Myanmar is 

fresh. You saw in the video that pregnant women raped by the 

Myanmar military are shunned in the community. 

Children live with memories of unspeakable brutality. One young 

boy proudly showed me a drawing he produced in an NGO-sponsored art program. I asked him to explain his art work to me and 

at one point I asked, ‘‘What is that?’’

He replied that it was a drawing of a severed bloody hand. He 

saw it on the ground near his village home in Myanmar as he fled 

with his mother. 

6

I heard many others speak about the Myanmar military’s brutal 

use of machetes. 

But what do we do now? The international community is aware 

and concerned, but gaining traction with the Myanmar officials has 

been difficult. In August 2018, the U.N. Human Rights Council 

issued a report documenting atrocities against the Rohingya people. 

It details the military’s mass killing of villagers, raping of women 

and girls, and the torching of villages. The report recommends that 

senior military leadership in Myanmar be investigated and prosecuted for genocide against the Rohingya. 

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley confirmed that the 

State Department’s own fact finding report is consistent with the 

U.N. report. She was right when she said, ‘‘The whole world is 

watching what we do next and if we act.’’

As journalists, VOA is already acting by covering the crisis from 

the start for its international audiences including those in 

Myanmar. It’s risky for VOA reporters in Myanmar to do this. 

Our reporters have faced pressures to stop using the term 

Rohingya in their work. But they have resisted. VOA’s coverage includes interviews with representatives from the Myanmar and 

Bangladesh Governments, U.N. officials, human rights organizations, reactions from the State Department, and congressional comments and hearings. 

I want to emphasize that hearing the views of Congress is of the 

utmost importance for VOA’s international audiences. VOA is also 

working to directly reach the refugees. 

Director Amanda Bennett’s visit with me to Bangladesh in June 

was to assess how VOA can better report on and broadcast to the 

refugees. 

UNHCR representatives, NGOs in the field, and representatives 

from the government of Bangladesh were highly supportive. The 

assessment identified multiple options for delivering content including radio and listening groups established by NGOs. 

Director Amanda Bennett and her team also spoke with people 

living in the camp to learn about their news habits and issue preferences. Without exception, every group, male and female, wanted 

news and information. They are especially eager to hear news from 

Myanmar and what the international community is saying about 

them. 

Some refugees with prior education recognize the VOA brand. 

They were also interested in learning English. In April 2018, VOA 

started transmitting 30 minutes of learning English language 

across AM and short wave radio. 

VOA is also planning to start limited broadcasting in the 

Rohingya dialect. The value of bringing news and information to 

the Rohingya cannot be underscored. Left in these camps long term 

they will lack economic opportunity, be targets for human trafficking or exploitation or violent extremism. VOA news can make 

a difference. 

I am extremely passionate about this project because I see it as 

contributing to what I hope will be a strong decisive response by 

the U.S. Government to seek a long-term peaceful solution for the 

Rohingya people. 

7

In closing, I must acknowledge the efforts of Secretary Pompeo 

and Ambassador Haley to be forceful on this issue. I must also 

thank the many NGOs that rushed to help the Rohingya people 

fleeing from Myanmar last year, from Doctors Without Borders to 

Samaritan’s Purse, the World Food Program, and so many more. 

And finally, thank you, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member 

Engel for convening this hearing. Journalists must document atrocities as they occur. 

Based on my own reporting, I firmly believe this is a pivotal moment for the United States and for being on the right side of history. 

When we say never again, we must mean it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Van Susteren follows:]

8


32302a-1.eps

Testimony of 

Ms. Greta Van Susteren 

Host, Plugged In with Greta Van Susteren 

Voice of America 

Before the House Foreign Affairs Committee 

September 26, 2018 

Chainnan Royce, Ranking Member Engel, members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today about Myanmar and the Rohingya refugee 

crisis. As you know, I am a journalist, and my job is simply to tell the truthunbiased, accurate, and objective. I'm here today with the Voice of America, the 

largest of five media networks under the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), 

formerly know11 as the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). VOA connects the 

world to the United States through news and information and provides an 

independent voice in international media. Its mission is to serve as a reliable source 

of news, to represent America to international audiences, and present the policies of 

the United States, including responsible discussion of these policies. 

As requested by the Committee, I will be sharing my personal observations of 

the conflict, which have been informed by my on-the-ground reporting, and the work 

of VOA to report the facts on this crisis and support access to intormation in the 

affected areas. My observations should not be construed as ofticial positions of the 

Administration. I volunteer to host a weekly foreign affairs news program at VOA. 

I have made four trips to investigate what is going on in Myanmar and the 

surrounding region. My tirst trip to the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh was 

in December 2017 in my own capacity, and I returned with VOA Director Amanda 

Bennett in June 2018. In this June visit, I saw breathtakingly worse conditions 

because of the monsoon season. Continuous rains had devastated the camps-with 

shelters slipping away in mudslides, walls collapsing around huts and people, and 

attempts at basic sanitation obliterated. 

This is pure human suffering, measured not by the few but by the hundreds of 

thousands of people seeking safety and dignity. The United Nations High 

Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that some 800,000 Rohingya 

refugees from Myanmar are now living in the camps. These people are forgottenstateless, homeless, nameless. In Myanmar, the government has rejected use of the 

term "Rohingya," refusing to recognize them. This attitude was evident in nearly 
9


32302a-2.eps

every interaction I've had with people in Myanmar~from government oi1icials to 

taxi drivers. The Rohingya are non-people to them; they have been dehumanized. 

The trauma of the refugees' violent departure from Myanmar is fresh. 

Pregnant women carry their babies not knowing if that child was conceived through 

their marriage or as a result of a gang rape by the Myanmar military. They are 

shunned in the commtmity. Children have witnessed unspeakable brutality and live 

with those memories. One young boy proudly showed me a drawing he produced 

in an NGO-sponsored art program. I asked him to explain his artwork to me, and at 

one point said, "What is that?" He replied that it was a drawing of a severed bloody 

hand that he saw on the ground near his village home in Myanmar as he fled with 

his mother. I heard many people in the refugee camp speak about the Myanmar 

military's usc of machetes to kill or maim. 

The Rohingya people may look different from us, espouse a different culture, 

and practice a different religion. But fundamentally, they just want to live their lives 

and raise their children in a secure, peaceful home. They want to be healthy. They 

want to be educated. They want to work. These refugees in the camps are 

considered to be the lucky ones because they escaped. But the challenges for them 

are formidable, as you'll see in this short video: 

[Insert video] 

What do we do now? The international community is aware and concerned, 

but gaining traction with Myanmar officials has been difficult. In August 2018, the 

United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) issued a report documenting 

atrocities against the Rohingya people, detailing the military's mass killings of 

villagers, raping of women and girls, and torching of villages. The report 

recommended that senior military leadership in Myanmar be investigated and 

prosecuted for genocide against the Rohingya. U.S. Ambassador to the United 

Nations (UN) Nikki Haley confirmed that the State Department's own fact-finding 

report was "consistent" with the UN report. She was right when she said, "The 

whole world is watching what we do next and if we act." 

As reporters, the Voice of America is already acting by covering the crisis 

from the start for its international audiences, including those in Myanmar. lt's risky 

for VOA reporters in Myanmar to do this, as we have seen with the prosecution of 

Reuters reporters Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo. Our repmiers have faced pressure to 

stop using the term "Rohingya" in their work, but they have resisted and are bravely 

covering the facts as they unfold. 

2 
10


32302a-3.eps

In the very early days of the crisis in August 2017, reporters were barred from 

Rakhine State by the Myanmar military. VOA's NewsCenter in coordination with 

its Bangia and Burmese Services worked to piece together what had happened, and 

the Bangia service was able to get a stringer to the refugee camps in and around 

Cox's Bazar in the first days. Since then, VOA reporters have continued to cover the 

story in multiple languages, including interviews with representatives from the 

Myanmar and Bangladesh governments, UN officials, human rights organizations, 

reactions from the U.S. State Department, and congressional comments and hearings. 

VOA is also working to directly reach the refugees. Director Betmett's visit 

with me to Bangladesh in June was not just to observe the conditions in the camp; it 

was to assess how VOA can better report on and broadcast to refugees. UNHCR 

representatives and other NGOs in the field were highly supportive, as were 

representatives from the Government of Bangladesh. VOA has had a Bangladeshi 

language service since 1958, and has strong brand recognition and credibility in the 

country. The assessment visit identified multiple options for delivering content, 

including radio and "listening groups" already established by NGOs where people 

gather regularly to listen and discuss content-mostly public service 

announcements-provided on thumb drives. 

Director Bennett and her team also spoke with people living in the camp to 

investigate their news habits and issue preterenees. Without exception, every group 

they talked to was extremely interested in news and information, across male and 

female groups. They wanted more than public service announcements about how to 

tie down their tarp in a monsoon. Rather, the groups exhibited self-awareness of 

how isolated they are from the rest of the world, and arc especially eager to hear 

news from Myanmar and what the international community is saying about them. 

Some refugees with prior education recognized the VOA brand. They were also 

interested in learning English. In April 2018, VOA started transmitting thirty 

minutes of "Learning English" language instruction programing across AM and 

shortwave radio. This existing program for other areas has been extremely popular 

both in giving people a marketable skill, but also in building the VOA brand. VOA 

is also planning to start limited broadcasting in the Rohingya dialect. 

The value of bringing news and information to these isolated, traumatized 

people cannot be underscored. Left in these camps long-term, with no viable future, 

they will lack economic opportunity, be targets tor human trafficking or exploitation, 

or worse-violent extremism. VOA news can make a difference. And I believe that 

3 
11


32302a-4.eps

this type of work is directly related to the VOA mission. I'm extremely passionate 

about this project because I see it as contributing to what I hope will be a strong, 

decisive response by the U.S. government to seek a long-term, peaceful solution for 

the Rohingya people. 

In closing, I must acknowledge the efforts of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo 

and U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley. I know they have been forceful about this crisis. 

I must also thank the many NGOs that rushed to help the Rohingya people 

fleeing from Myanmar last year, who work day-in-and-day-out in unthinkable 

conditions. From Doctors Without Borders to Samaritans Purse to the World Food 

Program, and many more. Their work is daunting, but their commitment is firm. 

And finally, thank you, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel, for 

convening this hearing. Reporters must bear witness, especially in documenting 

atrocities as they occur and using objective news to accurately infonn policymakers. 

I tirmly believe this is a pivotal moment tor the United States and tor being on the 

right side of history. When we say, "never again," we must mean it. 

4 
12

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Greta. 

Mr. Pomper. 

STATEMENT OF MR. STEPHEN POMPER, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, 

UNITED STATES, INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP 

Mr. POMPER. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Engel, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you today about the atrocities committed 

against the Rohingya population of Rakhine State and the ongoing 

human rights and humanitarian disaster that has displaced hundreds of thousands of Rohingya to southeastern Bangladesh. 

My name is Stephen Pomper and I am the U.S. program director 

at the International Crisis Group. Previously, I served in a range 

of policy and legal roles in the U.S. Government, which are summarized in my written testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, the unfathomable horrors that the Rohingya have 

suffered are documented in two recent reports that have received 

considerable attention. 

The first is a report by a U.N.-mandated fact-finding mission 

which was cited by Ambassador Haley in her remarks to the Security Council in late August and which describes the ‘‘immediate, 

brutal, and grossly disproportionate’’ operations launched by the 

Myanmar armed forces known as the Tatmadaw in the aftermath 

of a cluster of coordinated insurgent attacks in August 2017. 

That report concludes that the primarily Tatmadaw operations, 

which included indiscriminate killings, the targeting of children, 

gang rapes, villages burned to the ground, and people burned alive 

suggest, by their nature and scope, a level of preplanning by the 

Tatmadaw. 

The second is a report by the U.S. Department of State released 

just the other day which is based on a survey of over 1,000 

Rohingya refugees who have been displaced to camps in the Cox’s 

Bazar region of Bangladesh and which led the State Department 

to similar factual findings about the tragic events that unfolded in 

August 2017 and its aftermath. 

Mr. Chairman, against this factual backdrop it is hardly surprising that the U.N. fact-finding mission found a reasonable basis 

to conclude that the Tatmadaw and others had committed crimes 

against humanity and war crimes and that there was a sufficient 

basis to investigate and prosecute the crime of genocide. These are 

all crimes of international concern—the gravest of crimes. 

Mr. Chairman, primary responsibility for these crimes rests with 

the Tatmadaw including its commander in chief, Min Aung Hlaing, 

and the other security forces that perpetrated them, and these actors must be held accountable. 

But, Mr. Chairman, this tragedy is all the more bitter because 

it comes against the backdrop of what not so long ago seemed a 

promising democratic transition which installed Aung San Suu Kyi 

as the senior civilian leader of the Myanmar Government. 

While she lacks control over the military, this does not excuse 

the fact that Suu Kyi has refused to face the reality of what has 

occurred or to use her moral authority to urge the country down 

a path that could culminate in the safe, dignified, and voluntary return of the Rohingya to their homes. 

13

Mr. Chairman, in the face of these terrible facts, the tools and 

strategies that are available to the United States to provide support to the Rohingya are few, imperfect, and limited. 

But in order to make progress, it will be important to use them 

all, and energetically. These tools include targeted sanctions adopted under the Global Magnitsky Executive Order or other available 

authorities. While not a silver bullet, these can send an important 

message that may deter other potential bad actors. 

These tools also include support for international tribunals and 

courts that enjoy jurisdiction over the crimes in question as well as 

the international mechanism that is, hopefully, being created to 

collect and preserve evidence for their benefit. These efforts may 

take time to yield results but they are the only way to achieve a 

measure of justice for the victims of these atrocities. 

These tools include humanitarian support to the Rohingya in 

Bangladesh and development support to the communities where 

they are living, which is necessary both to meet the immediate 

needs of the refugees and to prevent economic burdens from driving a dangerous wedge between them and their hosts. 

And, Mr. Chairman, these tools also include continued engagement with Aung San Suu Kyi’s government, which, though frustrating, is the only way to encourage recognition of the catastrophe 

that the Tatmadaw has wrought and to begin working toward the 

critical changes required to enable the safe and voluntary return 

of the Rohingya. 

Mr. Chairman, there are steps that Congress can take to support 

this effort. Congress can send a signal of support by sending a delegation to visit Rohingya refugees in their camps. 

It could ensure that the United States is funding humanitarian 

and development assistance at generous levels. It can fund efforts 

that serve the purpose of accountability, and much like it created 

a powerful human rights tool in the form of the Global Magnitsky 

Act, Congress could signal its commitment to accountability by enacting a crimes against humanity statute to help ensure that 

should perpetrators from Myanmar ever set foot on U.S. soil they 

would face justice for their crimes. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for opportunity to share these brief 

thoughts with the committee and I will look forward to taking your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pomper follows:]

14


32302b-1.eps

INTERNATIONAL CRlSIS GROUP 

U.S. PROGRAM DIRECTOR STEPHEN POMPER 

TESTIMONY FOR HEARING TITLED: "GENOCIDE AGAINST THE BURMESE ROHINGYA" 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 

Mr. Chainnan, Ranking Member Engel, and distinguished members of the Committee. First, let me 

express my deep appreciation for the invitation to testifY before the Committee and to discuss how best to 

address the horrific atrocities committed against the Rohingya population. I am the U.S. Program Director 

of the lntemational Crisis Group, a non-govemmental organization that conducts field-based research on 

40 conflicts and vulnerable countries and monitors another 30 around the world. I am also a non-resident 

Senior Fellow at the Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute and the NYU School of Law Center 

on Law and Security. I previously had the privilege to serve on the stalTofthe National Security Council 

under President Obama, including as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for 

Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights, and before that for nine years in the Department of State Office of 

the Legal Adviser, including as the Assistant Legal Adviser for Political-Military Affairs. 

Speaking today as a representative of Crisis Group, which seeks to prevent and resolve conflict and mass 

violence armmd the world, I will be drawing both on the research of my colleagues in the tield, and on my 

own experience as a polieymaker and a lawyer, to otTer thoughts on how best to address the horrific 

atrocities committed against the Rohingya population ofRakhine State, I will locus in particular on tools 

and strategies for shaping the actions of decision-makers in Myanmar (including potential future 

perpetrators of atrocities), for affording atrocity victims a measure of justice, and tor encouraging 

progress down the long and ditlicult path that might lead to the safe, dignified, and voluntary repatriation 

of Rohingya refugees. 

As I will note, the challenges facing the Rohingya are immense, and the tools for addressing them are 

fh1stratingly limited. This makes it all the more critical that the United States take a broad-gauged 

approach to this humanitarian and human rights crisis. One element of its approach should be to send a 

clear and principled signal about the gravity of the crimes that Myanmar's military (the Tatmadaw) and 

others have committed-including through the imposition of targeted sanctions under the Global 

Magnitsky executive order and support for international accountability mechanisms (such as the 

international mechanism for the collection and preservation of evidence that is in the process of being 

created). Evidence concerning the crimes committed has been powerfully documented in recent repmts by 

the U.N.-mandated Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (which includes 

findings oflaw) and the U.S. Department of State (which does not). At the same time, the United States 

will need to continue working with other donors and the government of Bangladesh by providing 

resources for humanitmian relict; as well as supporting and encouraging development efforts that can help 

reduce economic pressme on host communities. Finally, continued engagement with the civilian 

govemment will be necessary in order to press for recognition of the magnitude of the Rakhine State 

catastrophe, and seck the changes in law, policy, and practice that will be necessary in order to enable 

repatriation. 

Background 

A Stalled and Struggling Transition in .~"tfyanmar 

ln 2011, Myanmar embarked on a remarkable and largely unanticipated trm1sition away from 50 years of 

isolationist and authoritarian military rule. The transition culminated in a landslide victory tor the 

National League for Democracy (NLD) opposition party, and the peaceful transfer of power to an 
15


32302b-2.eps

administration l1eaded de facto by Aung San Suu Kyi -the military regime's long-time nemesis and an 

international democracy icon. 

Aung San Suu Kyi took over as Myanmar's de facto leader in March 2016. Although the military-drafted 

constitution prevented her from becoming president, she was able to use the NLD's legislative majority to 

pass a law installing her in a newly created position of"state counsellor", ftJ!filling her pre-election 

pledge that she would be "above the president" and "make all the political decisions". In fact, Sun Kyi 

has struggled with governance. has no control over the military {which also retains the power to block 

constitutional changes), and has been unable to make progress on key issues. From early in her term, the 

Suu Kyi declared peace with Myanmar's many ethnic cont1icts to be her top priority, yet she has achieved 

little. Crisis Group has also reported on the government's authoritarian tum, marked among other things 

by its prosecution of journalists and social media users, including t\vo Reuters joun1alists recently 

convicted under the colonial-era Official Secrets Act in what has been widely observed to be a police 

entrapment operation. 

These observations lonn the backdrop for the government's leilure to begin defusing the fractious 

si!Ltation in Rakhine State that it inherited when it took office. Aung San Suu Kyi initially sought to huy 

time, announcing in August 2016 the establishment of an advisory commission headed by former UN 

Secretary-General Koli Annan, with a 1:\velve-month mandate to examine the crisis and recommend steps 

to address the underlying issues, including the plight ofRohingya Muslims. The advisory commission 

was an effort to buy time at a moment when there was no political consensus on a way forward, and steps 

on citizenship, basic rights and desegregation ~-~which were obviously needed to create a more tenable 

situation for the long-mistreated Rohingya minority-\vere hugely controversial among Rakhine State's 

Buddhist majority and in Myanmar as a whole. 

It did not work. While the civilian government was still coming to grips with the basic tasks of governing 

the country and leaming to work with the military, Rakhinc State tensions boiled oYer. First, the 

Tadmada\v led a spike in reprisal violence against the Rohingya fo11m~:ing attacks by the Arakan 

Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) against three border guard police stations in October 2016. Then, 

alter a series of coordinated ARSA attacks in August 2017, the Tatmadaw mounted a massively 

disproportionate) indiscriminate, and seemingly planned campaign that drove (according tn the U.N. FactFinding Mission) nearly 725,000 Rohingya t!·om their home. leaving thousands dead, wounded, and 

brutalized in its wake. While the civilian government in Naypyitaw does not control the Tatmadaw or 

other security forces associated with the atrocities, its response suggested both the lack of competence and 

att absence of will to address the atrocities. 

f\.'lyanmar's civilian govemment has over time evolved from a posture oflntranslgence, during which lt 

appeared to be hoping to wait out the storm, to one in which it has acknowledged the concerns of the 

international community, hut it has not accepted the veracity oflhe allegations or taken rneanlngflli steps 

to address them. The goven1ment-supported "'Commission of Enquiry'' announced in late May 2018 to 

investigate alleged humall rights violations in llorthern Rakhine State demonstrated its lack of credibility 

when its ehalr announced, in an inaugural press briefing, ''there will be no blaming of anybody, no finger 

pointing ofanybod), because \Ve don't achieve any1hlng by that procedure(.)'" As a practical matter, it is 

fmihcr constrained by having only a small nnmbcr of junior, government-assigned administrative statf. 

The Rakhine Ad;isory Board (formed to advis~ lhe government on implementation oflhe Annan 

commission recommendations) dis handed in August 2018 after hlgh profile resignations hy members 

trustrated by its lack of progress, including former Ambassador Bill Richardson. The government has 

also done little to facilitate implementation of a memorandum of understanding signed with the U.N. 

development and refugee agencies to begin fostering conditions conducive to the return of the Rohingya 

to Rakhine state. 

A Rejitgee Crisis in Bangladesh 

2 
16


32302b-3.eps

More than 700,000 Robingya who tled the Tatmadaw in northern Rakhinc State following the August 

2017 violence now reside in Bangladesh. They joined tens of thousands who lctl earlier in 2017. and 

many more tfom previous years. The tvvo countries have agreed upon a procedural framework for 

voltmtary repatriation, but no Rohingya have returned and small numbers continue to 11ee. For now, host 

communities and political elites in Bangladesh largely sympathize with the refugees, but at the level of 

local communities that is starting to shift. Ifthat shitl gathers momentum -after the coming December 

elections, for example. or due to prolonged negative impacts 011 host communities- the Rohingya might 

face pressure to return against their will or move into more isolated camps in Bangladesh, such as those 

!he Bangladeshi government is building on remote Bhasan island. Such developments could prompt 

instability or violence on either side of the border. ln the meantime, the camps in which the refugees live 

arc squa1id1 ovcr~cro\vdcd, and dangerous. 

As noted, Myanmar has done little if anything to create conditions on the ground that would 

give refugees, \Vho continue to be lt:-arful and traumatiLed, the conl-idem:e to go back. Hostility tm:vard the 

Rohingya across Myanmar political elites and in society more broadly remains finnly entrenched. 

Meaningful steps to provide the Rohingya citizenship, respect their universal rights. and promote 

dese§,'fegation are nowhere on the horizon. At a practical level, curfews, checkpoints and movement 

restrictions imposed by local authorities and security forces mean that the Rohingya who remain in 

northern Rakhine State cannot gain access to tarms, tishing grounds, markets, day labor opportunities, or 

social services. Myanmar has bulldozed many burned Rohingya villages, is building new roads, power 

lines and security infrastructure across northern Rakhine State, and has in some cases promoted or 

allowed the expansion of existing viilages and construction of new settlements inhabited by other 

cthnicitics. Ethnic Rakhinc political leaders and local communities arc staunchly opposed to repatriation, 

and the national government has done little to mitigate their resistance. 

Against this backdrop, even as the international community seeks through pressure and engagement to 

encourage hettcr conditions in northern Rakhinc state. it must face the likelihood that those conditions are 

no! likely to emerge in the ncar future. The United States anu other donors should lhercl(Jre prepare lor 

the long haul by providing desperately needed resourc~s to underfunded humanitarian operations and 

investing in the development of Cox's Hazar district, where the refugees currently reside, to reduce the 

economic burden on host communities. A! the same time as it is important to press for the goal of a safe, 

voluntary, and dignifled return) it is also important to develop plans for a prolonged stay Lhat can mitigate 

both their stlifering of the Rohingya and the risk of propelling the crisis in a still more dangerous 

direction. 

The U.N. Fact Finding Mission Report and the Department ofState Report 

While there have been many accounts of the atrocities committed against the Rohingya, the recently 

published account ofthc lndcpcndcnt International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar-published in 

drafl form in August and final form in recent weeks---are extensively documented and likely to shape 

international discussion about the situation in Rakhine state. Operating under a mandate conferred by the 

C.N. Human Rights CounciL the fact Finding Mission reviewed allegations with respect to the situations 

in Rakhinc, Kachin, and Shan stales since 2011, and reported flnding a ·'reasonable basis" to reach, inter 

alia, the following conclusions: 

The security forces~ conduct in Rakhine State follov.,ring the ARSA attacks on the morning of August 

25,2017 was '"immediate, brutal and grossly disproportionate." 

Authorities rcfcncd to the security forces' activities as '"clearance operations··. These operations 

targeted the entire Rohingya population and suggest, by their nature, scale, and organization, a "'level 

ofpreplanning and design on the part of the Tadmadaw leadership(.)" 

3 
17


32302b-4.eps

ln the period beginning August 25, 2017, 392 villages were partially or totally destroyed, 

encompassing 40 per cent of northern RalJtine sctilemenls and at leasl37, 700 individual structures. 

The operations against the Rohingya inclnded indiscriminate shooting, targeted executions. men 

being rounded up and taken away never to be seen again, children targeted for killings, women and 

girls raped or gang raped together, villages burned to the ground. people burned alive. and bodies 

disposed of by soldiers through burning and burials in mass graves. 

The perpetrators ofthese activities were led by the Tatmadaw (in particular the 33rd and 99th Light 

Infantry Divisions) joined hy other armed security forces and sometimes civilian perpetrators. 

In light of its tactual tin dings, the Fact finding Mission also found a reasonable basis to conclude that ( l) 

the Tadmadaw committed crimes against humanity and (together with certain other security forces) war 

crimes; (2) ARSA committed war crimes; and (3) there is "sufficient infom1ation" to warrant the 

investigation and prosecution ofTatmadaw senior o!Iicials so that "a competent court can determine their 

liability for genocide(.)" 

By contrast, the jnst-released Department of State report includes no findings of law. Its factual findings, 

however~ complement the findings of the U.N. Fact Finding Mission. and are framed in language that 

would he directly relevant to an analysis of whether atrocity crimes have been committed. These include 

(among other things) findings that the military "targeted civilians indiscriminately and often with extreme 

brutality~~· that the violence in northern Rakhine State \\'as "'extreme, large-scale, vv'idespread, and 

seemingly geared toward both terrorizing the population and driving oul the Rohing:ya residents,'' and that 

the "scope and scale of the military's operations indicate that they were well-planned and coordinated." 

Encouraging Accountability and Progress toward Return 

The tools lor imposing consequences on the perpetrators of atrocity crimes and holding them to accmmt 

are to a great extenl dependent on ofi-lacking cooperation by states and therefore have a disappointing 

track record. Nevetiheless, these tools remain an essential clement of any response to such crimes (and 

lor the prevention ofthcir recurrence) and should be pursued in the present context, both to reinforce the 

prinl:iple that crimes of this gravity should not go unpunished. and for the caution it may help to instill in 

possible future perpetrators. 

US" and Multilateral Targeted Sanctions 

Targeted sanctions can serve as an important signal of principle -to Myanmar and others around the 

globe- even though, in part because ofMyanmar~s long history vvith tough U.S. sanctions (and the 

resulting sense that they can be endured). they are very unlikely to change the thinking of the military or 

the government. 

Under Executive Order 13818 "Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious T-ruman Rights 

Abuse or Corruption"~which implements the Global Magnitsky Act~thc executive branch has farreaching authority to impose financial and visa sanctions on any non-U.S. person or entity responsible for 

or comp!icit in "serious human rights ahuses.'' The Tatmadaw Western Command Commander :\1aung 

Soc was included in the tlrst tranche of individuals designated for sanctions undcrthis new authority on 

December 21, 2017. Subsequently, the administration designated lour additional military o11iccrs and 

two security force units. The individuals and entities named in the Fact Finding Mission report as 

appropriate targets for criminal investigation should (to the extent not already sanctioned) be considered 

for targeted sanctions in this context, as should other perpetrators identilied in due course. Proceeding 

vvith designations under the human rights prong of Executive Order 13818 would send an appropriate 

signal to potential fi.1ture perpetrators in Myanmar and elsewhere. 

4 
18


32302b-5.eps

As a ru1e~ sanctions are more effective as both a naming-and-shaming tool and in terms of their impact if 

they arc imposed in concert with other countries. To the extent that the United States proceeds with 

additional targeted sand ions, it should seek where appropriate to work in concert v .. ,ith other partners. 

Ideally this would mean obtaining aU.?\. Security Council resolution imposing multilateral sanctions (a 

path likely to be blocked by China and possibly others) but it can also mean coordinating outside a U.N. 

framework with actors like Canada and the European Union, which have already imposed targeted 

sanctions of their own. It is also good practice to establish "off ramps'' for targeted sanctions. The Cnited 

States should accordingly make clear the circumstances under which sanctions would be lifted. In the 

case ofindi,idtral designated J<)f serious human rights violations or abuses, for example, it might be 

appropriate to signal that sanctions will be lifted if and when that individual has faced justice hefore an 

independent and impartial court or tribunal and been exonerated. 

Criminal Arcountahilitv 

\'v1lile Crisis Group's field work suggests that decision makers in Myanmar's civilian government and 

military are likely to be more concerned about the prospect of criminal accmmtability than targeted 

sanctions, the path in this direction is also subject to many limitations. The proven deficiencies of 

Myanmar's domestic justice system and the limited enforcement power of international or to reign 

tribunals that might assert jurisdiction over perpetrators all mean lhat lhe concrete impact of any judicial 

proceedings is likely to be significantly blunted. Nevertheless, it is impo1tant to pursue accountability 

through available channels to provide a measure of justice for the victims, to send a signal to future 

perpetrators, and to help hegin creating the circumstances under \vhich the Rohingya might feel safe 

returning home. Against this backdrop, certain questions have arisen: 

What kind of crimes are being alleged, and are any of them more grave than others? The Fact Finding 

Mission report makes allegations \·vith respect to genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. 

Because of their gravity, these arc all considered crimes of international concern that may be tried by 

international tribunals or by the national courts of countries with m' link to the jurisdiction where the 

crime was committed beyond the presence of an alleged perpetrator on their territory. 

Among the crimes of international concern, genocide and crimes against humanitjl can occur both in 

situations of\var or in peace and are the most likely to be concen1cd \Vith atrocities committed against 

large numbers of people. By contrast, war crimes take place in the context of armed conflict and arc more 

prone to include one-oJlacts or acts against sole individuals. As bet\vccn genocide and crimes against 

humanity, there is sometin1es a perception that genocide is necessarily a crime of greater gravity. Jn fnct, 

there arc no spccitic numerical thresholds tor either category of crime. and both arc capable of 

encompassing mass murder on an unlimited -;cale and other bottomless depravity'. The Nazi officials tried 

at Nnremberg were convicted of crimes against humanity rather than genocide, which was not formulated 

as a crime under intemationallaw until the Genocide Convention of 1948 came into force. 

Genocide is, however, the most difficult of the atrocity crimes to prove. Under the United States' 

understanding ofthc crime, it requires proof that an enumerated act (killing, the commission of bodily 

harm, deliberately inllicting destructive conditions or life, preventing births, or transferring children) is 

committed against the member of a specified kind of group (national, ethnical, religious or racial) \vith the 

specitlc intent to destroy the group in whole or substantial part. The specitic intent and destruction 

prongs of this test are especially difficult to prove. 

fly contrast, proving crimes against humanity is generally understood to require a showing that the 

perpetrator knowingly committed certain enumerated acts· -murder, sexual violence, persecution, 

deportation. and forced transfer are among them-in a widespread or systematic manner. Crimes against 

5 
19


32302b-6.eps

humanity (and war crimes, which in many case.s cover similar conduct but exclusively in the context of 

armed cont1ict) arc therefore generally more straightfonvard to prove than genocide even in cases where 

greater numbers of people may have been affected. 

Where can the alleged crimes be tried? The three atrocity crimes can be tried either by an intemational 

criminal tribunal, such as the International Criminal Court. an ad hoc tribLmal that has been created by the 

U.N. Security Council to address a panicular situation (like the International Criminal Tribunal for the 

former Yugoslavia), or a hybrid tribunal that combines domestic and international clements (like the 

Special Court for Sierra Leone). In countries that have passed legislation that recognizes universal 

jurisdiction over these crimes, national courts may also try perpetrators simply on the basis of their 

presence on the country's territory. 

Generally, the inten1ational Criminal Court'sjurisdiction is limited to acts committed on the tenitory of a 

party to the ICC Rome Statute, or in the context of a sinwtion that has been referred to the court by the 

C.N. Security Council. But even though Myanmar is not a state party. and there has heenno Security 

Cmmcil referral, the court has asserted jurisdiction over cettain crimes arising out oft he anti-Rohingya 

violence in Rakhine state. Several weeks ago, a pre-trial chamber of the court ruled that because the 

alleged crimes against humanity of dcpmiation and forced transfer occurred partly on the territory of 

Bangladesh, which is a party to the Rome Statute, the court has jurisdiction over those crimes. 1t has also 

left the door open for the prosecutor to pursue other ICC crimes that she can demonstrate were completed 

on tile territory of Bangladesh. 

While this interpretation of !he court's jurisdiction may raise concerns among those who criticize it for 

addressing matters that involve non-party states, it also means that the ICC has a head start over other fora 

where accountability might be pursued. The ICC prosecutor has already launched a pre-investigatory 

"preliminary examination'' that covers some of the crimes in question. While the Sccmity Council could 

augment the limited scope of the ICC's inquiry through a referral that would give the court full 

jurisdiction over tile situation in Myanmar, China (and perhaps Russia) would almost certainly oppose 

such a referral. Any move to create a Council-mandated ad hoc tribunal would likely also be vetoed. 

Although the only active option in the Myanmar context as a vehicle for accountability, the ICC is 

imperfect. Operating with limited resources and without the support of any of the great powers, it tends 

to move thrm1gh its cascload slowly and must rely on the spotty eUixts of its 123 member states to 

enforce its judgments. It has particularly stntgglcd to pursue prosecutions \Vhcn the state \Vherc the crime 

occurred refuses cooperation. lt could take years for the court to move from the preliminary examination 

stage to the opening of a formal investigation, and yet more years before it has assembled sufficient 

evidence to bring charges (an outcome that is by no means guaranteed). 

To be sure, the court is not wholly without enlixccmcnt tools. In cases where the ICC brings charges and 

the indictee does not appear he fore the court, the court may issue a \..varrant or summons that obligates 

states parties to arrest the indictee and deliver him or her to The Hague. This ability to hamper the 

mobility of indictccs casts a shadow that by itself can have deterrent ctlcct. In order to be cttcctivc, 

however, it is important to build a large coalition of states that will commit to enforcing the warrant 

should an ICC indictee travel to their territory. 

What more can the United Stares do? Unfortunately, the administration's policies have already set it at 

odds with the multilateral institutions that have played-~~ and will almost certainly continue to play~~~ key 

roles in pursuing accountability for atrocity perpetrators involved with the anti-Rohingya violence. It has 

withdrawn from the U.N. Human Rights Council and attacked its legitimacy. It has also attacked the 

legitimacy of the International Criminal Cout1 ceased to support its efforts, even in matters where the 

6 
20


32302b-7.eps

United States and the court share a common objective. lfthc United States were to reverse these policies. 

it would be in a better position to support the Human Rights Com1cil as it weighs the creation of an 

independent investigative mechanism 1o collect and preserve evidence and to help ensure ils success. (TL 

still can, and should .. look for ways to support the new mechanism. just as it has supported the analogous 

mechanism created for Syria.) A shift in policy would also allow it to provide support to, and share 

infmmation with, the ICC, as it used to do in cases where it shared the court's objectives and there was no 

legal bar to doing so. 

As for Congress, actions that call the world's attention to the crimes committed against the Rohingya, and 

help to galvanize the demand for justice, are important. Hearings and high level visits to the region are 

especially helpf\1l. Congress might also tcmd e±Torts that serve the purpose of accountability- such as 

documentation, search, and recover eJTorts relating to mass graves to \Vhich there is access. And, much 

like it created a powerf\11 human rights tool in the fonn of the Global Magnitsky Act. Congress could 

signal its commitment to accountability by enacting a crimes against humanity statute, to help ensure that 

should perpetrators from Myanmar set foot on U.S. soil, they vvould face justice for the1r crimes. 

Reji1gee Support 

The Rohingya refugee cri,.is presents a significant dilemma for the intenmtional community. On one 

hand, it is Yital to insist on the right of the Rohingya to return home and Myanmar's obligation to create 

conditions conducive to that, as well as to pursue accountability. On the other, no voluntary repatriation is 

feasible for the foreseeable future, which means concerted efforts are required to ease the burden on 

Bangladesh and provide alternative options lor the refugees. 

Cntil nmv, many countries have been concerned that explicitly acknowledging that the refugees are 

unlikely to go home would relieve pressure on Myanmar to accept them back and could be seen as 

rewarding the architects of ethnic cleansing. But the teniblc reality is that concerted international pressure 

thus far ha~ nol altered Myanmar's political stance on this issue and even such increased efforts as coultl 

be plausibly achieved- especially given China's seemingly fixed opposition to any punitive action from 

the Security Council- arc likely to fall short in the toresceablc future. In the meantime, the stallls quo lor 

the Rohingya r~fugccs could morph in dangerous ways. If host communities or national political 

sentiment in Bangladesh turns against the ren1gees (building on what appears to be gathering momentum 

at the local level), the government may pressure them to ret urn against their will or force them into 

more isolated camps in Bangladesh, such as those being constructed on Bhasan island. Such 

developments could prompt instability or violence on either side of the harder. 

Principled Hngagement 

As the United States considers its bilateral relationship with Myanmar in light of what is know11 and what 

continues to sur!aec about the Rakhine State atrocities. it will have to thread something of a needle. 

On the one hand, the civilian government's direct responsibility lor the 2017 violence in northern Ra.khinc 

is limited by the llwt that it does not have oversight or Gontrol of the armed forces, nor visibilit.Y of \\'hat 

they are doing. Nevertheless, it is also 11ovv· clear that the civilian goven1ment, Jed by Aung San Suu Kyi 

is part ofthc problem- not only tor failing to speak out, bnt for failing to curb anti-Rohingya hate speech 

in the state media, denying that human rights abuses have taken place, providing cover lo the military, and 

perpetuating policies in Rakhine State that International has concluded amount to the crime 

against humanity of apartheid. On the other hand, does not appear that the 1\LD-led government is 

going anywhere. Though illiberal (as witnessed by the jailing of the Reuters journalists, and more general 

crackdown on free media and civil society) it is still suftlciently popular to make victory in the next 

7 
21


32302b-8.eps

national election (2020) highly likely. If that happens. then it could be at least 2025 before leadership 

changes hands. 

This suggests that even as the United States mounts pressure through sanctions, and whatever assistance it 

is able to offer to international accountability efforts, it should also recognize that these alone are not 

likely to change the direction of the goven1ment's handling of the Rohingya crisis. and continue to engage 

diplomatically. Through principled engagement-in which the United States speaks candidly about its 

views on the past and concerns about the future-U.S. diplomats should probe on an ongoing basis any 

for making meaninglhl progress. U.'-1. Special Envoy Christine Schraner Burgener has access to 

Aung San Suu Kyi and the Commander in Chid of the armed forces and therefore could also he an 

important channel. 

We will never again have the opportunity, unfmtunately, to prevent the atrocities of summer 2017. 

Through the right balance of pressure and engagement, however, the United States now has an 

nm1nr111rmv lo try to prevent them ffom happening again, while providing some measure ofju.stice to the 

8 
22

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Thank you for being with us today. 

We appreciate it. 

We’ve also been joined by Sandy Levin, who’s been very passionate about this issue, involved in it for many years and we appreciate the Congressman being with our committee today on this. 

Let me begin with a question, because the Convention on the 

Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, as I indicated, the United States signed it. We ratified it. It defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in 

part a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. 

When President Reagan signed the legislation ratifying this convention, he said, ‘‘I am delighted to fulfil the promise made by 

Harry Truman to all the peoples of the world, and especially the 

Jewish people. This represents a strong and clear statement by the 

United States that it will punish acts of genocide with the force of 

law and the righteousness of justice.’’

Since then, the United States Government, often with the encouragement of Congress, sadly, had cause to make several determinations of genocide. We have had to do that, most recently finding that ISIS had committed genocide against religious minorities 

in Iraq and in Syria. 

Ms. Van Susteren, based on your reporting, do you believe the 

actions of the Burmese security forces are designed to destroy in 

whole or in part the Rohingya and do you agree that these atrocities are being carried out on a massive and shocking scale? 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. Mr. Chairman, if I could just break for 1 second—that the reason that it finally got signed by President Reagan 

was because Senator Bill Proxmire from my home state was so 

forceful in trying to get that finally signed by a U.S. President. It 

took 40 years. 

Secondly, let me speak personally and not on behalf of VOA or 

the government. I don’t speak for them. But I’ve been there. I’ve 

witnessed this. 

Do I think that it meets the definition? I absolutely do, having 

witnessed it. I mean, I talked to people. I walked those camps. I 

talked to them. 

The Myanmar military elected to push the Rohingya out of their 

country and it’s a little bit like if six people commit an armed robbery in Milwaukee you don’t throw everybody out of Milwaukee. 

You go after the six people. 

But they systematically wanted to get rid of the Rohingya and 

that’s what they did and, of course, it hearkens back to the history 

in 1982, where they made them noncitizens with their constitution. 

But there’s no doubt that it’s done on a mass level. It’s no doubt 

that they have been identified. But I should add is that there are 

other groups in Myanmar like the Christians that are likewise getting persecuted, but not to the magnitude or the number of people 

of the Rohingya. But it does meet, in my personal opinion, the definition of genocide. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

Also, in talking to some of the survivors, part of the issue has 

been getting journalists into that affected area. What they share 

with me is that the attempt or the effort by the military in Burma 

23

to control information gives only one perspective every day to the 

Burmese people. 

And so our efforts both on getting humanitarian assistance in 

and getting journalists to cover this first hand in terms of what’s 

happening in Rakhine State is a huge challenge. 

It’s important that people in the region and throughout the world 

understand the facts and it’s important they get that information 

in real time. 

Sadly, we saw the two Reuters reporters convicted on framed 

charges and we’ve heard about the major obstacles that Radio Free 

Asia is facing. 

Maybe you could talk about your experiences on this issue and 

what the VOA is doing in the face of these challenges from the 

Burmese military and trying to get the information all over the 

world but also getting it to the Burmese so that they understand 

what the rest of us are talking about and really comprehend not 

what the military is telling them is happening in Rakhine State 

but what is actually happening up there. 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. You used the word challenges, which is a 

nice way to say what’s really happening. The press isn’t getting in. 

I mean, you have got an instance where a VOA stringer was invited to the Rakhine State but as part of a press pool with limited 

access. 

I’ve been to North Korea three times and they stand next to you 

and take notes as you do anything. Well, if you’re not allowed in—

if you don’t have free access you’re not really reporting. 

You make the best of what you get. But reporters are not getting 

access to the Rakhine State. I had the Ambassador from Myanmar 

to the United States on my VOA show and he said that he would 

take me—I am still waiting—because I would like to go into the 

Rakhine State. 

But there’s a reason why those two reporters from Reuters are 

spending 7 years in prison and that’s because they dared to begin 

reporting on mass graves of Rohingya inside the Rakhine State. 

But there is no access. I think even Senator Dick Durbin tried 

to get into the Rakhine State and a U.S. senator couldn’t get in 

there. 

So it’s tightly controlled. The news that does come out often is 

the Myanmar military-controlled press. 

So to suggest that we are getting any accurate news, the best we 

can do is talk to the survivors and they’re all giving us consistently 

the same story. 

We are all hearing the same stories and they’re not all getting 

together and cooking up a story. We are talking individually to 

them and they’re telling us these horrors. That’s the best way we 

can get this information. 

But if Myanmar wants to be playing the world stage they might 

want to invite journalists in so we can fairly report and not in a 

controlled environment. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you very much for your testimony. My 

time has expired. 

We’ll go to Mr. Engel. 

24

Mr. ENGEL. I want to again thank our witnesses today. It’s very 

interesting to hear their thoughts, and the chairman and I are one 

when it comes to this kind of thing. 

When we talk about acts of genocide or crimes against humanity 

or decide what we call it, why would the U.S. State Department 

be reluctant, based on all the available evidence, to upgrade its 

current designation of ethnic cleansing to at least crimes against 

humanity, if not genocide? Anyone have a thought on that? 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. I don’t speak for the State Department. I 

don’t know what maybe they haven’t seen it. I don’t know why the 

State Department doesn’t. Maybe there’s a legal distinction. But I 

don’t speak for the State Department. 

Mr. ENGEL. Okay. 

Mr. POMPER. So neither do I anymore. But I would say on this 

issue, let me not speculate about motivation but let me just say the 

findings that were released in the report make pretty much a facial 

case for crimes against humanity. 

It doesn’t use the term crimes against humanity but all the sort 

of legal predicates are sort of spelled out in language that, frankly, 

does have legal weight. 

They speak about indiscriminate killing. They speak about widespread and large-scale violence and they speak about 

premeditation. 

All of those are the key elements of a crimes against humanity 

finding. And I don’t know why they wouldn’t take the extra step 

there. 

In the past, past administrations have struggled with issues 

around legal characterizations either because they really had trouble sort of making the legal case to themselves internally or because they were concerned that announcing a legal conclusion 

might put a burden on them to take policy actions that they 

weren’t prepared to take. 

I fear, in this context, it might be the latter, at least as it concerns crimes against humanity because it seems like such a 

straightforward determination. It really seems, based on the way 

in which the report is written that they’ve arrived at that conclusion and just been reluctant to articulate it. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

The civilian Government of Burma seems to be focused on economic development in northern Rakhine State as the way to encourage Rohingya to come home, notwithstanding the desperate 

economic conditions there. 

These efforts seem devoid of an acknowledgment of the systematic denial of basic human rights which Rohingya in northern 

Rakhine State have endured for decades. 

So given the challenges of Rakhine State and the mixed results 

of peace-building and transitional justice initiatives following mass 

atrocities in other parts of the world, what would potential transitional justice mechanisms look like for Burma? What kind of initiatives should we be supporting as part of a broader policy toward 

Burma? 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. First of all, inviting them back, they’ve got 

a problem is that, number one, they’re noncitizens. They’re not people under the constitution. 

25

Secondly is that for a while they’re saying they’d have to have 

some identification cards to come back. But it’s not like they 

walked out with a passport and a driver’s license. I mean, their 

homes were burned to the ground and everything they had. 

They left with the shirt on their backs, if they had a shirt on 

their backs, and oftentimes not with their children if their children 

have been murdered or wandered off. 

So it’s a little unrealistic to think that this is some sort of economic development. I think sort of even before we get to that there 

has to be some recognition that these are people and we are not 

even there, and I think the condemnation as genocide is helpful. 

Obviously, sanctions, as has been suggested, has historically 

been somewhat helpful. But I think that we are so far off from 

thinking that they’re going back anytime soon. 

Mr. POMPER. I agree with that. I think, in order to have a transitional justice mechanism to begin thinking seriously about them, 

you need to have a real transition and this is, at best right now, 

a stalled transition. 

You have a situation where there really isn’t meaningful access 

to many areas of northern Rakhine State by humanitarian actors, 

that access is controlled by the Tatmadaw. 

You don’t have a recognition of the catastrophe that’s happened 

on the part of either the civilian or the military leadership. You 

don’t even have a civilian leadership that’s willing to call these people by their name. 

Without these kinds of predicates, thinking about a transitional 

justice mechanism, which is the kind of mechanism you would put 

in place when you had a sort of consensus—a political consensus 

in the country—that there was a time to take a step forward to a 

new political moment, we are not there yet. There’s too much that 

needs to be done. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Let me ask one final question. Some of our colleagues in the Senate would argue that disciplinary measures against Burma’s military might make it harder to transition to democracy and end the 

civil war. 

However, the U.N. fact-finding mission report found that these 

same military leaders are one of the greatest barriers to democratic 

reform. 

So given the political entrenchment of the Burmese military and 

the constitutional weakness of the civilian government, what can 

be done by the United States or the international community to encourage the military to get out of politics? 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. Well, first of all, we thought that lifting the 

sanctions in 2012 some of the sanctions would somehow coerce 

them—it was a recognition of moving toward a democracy. 

That, obviously, didn’t work and, again, I am speaking as myself. 

We can’t police the world and I don’t think we can police the world. 

But we don’t have to participate. We don’t have to let people participate in the world like the military leaders who are behind this. 

So I don’t know how you get the military to sort of back off. 

We’ve tried many things over many decades. But I think letting 

them participate in the world and the United States not taking a 

stronger stand makes it—I think we should take a stronger stand. 

26

Now, the reference to the International Criminal Court—if that 

worked I would be all for it. 

But the International Criminal Court has been somewhat feckless historically. It has had an outstanding genocide indictment 

against President Bashir of Sudan for, I don’t know, what—5, 6, 7, 

8 years and nothing has been done. So I don’t think we can think 

of the ICC as some answer to all this. I think it really is incumbent 

upon the United States and Congress to make a decision about 

what kind of statement it wants to make. 

But I think what’s been most successful, and not particularly 

successful, is when the United States takes a strong stand and 

doesn’t participate with nations that are doing ethnic cleansing or 

genocide. 

Mr. POMPER. I will—just a couple of thoughts about this. I think 

the challenge that all international criminal justice mechanisms 

face is they don’t have enforcement powers of their own. They really need to rely on member states to enforce their warrants and 

their judgments. 

So if the international community gets behind an accountability 

effort, which I think is certainly warranted in this case, it’s also 

going to be important to do the diplomacy that’s necessary to mobilize the international community to deliver on judgements that are 

reached and warrants that are issued. 

In terms of the question, how to bring the military along on this 

case, I mean, I tend to agree there’s not a magic bullet. 

I think the impulse is going to have to be sort of driven from—

internally by a reform effort that, frankly, just is not evident right 

now—that that group or that basis of reformers has not, I think, 

yet materialized. 

I think one hopes that the kinds of pressure tools that we’ve 

talked about targeted sanctions, threats of accountability, and the 

like can help demonstrate that this is not a satisfactory status quo 

for anybody involved. 

And then I think the other piece of this is continued engagement 

and a conversation with the civilian leadership and, frankly, conversations with the military leadership as well to make the point 

that if Myanmar wants to progress, if it wants to diversify its ability to engage diplomatically and militarily with a full range of 

international actors, then it’s going to need to evolve beyond the 

sort of straitjacket that it’s placed itself in at this point. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes, thank you, and I think Beijing’s pressure 

to the Security Council has been a very real impediment to trying 

to move the international community on this, given their veto. 

We go to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Chairman Royce and 

Ranking Member Engel, for holding this important hearing. 

It’s great to see you again, Greta. Thank you for everything that 

you have been doing with your VOA show and shining a light on—

and your important advocacy on human rights issues on your show 

every week. 

And thank you, Mr. Pomper, for being here to testify in front of 

us. For years now many of us on this committee have been speaking out in support of the Rohingya people. 

27

In 2014, we supported a resolution that this committee passed—

Jim McGovern’s House Resolution 418, which called for an end to 

persecution and for the U.S. to take more action on behalf of the 

Rohingyas. 

In the years since, members of our committee have sent letters 

after letters asking for the administration to take more action, urging more pressure on the Burmese Government, sanctions against 

those responsible for this genocide, access for humanitarian assistance. 

And just last month, we joined a letter by Ranking Member 

Engel urging the administration to levy additional sanctions 

against Burma’s military leadership to make a public determination over this genocide. 

And this month we sign on to Jan Schakowsky and Ranking 

Member Engel’s letter again expressing concern about the imprisonment of the two Reuters journalist. 

The list goes on and on, and in the wake of the U.N. report saying that the Burmese military actions meet the legal threshold of 

genocide, which we’ve been discussing, it also called for a formal 

international independent investigation into these crimes. 

And it’s important to note Ranking Member Engel’s BURMA Act, 

which still needs to be passed and that aims to impose additional 

sanctions and ensure accountability about the human rights violations in Burma. 

We had Joe Crowley and Steve Chabot, who’s a wonderful member of our committee, pass an important bill condemning the ethnic 

cleansing going on. 

So, many efforts on behalf of Members of Congress, especially of 

this committee, but we need to start seeing results with real consequences—real deterrents to stop this genocide from happening. 

And the administration has commendably implemented some 

necessary sanctions. But it’s also important and necessary to ask 

was there anything that could have been done differently. 

When Aung San Suu Kyi returned to Burma’s political process 

in 2011, so many were encouraged by very limited democratic 

steps. But, as I said in 2012, it was far too soon to start easing 

sanctions as the last administration was committed to doing, never 

mind its outright lifting of sanctions in 2016. 

This is not to say that anyone but the Burmese military is responsible for the genocide. But, Greta, I would ask you is this a 

case of moving too fast too soon? Was the easing and lifting of economic pressure and sanctions against Burma’s military regime a 

case of wishful thinking and how can we make sure we don’t make 

this mistake again? 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. First of all, 20/20 hindsight is far different 

than reviewing something at the time. At the time that the sanctions were being considered for lifting and that they were actually 

lifted, I thought it was a good idea. I think we’ll try anything, encourage anyone to be a democracy. 

So I had hoped and I think everybody else involved with it had 

hoped that those sanctions would encourage a greater move toward 

democracy in Myanmar. 

It has not turned out that way, despite everyone’s best effort and 

the U.S. Government’s best effort to do that. I think, and you have 

28

listed, Congresswoman, all the many things that Congress has 

done—the letters—and I tell you, in my personal opinion, those are 

so well received and it’s so appreciated. 

I mean, the fact that holding the hearings today for these people 

who are a bazillion miles away sitting in horrible deplorable conditions and the fact that the U.S. Congress cares about them certainly should be significant to the American people. It shows about 

what we are. 

Frankly, if I have any sort of disappointment in what you have 

laid out, my disappointment really is in my own business in the 

media. I think the media has large—I mean, there’s a lot to report 

on the world. I got that. 

But I don’t think the media has put the spotlight on this story 

enough so that enough people are informed about it so the American people can participate in this and help as well to give some 

sort of guidance to their leaders—the Members of Congress. It 

takes 2 seconds to tweet something and it goes—we all have 1 million followers in the media. 

So, I thank Congress for what it’s doing. I appreciate what the 

Obama administration tried to do and was ineffective. But we are 

in a new time and I hope now that there’s a bigger spotlight on 

this and I hope that Congress can fashion something. My personal 

opinion is I would like to tighten the sanctions on those military 

leaders because I see that as the problem. 

Aung San Suu Kyi, we all hoped that she was going to be the 

answer. But she doesn’t have much power as a civilian leader. 

I think we sort of almost built up in our own minds that she was 

going to be able to do these magical things. She won’t even mention 

the word Rohingya. She won’t even say that and maybe she’s worried for her life. 

I don’t know what it is but she won’t even say that. But I think 

we can stop putting our money on her. I don’t think that she has 

the power and she hasn’t indicated the willingness, although I 

would hope things have changed. 

But I think it’s really going to take a collective effort and I really 

call out the media. It takes 2 seconds to tweet things and it doesn’t 

take a lot to report on this because we need to give you guys the 

spotlight by informing the American people so people care about 

this. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Well, thank you. My time is up, so now I get 

to interrupt you. 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. Okay. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much for your advocacy. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Thank you. 

We go to David Cicilline of Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you and 

the ranking member for calling this hearing and thank our witnesses. 

I was on the trip—the fact-finding mission with Senator Durbin 

and Senator Merkley in November and I want to begin by saying 

thank you to Greta Van Susteren for the attention you’re bringing 

to this. 

29

I do hope that maybe as a result of this hearing that there will 

be additional attention from the media because it was the most 

haunting trip I have ever made. 

We had the opportunity to hear directly from members of the 

Rohingya community in Bangladesh about unspeakable atrocities 

and they showed us the burns on their bodies and recounted stories 

of the slaughter of their children and family members, and it is 

horrific. 

And we were in fact denied the right to go into the Rakhine 

State, and as a kind of consolation prize they took us to Aung 

Mingalar, which is a ghetto in Myanmar where they’ve rounded up 

the Rohingya, taken them away from their homes, and they are 

forced to live in this ghetto. They ran businesses, had shops nearby. 

They’re not allowed to work in those shops anymore. There’s no 

education, no health care, and they’ve done nothing at all other 

than be Rohingya and they’re put into this. And so they were very 

proud to show us this place as an alternative. 

We then heard stories from that government that, oh, no, the 

Rohingya burned down their own villages. I mean, it was just horrific. There was no willingness to accept responsibility in any way. 

So I appreciate the work that you have both done to bring attention to this. 

My first question is in terms of an ICC referral, you know, having an international forum where some evidence can be presented 

so the world can understand what’s happening, it seems to me, 

would be very useful and I am just wondering, Mr. Pomper, what 

you think would be the consequence if the United States stood in 

the way of that. 

The reason I raise that question is Mr. Bolton has said in a 

speech that we don’t believe in the ICC—we’ll never cooperate or 

assist them in any way. 

And so in this moment this becomes particularly important, in 

my view. 

Mr. POMPER. Thank you for the question. 

I mean, I agree generally with the tenor of the observations that 

have been made today that the United States, by itself, is obviously 

a very powerful voice and a powerful actor and can be a real leader 

on situations like this. 

But it’s most effective when it also works with multilateral institutions that have within their remit addressing these kinds of situations. 

And in this particular context, two of the leading institutions 

that have those capabilities and that have that remit are the 

Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court, and 

those are two institutions that this administration has spared no 

effort in recent months attacking their legitimacy, and I think 

that’s a terrible mistake. 

And I think you saw a little bit of a tacit recognition of that 

when Ambassador Haley associated herself with the fact-finding 

commission’s findings when she spoke to the Security Council. 

That fact-finding mission was mandated and supported by the 

U.N. Human Rights Council and it’s an extremely credible commission and the work that it’s done has been absolutely critical in 

30

framing international conversation around these atrocities. Why 

one would delegitimize that is absolutely beyond me. 

I think as far as the International Criminal Court I would make 

a couple of observations. First, the International Criminal Court 

has actually already seized itself of this matter. 

It’s done so in an incomplete way. There was a judgment by a 

pre-trial chamber of the court recently that asserted jurisdiction 

over certain crimes that have, as part of their predicate, actions 

that took place in Bangladesh, which is a state party to the ICC. 

So it has partial jurisdiction. Obviously, a referral by the Security Council would give it greater jurisdiction and would allow it 

to do a more complete job in terms of investigating and potentially 

prosecuting these cases at some point. 

I think that would be useful. But it’s also important to give them 

the support that they need to do that. 

Mr. CICILLINE. All right. Thank you very much. 

I think also one of the principal issues that you both touched 

upon is the stripping of citizenship. We had the opportunity to 

meet with members of the National Assembly—their parliament—

who were elected and served the members of the Rohingya community that have now been stripped of their citizenship. 

So to say to these folks, you are not citizens of this country when 

they served in the government I think shows the absurdity and I 

think the question of how do you have a repatriation process that 

makes sure that the Rohingya can return safely and with full citizenship so that they can return to their country free from intimidation, the fear of death and violence, I think is, obviously, an important issue. 

And I know Aung San Suu Kyi, who may not have a lot of power 

in the current construct, has a lot of moral authority and she has 

completely failed in any way to speak out against this violence, to 

acknowledge it. 

The fact that she may have less power than the military may in 

fact be true but she has the power of her voice and her international standing and she has completely failed in that responsibility and it’s been a grave disappointment to many of us here in 

Congress. 

And I know my time has run out, but I thank you again for your 

thoughts, and yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Where does the Burmese military get their weapons and ammunition? What type of weapons and ammunition do they have? 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. I will defer to you. Do you know that answer? I don’t know where they get them. 

Mr. POMPER. I would be speculating. I am sorry. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We know they’re shooting people. We 

have——

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. They use a lot of machetes, they burn, and 

they rape. So that’s been their——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I don’t like——

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. They’ve weaponized a lot of things like that. 

But I don’t know about their weapons. 

31

Mr. POMPER. Not from the United States, which has an arms embargo in place. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. So would I be just really off base if I 

suggest that it’s very possible that the Chinese are providing the 

Burmese military the weapons they need for these type of actions? 

Mr. POMPER. You’re free to suggest that. Certainly, not a crazy 

suggestion. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Well, let me just note that the type 

of genocide and brutality and mass killings that the Burmese Government has been known for for three decades now, at least. 

I remember being very active when trying to support the Karens 

and the others, and the Burmese Government and their military 

has not just been focused on the Rohingya, which we need to worry 

about today because those are the ones who are bearing the brunt 

of this brutality and genocide, but this is a history of this type of 

activity and we should know where their weapons are coming from. 

And I would suggest they’re probably coming from China and——

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. We should do something about 

it. Yes, sir? 

Chairman ROYCE. If the gentleman would yield. 

Their weapons do principally come from China. One of the oddities is that the other separatist ethnic groups in Burma also are 

supplied. The Chinese sell them weapons as well. 

So they sell the weapons to the government in Myanmar and 

they sell weapons to different ethnic separatist groups. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So it sounds like—thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for this hearing, by the way. I appreciate your leadership, as usual, on human rights issues. 

And let me just note, the chairman and I had a difference of 

opinion on the title of the Magnitsky Act but not the substance of 

the Magnitsky Act. 

Is this time for us to have sanctions against the specific leaders 

of the Burmese military? 

Mr. POMPER. Yes. 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. And, again, I am not here representing the 

Voice of America or the government, but let me answer personally. 

Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. So, Mr. Chairman, today I would 

hope with that whatever comes out of this hearing that we stand 

together and that we are going to hold the individuals and leadership of the Burmese military responsible—personally responsible—

as well as the government itself, and let us declare that the Government of Burma is an outlaw among nations because this is not 

inconsistent with their behavior over the last 30 years and the 

military has—and we declared that the military is guilty of crimes 

against humanity. 

So one of the things I would be—now, those are things we can 

recognize now. What I don’t understand is how come we are the 

ones that are upset? Where are Saudis and all of these wealthy 

Muslim countries that have enormous resources available to them? 

Why are they permitting their fellow Muslims to live in this type 

of brutality and squalor? 

32

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. Well, I can’t answer those questions either 

but I can tell you that Bangladesh is very upset because this is 

very difficult for that nation. That’s not a rich nation——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That’s right. 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN [continuing]. And they—and this——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Bangladesh has almost no money for helping. 

We know there are several countries in this world that are Islamic 

countries that have enormous resources, and are they the helping? 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. I can’t answer that. I can tell you that there 

were some NGOs from different countries like Doctors Without 

Borders. But that’s France. But I don’t know if any of these other 

nations—I would defer to you, Mr. Pomper. 

Mr. POMPER. So I can’t give you a complete answer. But I recall 

from actually your reporting that there’s a very substantial number 

of Rohingya refugees living in Saudi Arabia. 

I also know that the Organization of the Islamic Conference has 

been very active diplomatically. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I didn’t catch that. The Saudis and the Kuwaitis and the Qataris—are they kicking in to help the Rohingya 

people? 

Mr. POMPER. I don’t know how much money is flowing from 

those. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, when you see pictures of standing in 

this—the horrible—in the middle of this village or the horrible conditions that you just showed us, it is more than disappointing to 

think that, okay, we need to be concerned but what about these 

filthy rich Muslim countries. They don’t allow Syrian refugees in. 

They expect Europe to take all of them. They aren’t even helping 

the Rohingyas and other people who are being targets of genocide. 

Shame on them. Shame on them, and I would hope that, Mr. 

Chairman, that they’re listening right now. 

But all we can do with us is we can make our own commitment 

to having standards and, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the leadership and the Magnitsky Act, although I disagree with the title, and 

other things like this that you have made sure that we are part 

of the solution and as compared to the Saudis and the Chinese. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

We go to Mr. Brad Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I also believe the Islamic world should 

be doing more. To just commit diplomatic resources is not the same 

as hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. 

It’s my understanding that the United States is by far the most 

generous of all countries in this and many other crises. 

Many of us supported the efforts of Aung San Suu Kyi. We met 

with her. We pushed. We adopted sanctions, and it is disillusioning 

to the entire democracy and human rights movement worldwide. 

How do I get people involved in the next human rights champion—

in the next democracy champion when we see someone with a lot 

of influence use that influence to protect the military of Myanmar? 

Now, in September 2018, I joined with several of our colleagues 

on a bipartisan letter urging Secretary Pompeo to press for the release of the two Reuters journalists who were sent to prison for 7 

33

years. I am so troubled that Aung San Suu Kyi has defended the 

conviction of these journalists. 

Ms. Van Susteren, you speak as much as anyone for the journalistic community of this country. What should we be doing? 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. Well, first of all, let me just add to this that 

I appreciate that letter, on behalf of journalists, and I shared disappointment with the U.S. media. Why aren’t we hearing about 

this from my fellow journalists more? I mean, that would help. 

This is a partnership. The media can’t do it alone. Congress can’t 

do it alone. Nobody can do all this alone. 

So I share that sort of disappointment with the journalists. They 

are not, of course, the only journalists held in jails across the 

world. But these two journalists, just to fill in the gap, were framed 

by the police. 

They were given some documents and in a restaurant, and as 

soon as they walked outside the restaurant they were arrested for 

having the documents. So it’s terrible. 

Aung San Suu Kyi, a huge disappointment. Maybe we expected 

way too much of her but we can all sort of look back and think, 

what could she have done? I think it really sort of behooves us to 

sort of in this crisis, as we look at what’s happening to the people 

now, to figure out what can we do for them. 

But the people in this camp, they’re penned in. They can’t leave. 

They can’t go to school. They can’t do anything. It’s a breeding 

ground for all sorts of diseases and for trouble—which is one of the 

reasons why the director of Voice of America wants to get news 

into the camp so that people see that there’s opportunity outside 

the camp and that at least there are people paying attention. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The purpose of the Burmese military—the 

Myanmar military—is to ethnically cleanse the area, to reverse 

what they think is the wrongful act of people moving into their 

country 100 or 1,000 years ago. Most American families have 

moved into this country in the last 100 or at least the last 1,000 

years. 

And so we can hope that there are well maintained refugee 

camps in Bangladesh. But that achieves the purpose of what seems 

to be a genocide and a crime against humanity. 

I would point out that when the Government of Sudan waged 

war against its own people in the south, we saw an independent 

South Sudan. Now, things didn’t work out recently. 

Mr. Pomper, if north Rakhine State was either independent or 

part of Bangladesh, would its people be safe on their own land? Because we know they can be more or less safe in refugee camps, but 

then they have limited opportunities. 

Mr. POMPER. So forgive me, sir. I am going to resist the logic of 

the question a little bit for the very reason that you said, which 

is that I think these kinds of separationist solutions, unfortunately, 

honor the logic of ethnic cleansing and I think at this point the 

best way to think about this is in terms of trying to affect a situation where it is actually possible for the Rohingya to come back——

Mr. SHERMAN. You really think that the Rohingya could move 

back and wouldn’t be killed 2 years from now, 10 years from now, 

20 years from now? 

Mr. POMPER. I don’t——

34

Mr. SHERMAN. Do you really think that they can live in peace 

and security and confidence in a land controlled by the Burmese 

military? 

Mr. POMPER. So let me answer the question in two parts. 

I think, first, if the government succeeds or the Tatmadaw succeeds in this campaign, what is to stop it from then moving down 

the list of ethnicities with which it has similar grievances? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, if it grants independence to each of those 

ethnicities, that’s exactly what they don’t want to do. If the Burmese state loses north Rakhine as part of its sovereign territory, 

it’s not going to want to repeat that elsewhere. 

Mr. POMPER. I would worry about the precedential value inside 

Myanmar and I would worry about the precedential value outside 

Myanmar as well. 

I think, in general, the best solution under these circumstances—

and I agree, it’s difficult to look into the future and say 2 years, 

5 years, 10 years from now we will certainly be in a situation 

where we know that this will be solved in terms of creating the circumstances for repatriation, but that needs to remain the objective 

at this point. In the meantime——

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, I think we are in favor of repatriation. What 

the question is are we in favor of the Burmese military having sovereignty over the repatriated individuals. 

Mr. POMPER. The Burmese military should not have sovereignty 

over anybody. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, the Burmese military can operate in the territory of Burma—or Myanmar—and as long as that—asking the 

people to go back and say that’s the army of the country I will live 

in and I hope they don’t rape my wife and slaughter my children, 

but that’s why I move back——

Mr. POMPER. So I think you put your finger on it when you referred to——

Mr. SHERMAN. Safety requires a government that is dedicated to 

your safety rather than dedicated to your extermination. 

Mr. POMPER. Correct, and it also requires civilian control over a 

military that——

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, the civilian control is also in favor or defending what’s going on. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Steve Chabot of Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this very important hearing. 

In the past month, two reports were published detailing how horrific the crimes actually were that we are discussing here today. 

First, at the end of August the U.N. fact-finding mission on 

Myanmar released a preliminary report that argued that the Burmese military had genocidal intent against the Rohingya and called 

for a competent international authority to try cases against the individuals responsible. 

The final report, issued just last week, makes the case even 

clearer, and in a hearing like this it’s really hard for any of us to 

comprehend the horrors that happened to the Rohingya during that 

period of time—what they endured. 

35

These were human beings that endured some of the most horrific 

things that’s possible in human existence and I would ask unanimous consent that the full U.N. report, which I have here, be entered into the record. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Mr. CHABOT. And this report contains in great detail those horrors which, again, in a civilized hearing like this it’s hard to speak 

about those things. 

The second report, from the State Department, was released 2 

days ago on Monday evening. This spring, the State Department 

commissioned a survey of Rohingya survivors in Bangladesh together from eyewitnesses and Monday’s report discusses their stories, and the report calls the violence extreme, large-scale, and 

widespread and states that, ‘‘The scope and scale of the military’s 

operations indicate that they were well planned and coordinated.’’

Of the, roughly, 1,000 Rohingya refugees interviewed the vast 

majority—about 80 percent—witnessed killings and the destruction 

of villages. So these are people that actually saw other people murdered, and probably most of the people, hopefully, in this room 

haven’t experienced that in their life. But we are talking about 80 

percent of those people actually saw one or more people slaughtered. 

In total, we know that 400 villages were burned. Further, about 

half of those surveyed actually witnessed a rape. 

Statistics really only tell part of the story. The true perversity of 

these atrocities is clear from the types of crimes the military committed. 

Widespread gang rape, mass murders, throwing infants and children, literally, into fires, and burning the elderly in their own 

homes. The report describes in gruesome detail various crimes, and 

I can’t read this stuff—it’s so horrific—and I am not going to. 

But we are talking about pregnant women who were literally 

murdered and their unborn children destroyed in front of them, 

and as was mentioned, babies thrown into rivers and their mothers 

shot. There’s no way in the 21st century this ought to happen anywhere. 

And I want to thank Mr. Pomper and Ms. Van Susteren for coming here today and sharing this with us and trying to make sure 

that the world knows what happened and that there’s accountability here. 

This havoc occurred against a group of people but there was another group of people that did it, and they still exist and they’re 

still in power, and something has to be done about this or it will 

happen again. 

So with the facts and the reports that I mentioned in mind, I, 

along with a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 

plan to introduce a resolution condemning the Burmese Government’s crimes and their efforts to suppress information about those 

crimes and to call it what it is—what it was—and that’s genocide. 

Words are not enough, however, which is why I also urge the 

swift passage of the BURMA Act, legislation that Ranking Member 

Engel and I wrote to apply sanctions on those individuals responsible for these horrific crimes. 

As I say, these perpetrators must be held accountable. 

36

Mr. Pomper, let me ask you about that. As I mentioned, Mr. 

Engel and I introduced the BURMA Act to impose sanctions on 

those responsible for the genocide. You mentioned sanctions in your 

testimony. 

Is that appropriate? Is that one of the tools that we should at 

least consider? What would be your opinion on that? 

Mr. POMPER. Yes, targeted sanctions are an appropriate tool. 

They send an important signal and they should be applied against 

the perpetrators. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. 

Ms. Van Susteren, let me ask you this, and I am running out of 

time. I am co-chairman of the House Freedom of the Press Caucus 

and concerned about the two Reuters journalists imprisoned in 

Burma. 

Earlier this month, many of us on this committee sent a letter 

to Secretary Pompeo asking that he continue to advocate for their 

release. And as a journalist yourself, I would like to hear your perspective on that case and whether you think that international 

pressure could be effective in securing their release and what, if 

anything, else ought to be done to secure that release. 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. I think that the pressure of that would help 

enormously for these reporters. When I went deep into these refugee camps—now, obviously, you’re talking about into Myanmar 

where they’re held—is that the refugees were aware of things that 

were being done inside the United States. 

So the word does get out. It’s far away but that does send some 

sort of hope that somebody cares. You went through the litany of 

things that you have read about. When I’ve been there and these 

people tell me these things that happen, you just stand there sort 

of—it’s just thoughtless. You can’t imagine these things can happen 

to human beings. So it’s just incredible. 

But the reporters trying to report it can’t even get to them inside 

Rakhine and there’s no way that we are going to get this word out 

if they can’t get there and if Myanmar is going to lock the journalists up who try, few journalists are going to risk their lives. 

One of the journalists you talked about—one of the Reuters reporters—I think his wife had a baby while he’s been locked up. So, 

he’s got 7 years before he’ll live in a home with his child. 

So I think that pressure from the United States—it does mean 

something. I mean, people look up to the United States and our 

freedom of the press and the Constitution and we are quite proud 

of it and it’s very important to our Government, and I think that 

if the United States puts pressure on it I think it will help them. 

I am not saying it’s a magic bullet. But it, certainly, does send 

a message. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, and my time has expired, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We go to Norma Torres of California. 

Ms. TORRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 

guests that are here today. 

It is incredibly offensive to humanity the crimes that we are seeing coming out of this place. It is unfortunate, I think, that the 

37

military has been in power and continues to be armed by China to 

commit these horrible crimes. 

I don’t think that we truly understand how many women and 

how many children have been born out of rape and I don’t know 

if we’ll ever truly understand the fact that we can’t get into Burma 

to assess the situation as reporters. It is incredibly disappointing 

and unfortunate. 

But more disappointing than that, as a community and world 

leaders have stood by and I think where is the responsibility—

where does China stand on this? Are they just being complicit by 

supplying the weapons that are going into the military? 

Mr. Rohrabacher asked that question earlier about the Chinese 

weapons that are being used by the Burmese military. So how 

would you characterize China’s involvement in Burma and if China 

wanted could it force the Burmese military to change its policy? 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. In terms of China arming them, I am just 

learning that here. I didn’t know that. But a lot of the destruction 

I saw didn’t take any weapons. It took a match, it took a machete, 

and it took raping women and putting fear, so a lot of that. 

The question is whether China would show any sort of moral 

leadership to try to encourage the Myanmar military to stop doing 

those things. 

Ms. TORRES. With a 1,500-mile border, you would think that they 

would show some leadership. 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. Yes, if they bothered to even recognize these 

people as human. They’re not——

Ms. TORRES. Which was exactly my point as I began. 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. I mean, they are not recognizing them as 

human, and to the extent that they continue to be corralled without any chance at education, they can’t work, they can’t do anything. The women, by the way—you talk about the women—I met 

women who were pregnant—I was there about 9 months after a lot 

of them had left—who were pregnant and they didn’t know if their 

babies were their husbands’ or whether it was the Myanmar military. 

But it didn’t matter, because they were said to have evil in their 

bellies and they were shunned. And the women are sitting in these 

huts in this God-awful weather—monsoon—where it’s about 100 

degrees that we can’t stand it, and they don’t even come out. 

I mean, it gets far more graphic and terrible than we can ever 

put on the screen or put in a report. I mean, it’s just incredible. 

I so much appreciate the delegation that has come from Capitol 

Hill to go there and see some of this stuff because it really does 

bring it home when you see it. That’s why I love CODELs. 

Ms. TORRES. I want to make one more point. I think that we can 

all agree that Aung San Suu Kyi has failed to stand up against the 

Burmese military. She’s failed to stand up for these children. She’s 

failed to stand up for these women, and she’s failed to stand up for 

basic human rights. 

But, yet, I know that the Nobel Committee does not generally revoke Nobel Prizes. But should they make an exception for her, 

given the gravity of what has taken place in Burma? 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. Well, I don’t speak for them and I don’t 

know. So I am going to duck that question. I just know that she 

38

won’t even say the word Rohingya and that she identifies about 26 

terrorists of ARSA—the terrorist group of Rohingya—and she is 

content to have 1 million people essentially persecuted for the conduct of a few. 

Ms. TORRES. You were talking about American focus on this 

atrocity that is happening there. Where is the international community—something as simple as this—to send a clear message 

that, as human beings, we are not going to tolerate this? It is, to 

me, just—they are being complicit to what is happening there. 

Mr. POMPER. I will link that comment back to your questions 

about China. I mean, one place where China has been, unfortunately, very effective in a negative way has been in terms of blocking a clear statement by the U.N. Security Council. 

Ms. TORRES. Absolutely. 

Mr. POMPER. And that would be very—the things that the Council could do—the tools that it could bring to bear—probably could 

be pretty effective in sending a clear signal and applying meaningful pressure through sanctions, through referrals, et cetera. 

And so I think China is a very, very good target for diplomatic 

suasion in this case because they are standing in the way of meaningful action and that clear voice you’re talking about. 

Ms. TORRES. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Congresswoman Torres. 

Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Van Susteren, Mr. Pomper, thanks for being here. 

We met a year ago tomorrow on this very subject and lamented 

the circumstance where we sit here, comfortably, and these people 

are being slaughtered halfway around the world and we have conversations, but there’s no action and that’s the frustration of this 

place. There is no action. 

But the United States and the world can’t turn their face away 

from what is happening. Seventy years ago this happened halfway 

around the world and people were shoved into ghettos and 

exterminated and now we see it happening in Burma and across 

the little portion of water where they’re all housed and corralled in. 

And I applaud you, Ms. Van Susteren, as a member of the press. 

Eighty years ago a man won a Pulitzer Prize for lying about the 

terror famine executed by Russia in Ukraine and that Pulitzer 

Prize still hangs today in the New York Times office, as far as I 

know. 

So it’s important that we see, that we hear, that we are made 

aware of what’s happening. I remain frustrated because I don’t see 

any action. The U.N. is not going to be—unless, Mr. Pomper, and 

I doubt—Ms. Van Susteren, it’s not your expertise but, Mr. 

Pomper, I doubt you can tell me that the U.N., with China and 

Russia involved, are going to support the United States or any of 

the freedom-loving countries of the world in robust meaningful action against the Burmese military, right? They’re not going to do 

anything. The U.N. is going to be feckless. 

Mr. POMPER. Things do not look good at the Security Council. 

Mr. PERRY. Yes, they don’t—yes. 

Mr. POMPER. The Human Rights Council might be a different 

story. 

39

Mr. PERRY. That’s a larger discussion. But I guess for you I have 

a question. China is, in my opinion, enabling this whether it’s arms 

or whether it’s their agreement with Burma and the port, and 

while the President is offering trade tariffs on China regarding 

their malign behavior around the world and particularly the 

United States, is it time to sanction China? 

Is it time to sanction—use the word sanction—China for this action? Will it make a difference. 

Ms. Van Susteren, the Voice of America—you’re saying we want 

to get that information into the camps. We want to inform them 

that people around the world and people in the United States. We 

want something done about it. We understand their plight. We are 

horrified by their situation. 

Is there something impeding that effort? 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. Well, first of all, I have to tell you that the 

director of the Voice of America, Amanda Bennett, who first approached me about telling me that she wanted to get information 

into it and it reminded me a little bit of the mission of Voice of 

America with the Iron Curtain. It was to get information behind 

the Iron Curtain. 

When I went into the camps, I was surprised, you know, at how 

hungry they were for information. The refugees inside—they were 

getting little bits and pieces and I don’t know what tools or what’s 

needed by Voice of America or what they need. I don’t know that. 

I am not privy to that. It’s above my pay—my volunteer job pay 

grade. 

But I do know that if we can get more information into the refugee camp, if we can get broadband in or if you can get radios in 

and they can hear a little more that certainly would benefit the 

people inside because they are completely lost. I mean, even hearing that the United States has a congressional hearing at least 

gives them a little hope that somebody cares halfway around the 

globe. 

And I always think putting a spotlight on a crisis—if the American media were more engaged in this I think more people—maybe 

China would pay a little more attention to it. 

I don’t know. I think that’s important. But I do think getting 

Voice of America inside that camp and getting information would 

help. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. So that’s a do out for us here on this committee and in this body to do a better job and to find out what the 

hang-up is and what the holdup is and what the obstruction is and 

take action. 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. That hang-up may be on the ground, though. 

It may not have anything to do with the United States or Voice of 

America. I don’t know. That’s above my pay grade. 

Mr. PERRY. I understand, but we got to understand that and try 

and—we want to be people of action. We want to see some results, 

right—that talk is cheap but people are suffering. 

Mr. Pomper—China. 

Mr. POMPER. I think I agree with what Greta said about trying 

to raise the profile of this issue. I think the U.S. Government could 

be speaking with a much clearer voice. 

40

I think there was a lot of value in the report that the State Department put out earlier this week. But it was a little bit of a 

missed opportunity in terms of using specific terms about their 

legal conclusions, which I think they pretty clearly had reached. 

That’s just my supposition, based on reading it. 

I think it’s important to pressure China through diplomatic channels by making clear that we see what’s going on—that we’ve analyzed it. We should associate ourselves with the good work that’s 

done by international bodies on this. 

Mr. PERRY. With all due respect, Mr. Pomper, everybody knows. 

China knows that these Burmese people—these military officers 

that have been designated as specially designated nationals and 

blocked persons and put on that—they don’t care. 

If you’re willing to hack somebody apart with a machete, I don’t 

think you’re worried about being put on a list as a designated bad 

person. 

So while the diplomatic—look, that’s—we wish that would always be effective. What we are looking for is something to be effective and, from my standpoint, I don’t see China buckling under the 

withering diplomacy from the United States. 

It seems to me that action regarding their significant investment 

in that port is something that they might buckle to. 

Mr. POMPER. Yes. It’s hard to make great powers buckle and so 

I am hesitant to sort of suggest coercive measures there. But I will 

say I do agree that they should—I understand your point about not 

caring. I think there is a great callousness, I think, toward the suffering and I don’t want to defend them in any way. 

But I do think that continuing to raise the pressure, speaking 

with a clearer voice, can create greater costs for people who take 

that posture. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Joaquin Castro of Texas. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thank you all for your testimony today, and I was glad to see 

yesterday the announcement about the United States committing 

another $185 million to help combat this humanitarian tragedy. 

Let me ask you about—because I am co-chair of the U.S.-ASEAN 

Caucus—about the involvement of the ASEAN nations or any effort 

that they’ve made to help in this situation that you all may be 

aware of. 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. I am not personally aware but with 1 million 

people on the ground—there are almost 1 million people—there are 

NGOs from literally every place. 

I was privy mostly to the American ones—Samaritan’s Purse, of 

course. I mean, there’s other ones, too. Doctors Without Borders 

are doing incredible—but you hear stories about how everyone is 

so proud that they’ve vaccinated 400,000 people from cholera. 

But the problem is when they told me that and they were all excited, I am doing the math and I think, well, what about the other 

400,000. So a lot more help is needed. 

Mr. POMPER. Yes, and I am afraid I am not sort of on top of the 

specifics of the ASEAN response. But I do associate myself with 

Greta’s comments that more is always needed and particularly if 

we are talking about multilateral responses, getting the region on 

41

board with whatever the United States has in mind in terms of coercive measures—if there’s going to be some sort of international 

criminal justice proceeding that might result in arrest warrants at 

some point, getting the region on the same page so that those will 

actually be meaningfully enforced is incredibly important. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. All right. We go now to Dan Donovan of New 

York. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you both for 

your insight and you describe this atrocity tremendously in your 

video, Greta. It was, if not eye opening, stomach sickening because 

of what’s happening to these people. 

I just wanted to ask two different areas, one about helping these 

poor people. Is there a struggle getting resources? Is there a 

blocked—is someone trying to block our abilities to assist the people who are now refugees? Or is it a matter of just getting more 

help and relief to them? 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. Well, I mean, getting—they always need 

more medicine. When I was there they needed more medicine. They 

were out of medicine. 

There’s always a food shortage. There always—so yes, they can 

always use more. One of the other sort of practical problems is that 

to get there from Cox’s Bazar, which is the city that where you’d 

probably start positioning things, is that it’s the worst roads you 

can imagine—the worst traffic you can imagine. 

I mean, it’s really sort of hard to get the trucks through when 

you have—even within the camps themselves, when I was there, is 

that we went into the camp and an hour later that the bridge—

the mud bridge that got us into the camp had washed away from 

the monsoons, and there was an ambulance that couldn’t get across 

the mud bridge because it had washed out. 

So, I mean, it’s all sorts of problems like that with any giant catastrophe. The good news is all these organizations that are on the 

ground are so well coordinated because they have responded to 

every single crisis you can imagine. 

Whether it’s an earthquake in Haiti or it’s a refugee camp in 

Sudan, they all sort of know each other and work well together and 

the U.N. 

It appeared to be really well organized. The problem is the magnitude of the problem and you have got the weather, which is so 

punishing—the monsoon. It’s indescribable. 

Mr. DONOVAN. But the local government services, and they’re not 

preventing us from getting there? 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. Well, I don’t think they are. But the local 

people are starting to get upset. Much like you see with the Syrian 

refugees going into Jordan, when people do sort of slip out and 

then they start taking the jobs, then the local people start get 

upset. 

And you have got the other problem that it was a beautiful lush 

area and the Rohingya have come in and they’ve cut down every 

single piece of foliage there so they could build huts and have fuel. 

There’s nothing there, which, of course, then contributes to the 

whole problem with the mudslides when the monsoon comes. 

42

So naturally, this is such a burden on Bangladesh. I scanned the 

newspapers when I am here and it has been relatively quiet in the 

media about complaining about it. 

I think they’ve been quite generous. But this is a huge burden 

on a very poor country and at some point they’re going to break. 

Mr. DONOVAN. All right. 

Mr. Pomper, you spoke earlier about our message—the United 

States message about the crisis not being clear. What should we be 

doing? 

Mr. POMPER. What I meant by that was when the State Department issued its report it sort of went up to a point in terms of the 

conclusions that it reached but it did not actually crystallize those 

conclusions around the kinds of provisional legal conclusions that 

people were expecting the report to articulate. 

It also wasn’t rolled out in a very clear way. It wasn’t accompanied by any kind of policy vision. Normally, when you do an exercise like that I think the hope is that while you’re doing it you’re 

also thinking about what you’re going to say about where a policy 

is supposed to go and how it’s going to create sort of a meaningful 

context into which this kind of work can laud and I think that 

work still needs to be done. 

Mr. DONOVAN. But it didn’t indicate that our commitment is wavering at all, did it? 

Mr. POMPER. I just think it was a little bit of a missed opportunity. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Okay. My last question in my last minute is about 

a lot of my colleagues spoke about China’s ability, if they wanted 

to, to influence the atrocities that are happening and help us to 

stop the genocide that’s occurring. 

Are they the only other country? Are there other people who 

have influence in the region that could be helpful to us? 

Mr. POMPER. So the entire region is going to be important to any 

kind of response that the United States wants to help to craft and 

to lead. The Chinese are by far the most important because of their 

veto power at the Security Council and because of the importance 

of the Security Council to creating a legal framework for collective 

action. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Back in New York we would say, who else could 

we put the arm on. 

Mr. POMPER. I think I would be very liberal in terms of outreach 

at this point because the entire region is going to be important to 

the response. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Okay. I thank you both. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Chris Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our two distinguished 

witnesses for their leadership as well as for their testimony today. 

It’s very challenging and certainly you put a very important bit 

of emphasis on the need for significant action. We are nowhere 

near doing what we could or should be doing. 

You mentioned the ICC and I think the ICC has had two convictions since its founding, at least up to 2016. I’ve met with Bashir 

in Khartoum. 

He still has what should be a Sword of Damocles being held over 

his head and he travels the world. He goes to China, and they don’t 

43

grab him and send him to the Hague for prosecution. So it has 

been feckless. 

But I would hope that there would be a referral by the Security 

Council. China will likely veto that, but we ought to pursue that. 

So thank you for that. 

Let me just ask, and maybe you might want to comment on that 

I was the House sponsor of the Global Magnitsky Act. Pushed very 

hard. We got it into the NDAA. It is an excellent law and it makes 

a difference. 

Since 2017, General Maung Maung Soe was sanctioned. In August 2018, three more military and one police sanctioned—the 33rd 

Light Infantry, the 99th Light Infantry. 

The first question would be, is that enough or should more be 

listed on that sanctions list? 

Secondly, in 2013, one of my staffers interviewed the infamous 

Buddhist monk Wirathu, who called himself the Buddhist bin 

Laden, and he instigated, as we know, much of the violence targeting the Rohingya. 

And he concluded—and this goes to your point, Mr. Pomper, 

about the list of ethnicities that could still be targeted and we 

know the Christians were targeted before. 

I remember when we called this junta the SLORC and they continue to be as bad as they have ever been, if not worse, with this 

genocide against the Rohingya. 

But he said, and this is his words to a member of my staff, ‘‘First 

the Muslims, then the Christians. Both are threats to our Buddhist 

future.’’ And as been said by my colleagues, we’ve all been disappointed in Aung San Suu Kyi and others. 

But it seems to me that they’re not going to stop with the Muslims and, of course, there’s already killings of Christians. 

But you might want to speak to that as well. 

Let me also ask you about, and some of my colleagues have referenced it, but China’s goal is to make the world safe for dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. 

They certainly want a warm water port on the Bay of Bengal, 

and you got a situation, as we all know, where they are not only 

providing weapons but they are simpatico. They are in solidarity 

with the atrocities being committed by this regime. 

We need to put more pressure on China and you might want to 

speak to that. Are we raising it sufficiently with Xi Jinping or not 

and if you could speak to that as well. 

And finally, on trafficking, I am the author of the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Act. We have another bill pending today—this 

hour—over on the Senate side. Hopefully, if it does pass it’ll be my 

fifth law on combatting human trafficking. 

The question is, what is your sense of what’s happening? And 

you have been to the camps, Greta. Thank you for your leadership 

on that. 

What’s the deal with the trafficking? Do you have any insights 

you could provide us? 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. First, I can tell you about the trafficking. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, please. 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. That’s just a growing crisis in there because 

you have got a lot of young girls in there and what happens is the 

44

brokers come in and that’s a huge problem and it’s only going to 

get worse. It’s not going to get better because what happens is—

at least I talked to someone who was working on the camps and 

trying to combat it—is that the brokers come in and they say to 

these families, look, send your 13-year-old girl with me—I will take 

her to beauty school in Saudi Arabia or China or something and 

she’ll send all this money back. 

So trafficking—we haven’t even touched that. That is such a 

problem. It’s a bad problem now. It’s not going to get better. So you 

can put that one on your list. 

The question about the Christians—the attention, of course, is on 

the Rohingya—the Muslims. But information that I am told is that 

the Christians—the Karens—they’re also getting persecuted, just 

not at the numbers. But they’re not getting the media attention, either. So we don’t know much about that and, of course, they don’t 

have the magnitude of the Rohingya. 

The ICC—I don’t have a lot of hope in the ICC but I definitely 

think we should do everything we can and use every tool in your 

tool box, and to the extent that we can get the ICC interested in 

this I think that’s good. It puts attention on it. 

And you mentioned China protecting Bashir. Well, it’s not even 

just China. Even South Africa Presidents—then President Zuma 

helped Bashir sneak out of South Africa and they’re a signatory to 

the ICC. 

So the ICC is not going to answer this but it’s going to put more 

world pressure. It’s sort of collective. It’s why we need them—we 

need Congress. We need the U.N. We need the ICC and all those 

things. 

Sanctions—and I say this personally is that if we can put more 

sanctions and more people put a squeeze on more people. 

Mr. POMPER. I think I agree with all that. I think, starting with 

the ICC, yes, it’s an imperfect institution with a track record that’s 

a little bit better than it was a few years ago but still it’s struggled 

to be effective and I think, as I mentioned earlier in this hearing, 

one of the issues is that the international community needs to support this effort. It doesn’t have a police force. It doesn’t have an enforcement arm. It relies on member states. It relies on the international community to support it. 

So that’s where U.S. diplomacy can actually be helpful. Right 

now, U.S. diplomacy is committed to actually undermining the coordinates’ legitimacy. So it’s going in the wrong direction. 

In a perfect world, the U.S. Government would actually be supplying information and actually helping them build the case, which 

they’ve already sort of started in the—to build. They’ve launched 

a preliminary examination. They’ve seized themselves jurisdiction. 

There is an opportunity there. Unfortunately, I think we are missing that opportunity. 

On targeted sanctions, the fact-finding mission, I think, listed a 

number of potential targets who have not yet been designated by 

the United States. I would hope that the State Department and the 

Treasury Department would be looking into those targets. 

On the other ethnic minorities, yes, the Shan and the Kachin 

were both, I think, subjects of a little bit of the fact-finding mission 

45

report. There’s a lot that should be explored there. It would be 

great if Congress could bring attention to their plights as well. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. We are going to go to Sandy Levin of 

Michigan and then Mike McCaul of Texas. 

Mr. LEVIN. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the committee letting me join in. 

I don’t know—is it appropriate for me to enter a statement in the 

record? Is that appropriate? 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Mr. LEVIN. So let me just say very few things. I think I wanted 

to come here to congratulate the committee on paying attention to 

this serious issue and to your testimony. 

I think the evidence is totally clear. I think genocide is occurring. 

There’s been some hesitation to say that is recent with the State 

Department to report where they spelled it out so clearly as was 

spelled out in the U.N. report. 

But they hesitate to call it genocide when it is. 

Secondly, I think there’s been hesitation because of the role of 

Aung San Suu Kyi, and I understand that, and others who have 

met her can understand that. 

She was a champion. The problem is that the events there have, 

I am afraid, caused her to pull back and it’s had a dramatic effect, 

I think, throughout. And you mentioned the failure of the media 

here to really bear down. 

And I think at times there was some hesitation within this Congress. I think it was a year and a half or more ago that the late 

John McCain and Dick Durbin introduced a resolution in the Senate that said it very clearly, and I essentially took that resolution 

and I introduced it in the House. 

And, again, I think because of Aung San Suu Kyi there was some 

hesitation. But I recently read a comment of hers—it’s one of 

many—and this is what she said about the treatment of the 

Rohingya: ‘‘There are, of course, ways in which with hindsight, I 

think, the situation could have been handled better. We believe for 

the sake of long-term stability and security we have to be fair to 

all sides.’’

When it comes to this circumstance, to genocide, there really is 

only one side. 

And I want to close, Mr. Chairman and others, by remembering 

a time. It was a couple decades ago, and President Clinton was 

there with Elie Wiesel. It was on a different subject, and Elie 

Wiesel turned to the President of the United States and said, 

‘‘Don’t forget the Bosnian genocide.’’

And so I want to close, Mr. Chairman, again saying the work of 

this committee is so important, and while it’s too late, I think, before we recess Friday, it’s my hope that in addition to what has 

been done by this committee and the Congress so far that when we 

come back there will be further steps taken. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Levin. 

Mr. LEVIN. So let me thank you again for this opportunity and 

I want, with so many others, to join you in taking the further steps 

necessary to bring to the attention of the world and everybody in 

46

this country including the release of those two reporters, the need 

for still further action. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, sir, and I also want to thank Tom 

Garrett here with us. Tom was here since before 10 o’clock this 

morning and, without objection, I would like to go to Mr. Garrett 

for his questioning now, if we could. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you a lot, Mr. Chairman, and I really appreciate this hearing and I appreciate the work of the Voice of 

America, let alone Ms. Van Susteren. 

The Voice of America, when properly levied, has been instrumental to the freedom of literally hundreds of millions of people 

and that shouldn’t be underestimated, but not properly levied we 

probably are pouring bad money after good. But in this circumstance we are on the right side of history. 

As it relates to the points made by Mr. Pomper, I find both 

agreement and disagreement. And Ms. Van Susteren said earlier, 

Mr. Chair, that we should use all of the above. I wholeheartedly 

agree. 

Having said that, the questions as it relates to the U.N. Human 

Rights Commission, et cetera, exacerbates some of us because, candidly, those bodies have been used to stymie progress in the right 

direction, right. 

I mean, when you have a body wherein there are members like 

the DRC, Angola; Pakistan, who horribly exploits ethnic minorities; 

China, who has imprisoned north of 1 million Uighur and oppress 

that population; Saudi Arabia, who I need not speak to; and Cuba, 

who maimed members of the U.S. State Department staff on the 

UNHCR, maybe their credibility is in question. 

Having said that, work with the tools you have, not the tools you 

wish you had. 

Refugee camps breed hopelessness, hopelessness breeds extremism, and extremism stymies the most fundamental of human 

rights, that being paramount the right to life, amongst others. 

I spent 8 months in a tent standing between Bosnia and Serbs 

and Muslims in the Army when I was younger, better looking, and 

had more hair, and I think it’s been poignant that some members 

of this committee, Mr. Chair, have pointed out the role of China in 

these egregious circumstances. 

There is a role of China, some of which I can’t speak about in 

this forum. How dare China wag its finger at us when they continue to perpetrate this aforementioned violations against the 

Uighurs, against the Falun Gong, against those who practice the 

Christian faith? 

And yet, we need to understand how China works. China drives 

wedges between potential alliances. There’s probably no more important region in the next 30 years of our world than ASEAN, and 

Burma maintains the second—Myanmar maintains the second 

largest standing army in that region after Vietnam. They are wholly dependent upon the Chinese and the Chinese have interests, 

again, that I can’t discuss in this forum in some of the atrocities 

that have been perpetrated. We need to speak the truth to that. 

47

I understand, as Mr. Pomper said and I will paraphrase that 

sometimes it’s hard to move a great power. You will not accomplish 

anything you do not try to do. So we need to try. 

Understanding the Chinese drive wedges between potential alliances, use proxies to advance Chinese interests, create regional 

vacuums that the Chinese can fill, and then lie, lie, lie. That’s the 

China paradigm. 

So what can we do here today, and this is a passion of mine. I’ve 

had the opportunity to work with Americans both Muslim and nonMuslim in groups like Our Aim to send aid to the Rohingya; building wells, building houses, building bridges, because when children 

can’t get across a raging torrent during a monsoon then you have 

a secondary child separation. 

But we need to worry about what we can do and we need to understand where we come from. We had Dred Scott. We had Jim 

Crow. We had the first Article 1 with three-fifths of a person. 

We even proved, because the Preamble calls for forming a more 

perfect union, not establishing a perfect one—we should demand 

the same of those with whom we work. 

Global Magnitsky—it’s been hit on. I have to tip my hat repeatedly to Chairman Royce, to Chris Smith, to members across the 

aisle. We should walk this dog all the way to the end of the line 

and pound everybody we can. We can do that unilaterally and we 

should. 

And I’ve heard—in fact, I’ve called for in this committee the revocation of Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi’s Nobel Peace Prize. But we can’t 

control that. 

What we can control is the Congressional Gold Medal that was 

awarded to Aung San Suu Kyi in 2008 and then given to her in 

person in this town 400 yards from where we sit by this body. 

It is the highest honor bestowed by Congress and has been enjoyed by Pope John Paul, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Ronald 

Reagan, Raoul Wallenberg, who saved tens of thousands, Mother 

Teresa, and the Dalai Lama, and Aung San Suu Kyi. 

So we can’t control the Nobel Prize but we can send a pretty loud 

signal. Now, I understand that there are complexities here—that 

Ms. Suu Kyi’s hands at some level are tied. But silence at some 

point is complicity, and the words that she has spoken about democracy and freedom for individuals across communities ring hollow in light of her current inaction in the face of a massive, massive displacement and murder and rape and enslavement of human 

beings in her nation. 

So these are things we can do now. We need to ramp up Global 

Magnitsky. It is an amazing tool, and this body bestowed upon her 

an award enjoyed by the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and 

Mother Teresa. We should see immediately about revoking that because that we can control. 

I will yield back and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Garrett, thank you. 

We go now to Mike McCaul, chairman of the Homeland Security 

Committee. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

48

Ms. Van Susteren, thanks for putting a media spotlight on this, 

and I agree with you—the media should call more attention. We 

did that in Sudan and exposed the genocide happening there. I 

think it’s happening here in this case in Burma. 

It is a crime against humanity, and what I worry about is the 

role of China because we know that they are providing the Burmese military—they’re basically arming them with major arms 

suppliers. They are trying to invest in Burma under the One Belt, 

One Road Initiative where we’ve seen time and time again they go 

into countries, leverage them, and then take over their ports like 

in Sri Lanka, like in Djibouti. 

Here, they have the Indian Ocean ports in Burma. So we know 

they’re trying to—that’s their strategy going in and so the question 

is diplomacy, sanctions. 

I know some in the Senate think we need more diplomacy. It’s 

not time for sanctions. But what—the two of you, what are your 

thoughts on sanctioning the military—the Burmese military and, if 

so, what impact would that have on the Burmese Government to 

possibly turn to China for more investment? 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. Well, first of all, let me speak personally, not 

for the Voice of America. I keep saying this like a broken record 

but just that everyone is clear. 

Look, I am all for whatever—as I said, every tool we have is to 

use it and to increase the sanctions I think is particularly good. 

When you say what is going to happen if we do that with Burma, 

well, we’ve seen with the trade war that we have with the tariffs, 

with the soybeans, is that China just went someplace else. They’re 

getting it from Brazil and they’re getting it from some other nations. 

So, there’s always a problem when you put in sanctions that they 

just look for another market and they get the market. 

Nonetheless, the question is, as a nation do we want to stand up 

to this? That’s really sort of the issue and that’s really your decision as Representatives and not mine. 

But there’s no question that if you put in sanctions oftentimes 

they just go someplace else. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Right. 

Mr. POMPER. Where I’ve been on this is that targeted sanctions 

against perpetrators of these atrocities is an appropriate consequence and it sends the right message and it’s something that 

the United States should pursue. 

It’s important as much as anything as a signal to future perpetrators both in Myanmar and elsewhere and making it clear that 

the United States and others who, hopefully, it can bring along in 

this effort and will not let these kinds of crimes go unanswered. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Well, and I tend to agree. I think we have a moral 

obligation here to do something and I think Congress has that authority—that we can issue sanctions. 

The United Nations, the International Criminal Court—they’ve 

been called upon to prosecute this. I think I agree with you, Ms. 

Van Susteren—they have been a bit feckless, powerless. They can’t 

go into these countries and you and I were prosecutors and it’s 

hard for them to adequately prosecute if they don’t have access to 

the witnesses. 

49

And the U.N. has its problems. But that’s one thing I think Congress can do here and it is issue sanctions against the Burmese 

military. 

And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I—in the interests of time, I 

yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much. 

We’ll go to Mr. Ted Yoho, chairman of our Asia and the Pacific 

Subcommittee. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for having 

the endurance to stay here. 

Ms. Van Susteren, when you started off you said journalists must 

document atrocities, and I agree with that because that’s the only 

way that message gets out. 

And I think you followed up that when we say never again, we 

must mean it, and I agree. So the question always comes out how, 

who, and when, and just as we’ve heard over and over again the 

history. When Nazi Germany went in and they were going through 

Europe collecting, rounding up, separating, processing, and murdering the Jews, the world stood by. 

I don’t think purposely. It was happening while Hitler was taking over Europe and conquering countries. It was the aftermath of 

that, and we all remember, I guess us older ones remember, when 

General Eisenhower stated, ‘‘Never again,’’ when they went to 

Auschwitz and they saw these camps, that exposed that to the 

world. That was the journalists. And I commend you for what 

you’re doing. 

And so we say never again, yet here we are saying never again, 

and all we have to do is look back in the last 20 or 30 years. We 

see Darfur. Mao Zedong murdered 80 million people in his own 

country. Darfur, Sudan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Syria, Yemen, now the 

Rohingya. 

Never again, like you said. When do we mean that? So the questions that come up, who should be the policing force? Is it one country? Can the U.S. do that by itself? 

I would think not. How do you do that? And we’ve heard sanctions. We do sanctions all the time, and yes, they have some effect. 

But as Chairman McCaul brought out, we can sanction but China 

comes in, another country comes in, and it’s the same thing we are 

going through with the DPRK. We put sanctions on there but if another country cheats, so there’s got to be a better enforcing body 

that we together, collectively as nations, agree this will be the body 

that goes in there, and you can do isolation. You can isolate a country. You can put embargoes and then, of course, the last one is the 

kinetic actions. 

In your opinions, in your experience—both of you—if you could 

write policy and direct and say, if you guys would do this we could 

have this outcome, how would you like to see it? 

Because I know you’re on the ground all the time and you see 

it and you will probably see some things that are just obvious. 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. Well, first of all, we can’t police the world. 

I mean, you listed a couple places. There are other places even that 

aren’t on your list like the Nuba Mountains in Sudan that nobody’s 

paying attention to. I mean, it’s just impossible to think of us as 

policing it. 

50

I think for me at least as an American is that I at least want 

to stand up to this and say we know about this and we are not 

going to be part of it. 

We are not going to do business with you. We are going to sanction you, and just from a moral standpoint we are going to do everything we can not to let you, meaning Myanmar, to participate 

in the rest of the world. 

I think that’s the best we can do. We can’t solve all these problems. I mean, it’s unrealistic. 

But at least we can have the confidence that at least we are trying to do something and we are making a statement about where 

we are on these human rights things. 

You know, and the other problem too is that, quite frankly, the 

more practical thing is that these refugee camps are breeding 

camps for some very bad things. 

Mr. YOHO. As we know. 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. Eventually, the women go off to the trafficking. The men go off to the fishing boats and then we have extremist groups—that it’s a fertile breeding ground because they’ve 

got nothing to do all day long. 

They even—I mean, they’re lucky if they get food that they need 

or medicine that they need. They see their kids die—their babies 

die because Doctors Without Borders might not have enough medicine. 

I mean, I hear—when I was there the stories, you wouldn’t believe what these doctors are trying to do. I mean, we can put people on ventilators here. What they have to do they have to take a 

bladder and just pump it all night long—pump it, if they’ve got a 

dying child. Well, that makes a very unhappy situation inside the 

camps. 

So, I don’t think we can solve this but at least we can have moral 

authority in the world and we can say we are not doing business 

with you and we are going to sanction you. 

But that’s just—you asked me what my wish list is it’s in light 

of being very practical that we can’t solve all these problems. But 

we can at least stand up to them. 

Mr. YOHO. Well, I think one of the most important things we can 

do is expose it and I commend both of you for doing that. 

Mr. Pomper, do you have any ideas or thoughts of what you 

would recommend? 

Mr. POMPER. I agree that there are limits to American influence. 

I think American influence does get expanded when it works——

Mr. YOHO. Oh, yes. 

Mr. POMPER [continuing]. Through other bodies and with international partners. I do agree that the tools out there are imperfect. 

But one has to work with the tools that are there. 

And so I think as part of efforts toward pressure and accountability the United States needs to sort of survey the landscape and 

be very realistic about the fact that if it wants to be effective in 

this space there’s a Human Rights Council that’s actively seizing 

this matter and it’s done a lot of good work. 

There’s an International Criminal Court that is actively seizing 

this matter and has the potential to do something more and think 

about ways it can support those efforts. 

51

At the same time, I do think that the United States needs to 

keep on talking to the civilian government, needs to keep talking 

to the military and helping to coax them along, as frustrating and 

as limited as those prospects might be at this point. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you both. I am out of time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ann Wagner of Missouri. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Last but not least. It’s probably all been said but 

we all haven’t said it yet. 

So, Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you for hosting this hearing 

on a topic that I have drawn attention to again and again. I have 

worked with my colleague, Congressman Castro—it was here earlier this month—to send a letter to Aung San Suu Kyi urging her 

to commute the sentences of the two Reuters journalists who were 

sentenced to 7 years of jail time for investigating the Rohingya 

massacres. 

Last week, I was pleased to see that the U.N. finally recommended that Burmese generals be investigated for the genocide 

of Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine State. 

This is a welcome, albeit long overdue, first step in bringing the 

perpetrators to justice. I am proud, really proud, that so many 

members and in a bipartisan way of this body have not hesitated 

to call the violence against the Rohingya what it is. 

It is genocide. There is broad bipartisan consensus that the 

United States should be doing everything it can to prevent and end 

genocide. Yet, I will say that our track record is deplorable. We 

failed to stop genocides in Rwanda, in Syria, and now in Burma. 

We have waited on the sidelines as the Burmese Government actively attempts the extermination of the Rohingya. I am just beyond outraged that the officials responsible for this genocide have 

gone unpunished and remain unaccountable. 

Mr. Pomper, the International Crisis Group has done great work, 

and I don’t mean to diminish that work in any way. But I am curious about something. 

In 2013, sir, your organization awarded its In Pursuit of Peace 

Award to President Thein Sein. This award followed on the heels 

of a wave of crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing of the 

Rohingya beginning in October 2012, which the Thein Sein government failed to adequately respond to and even encouraged. 

Can you elaborate on why the International Crisis Group gave 

this award to the man who refused to address an emerging genocide? I know that many human rights advocates at the time—because I was here in Congress—were very upset and I remember 

hearing about it then. 

Would you like to elaborate? 

Mr. POMPER. I mean not to dodge this question, but I was 

ensconced in the U.S. Government at that time. So I don’t actually 

know what the thinking specifically behind the provision of that 

award was. 

I mean, as has been discussed broadly, about a lot of this sort 

of encouragement that different bodies inside the United States 

gave to different elements of the reform effort, there was a hopeful 

logic that was animating a lot of decision making at that time that 

did not pan out, clearly. 

52

But beyond that, I don’t really have anything—I have literally no 

insight to give you. I am sorry. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Well, if there’s anything that you can find out. I 

know that you work closely with the organization now, obviously, 

and there was such outrage at the time and it made no sense and 

I just would—if there’s any insight that you can provide my office 

or the committee I would—I would greatly appreciate it. 

And, again, I don’t mean to diminish in any way, shape, or form 

the good work that you do do. 

Mr. POMPER. Thank you. 

Mrs. WAGNER. The House recently passed my bill, the Elie 

Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, which I introduced 

to spur significant improvements in the way the United States responds to genocide and other crimes against humanity. 

One of its provisions would mandate training for foreign service 

officers in early warning and response measures. 

Mr. Pomper, what resources did U.S. entities on the ground lack, 

do you think, that impaired our response to the crisis? 

Mr. POMPER. Sorry. The resources that the entity—I didn’t quite 

follow the question. 

Mrs. WAGNER. My legislation provides that Foreign Service officers in early warning and response measures they would have to 

be schooled up in their crisis prevention on these kinds of things. 

Were there other things that at the State Department level, at 

the U.S. level, that we could have done in response to this crisis 

that were lacking on the early side of this? 

Mr. POMPER. The early warning—gosh, I don’t—I don’t have a 

particularly complete answer for you but—I don’t see this as a 

function, frankly, of the United States’ failure to see what was happening. 

I think this is really a function of a premeditated plan on the 

part of the Tatmadaw—that they were determined to carry that 

out. 

Mrs. WAGNER. I am just concerned that our Foreign Service officers have the kind of training on the front side of these kinds of 

crises when it comes to warning and response measures. So——

Mr. POMPER. So let me be supportive of that. I certainly think 

that every time we cross a threshold like we’ve crossed right now 

of an atrocity happening where it was not possible to prevent it, 

it’s important to take stock of the toolbox and make sure that the 

United States is doing everything it can—that it has all the resources that it can muster to do better the next time. 

And so if there’s a way to get more training and resources into 

the sort of effort of prevention that is certainly a worthwhile——

Mrs. WAGNER. Well, I hope you take a look at the legislation. 

We’ll be sending it along. It’s a good first step in the right direction. 

I’ve run out of time. Ms. Van Susteren, thank you for being here. 

I have some questions for you too. We’ll submit it for the record. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, thank you. I think this has been a very 

informative hearing and I think you surfaced many, many bits of 

information about this because of your firsthand knowledge of 

being there. 

53

And let me just concur with you, Greta, on your observation that 

one of the most important things we can do here is try to get this 

information out not just to the American people but to the world, 

and that’s one of the things you’re trying to do. 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN. And can I just add one thing——

Chairman ROYCE. Absolutely. 

Ms. VAN SUSTEREN [continuing]. Just a personal standpoint is 

that I really appreciate this because I know this hearing back home 

probably doesn’t play—the people across America probably don’t—

this is not going to help you in any way. You’re doing this for all 

the right reasons. 

There’s no politics in this one. It’s just to help people, because 

we don’t get any more money out of this—the U.S. Government—

nobody gets anything out of it. We just get a chance to maybe do 

the right thing. 

Chairman ROYCE. We just, hopefully, get some level of humanity 

for those who’ve been through this and some hope for their future 

for all the reasons that you have detailed out besides the horror of 

what we’ve been through and the fact that we’ve made a commitment on this issue of genocide. 

As they say, never again, and here it is going on with the international community held spellbound in the middle of it. 

So thank you to both of you for what you’re doing to try to drive 

awareness on this issue and drive action on this issue. 

And thank you to the members for being here today, and we 

stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(55)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

56

f


32302n.eps

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, DC 205I5-6128 

Edward R Royce (R-CA), Chairman 

September 26, 2018 

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 in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building (and available live on the 

Committee website at l.n.!n;/.lwww Forei unAffairs house gov): 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Wednesday, September 26, 2018 

10 00 a.m. 

Genocide Against the Burmese Rohingya 

Ms. Greta Van Susteren 

Host 

Plugged In wiih Grela Van Sus/eren 

Voice of America 

Mr. Stephen Pomper 

Program Director 

United States 

International Crisis Group 

By Direction of the Chairman 
57


32302m-1.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MINUTES OF FULL COMMITTEE HEARING 

Day Wednesday Date, __ -"0"'91..:::'2.:::6.:::12"'0""1.:;.8 ___ Room ___ "'21=72=-----

StartingTime !0:15AM EndingTime 12:12Pll1 

Recesses L_to ___) L_to __ )(_ __ to _ _j L _ _lo __ )( __ to_) L_to __ ) 

Presiding Mcmbcr(s) 

Chairman Edward R. Royce 

Check all of the following that app~y: 

Open Session 0 Executive l&_osed) Session 0 Televised 0 

TITLE OF HEARING: 

Genocide Against the Burmese Rohingya 

COMMITTEE MEMBEHS PRESENT: 

See attaehed. 

NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

Representative Sander Levin 

F.lectronically Record!'!!.{ taped) 0 

Stenographic Record LiJ 

HEARING WITNESSES: Same as meeting notice attached? Yes !Z} No 0 

(If "no", please list belovv and include title, agency, department, or organization.) 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: (List any statements submittedfor the record) 

lnfiJFmationj(Jr the Record- Chairman Edward R. Royce, Ranking Member Eliot Engel, and 

Representatives Steve C!tahot and Gerry Connolly 

Statements for t!te Record- Representatives Gen:v Cmmolly and Sander Levin 

Que.•tions for the Record- Representative Dina Titus 

TIME SCHEDULED TO RECONVENE ___ _ 

or 

TIME ADJOURNED ll:l2PM 
58

f


32302m-2.eps

PRESEc'vT 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

Fuu COMMIITHF H~_AJIING 

]\,[EMBER PRESENT MEMBER 

Edward R. Royce, CA X EliotL EngeL NY 

Christopher H. Smith_ NJ X Brad Sherman_ CA 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, FL Gregory W. Meeks, NY 

Dana Rohmbachcr_ CA Albio Sires_ NJ 

Steve Chabot. OH X Gerald E. Connolly, VA 

Joe Wilson, SC Theodore E. Deutch, FL 

Michael T. McCaul, TX Karen Bass, CA 

Ted Poe, TX X William Keating, MA 

Darrell Issa, CA X David Cicillinc_ RJ 

Tom Marino, PA X Ami Bem.CA 

Mo Brooks_ AL Lois F rankcL FL 

Paul Cook, CA X T ulsi Gabbard, HI 

Scott Perry, PA X Joaquin Castro, TX 

Mark Meadows_ NC X Robin Kelly_ IL 

Ted Yoho. FL Brendan Boyle. P A 

Adam Kinzinger,IL Dina Titus_ NV 

Lee Zeldin, NY X Nanna Torres, CA 

Dan Donovan. NY X Brad Schneider_ IL 

James F. Senscnbrenncr, Jr., WI Tom Suozzi_ NY 

Ann Wagner, MO Adriano Espaillat NY 

Brian J. Mast_ FL X Ted Lieu, CA 

Brian K. Fitzpatrick, PA 

Francis Rooney, FL 

Thomas A. Garrett Jr__ VA 

John Curtis. UT 
59

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROYCE, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS


32302c-1.eps
60


32302c-2.eps

The imposition of targeted sanctions in August on three Burmese military commanders 

and the 33'd and ggth Light Infantry Divisions by the U.S. State Department is also a good start to 

enforcing accountability. However, much more must be done to bring justice for the Rohingya 

and to restore their dignity, safety, and Burma heritage. The economic sanctions in place before 

being relaxed in late December 2016 had helped provide leverage against any potential Burmese 

military abuses. Now that that leverage no longer exists, our policy makers must take a fresh and 

renewed look at what tools and assets to employ are necessary to restore that leverage for the 

benefit of the Rohingya and for prevention offurther atrocities in Burma. 

We applaud the leadership of this Committee in drawing attention to this critical foreign 

policy and humanitarian crisis, and we look forward to coming along side it to help it accomplish 

its goals for the Burmese people and Rohingya. 

Included with these remarks is a letter sent by 29 NGO's to Secretary of State Michael 

Pompeo asking the Secretary to declare the Burma atrocities as genocide. 
61


32302c-3.eps

September 24, 2018 

The Honorable Michael Pompeo 

Secretary of Slate United States 

Department of State 

2201 C Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20230 

Dear Mr. Secretary, 

We, the undersigned organizations, request that the United States Department of State officially 

designate the recent atrocities committed against the Rohingya, and other ethnic and religious minorities 

in the nation of Burma, as both genocide and crimes against humanity. 

The Trump Administration's leadership on this issue is critical to standing against ethnic and religious 

persecution and furthering the goals of your successful first-ever International Ministerial on Religious 

Freedom. Additionally, it is critical 'O act now, as the same military divisions that attacked the Rohingya, 

have relocated to Kachin State where they are positioning themselves to commit the same atrodties 

against the Kachin Christians. Burma's Christian population is estimated at fo.ur to six million Christians, 

We urgently encourage you to take immediate action by articulating a moral, political, and policy 

designation respecting the dignity and safety of victimized Burmese individuals. The clearance operation 

of Rakhine State occurred over a year ago, and the wisely commissioned analysis is reported to be 

complete. This data is the tool needed to make a genocide declaration. We call you on you to take this 

bold humanitarian step to help provide further testimony and efforts to prevent these atrocities with this 

declaration. 

Credible studies reveal findings of gross violations of human rights that meet the elements under 

international humanitarian and criminal law for such designations. Both the F.01tify Rights July 20i 8 report 

and the August 2018 United Nations Human Rights Council International Independent Fact-Finding 

Mission (Mission) on Myanmar (also known as Burma) explain undeniable facts that point to no other 

reasonable conclusion. 

Some key statements from the Mission report include: 

"Genocide occurs when a person commits a prohibited act with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a 

national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such. The Rohingya are a protected group under this 

definttion. Their treatment by the Myanmar security forces, acting in concert with certain civilians. includes 

conduct which amounts to four of the five defined prohibited acts; (a) killing, (b) causing serious bodily or 

mental harm, (c) inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group 

in whole or in part, and (d) imposing measures intending to prevent births. 

The critical element of the crime is "genocidal intent." The Mission assessed its body of infonnation in light 

of the jurisprudence of international tribunals regarding the reasonable inference of such intent. The 

crimes in Rakhine State, and the manner in which they were perpetrated, are similar in nature, gravity 

and scope to those that have allowed genocidal intent to be established in other contexts. Factors 

pointing at such intent include the broader oppressive context and hate rhetoric; specific utterances of 

commanders and direct perpetrators; exclusionary policies, including to alter the demographic 

composition of Rakhine State; the level of organization indicating a plan for destruction; and the extreme 

scale and brutality of the violence. 

Having given careful consideration to other possible inferences regarding intent, the Mission considers 

that these can be discounted as unreasonable. In this regard, the Mission notes the Tatmadaw 

Commander-in-Chiefs statement highlighted in paragraph 35. revealing that the "clearance operations" 

were not a response to a concrete threat from ARSA, but to the "unfinished job" of "solv(ing) the longstanding Bengali problem." 
62

f


32302c-4.eps

The Mission concluded, given these considerations on the inference of genocidal intent, that there is 

sufficient information to warrant the investigation and prosecution of senior officials in the Tatmadaw 

chain of command, so that a competent court can determine their liability for genocide in relation to the 

situation in Rakhine State.'' 

Further, some key statements from the Fortify Rights report include: 

"Under Article 6 of the Rome Statute, the crime of genocide involves three essential elements: (1) the 

commission of one or more of the five prohibited criminal acts enumerated by the Statute (2) against a national, ethnic, racial or religious group (3) with the intent to destroy the group in whole or in part .. 

This report finds reason to believe that the elements required to prove genocide under the legal 

framework set out in international criminal law have been met. Specifically, under the legal framework set 

out in intemational criminal law, th:s report establishes that (1) the Rohingya are a distinct ethnic group for 

the purposes of a genocide analysis, (2) Myanmar state security forces and non-Rohingya citizens acting 

under the control of Myanmar security forces killed Rohingya, likely inflicted serious bodily and mental 

harm on the Rohingya, and inflicted conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of 

the Rohingya, and (3) Myanmar stale security forces and non-Rohingya citizens conducted these acts 

with the special intent to destroy the Rohingya in whole or in part." 

We thank you for your leadership and commitment to make the forthcoming State Department Bunma 

atrocities-related report public, as discussed at both Congressional hearings. We also appreciate the 

investment of State Department resources in preparing the forthcoming report from inteNiews of refugee 

victims in Bangladesh. We eagerly await the imminent release of the report. 

Sincerely, 

Faith Coalition to Stop Genocide in Burma 

Law & Uberty Trust 

International Christian Concern 

Sovereign Global Solutions 

Childrens First Foundation 

Citizen National 

Interfaith Center of New York 

Justice For All 

Valley Ranch Islamic Center, TX 

Buddhist Humanitarian Project 

Kachin National Organization US 

Burma Task Force 

Holocaust Memorial and Tolerance Center 

Holocaust, Genocide, and Interfaith Education Center, Manhattan College, New York 

World Rohingya Organization (WRO) 

Genocide SuNivors Foundation (GSFi 

Uri L'Tzedek: The Orthodox Social Justice Movement 

Islamic Society of North America 

IFND, MD 

DFW Refugee Outreach SeNices, TX 

International Campaign for the Rohingya 

Charter for Compassion 

Jewish Alliance of Concern Over Burma 

Congregation of Our Lady of the Good Shepherd, US Provinces 

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of !he Good Shepherd 

The MADDOX Group 

Pax Christi New York 

Americans for Tax Reform 

Emgage Action 
63

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROYCE, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS


32302h-1.eps
64

f


32302h-2.eps

And just a couple of weeks ago, Suu Kyi reportedly said the following about the treatment of the 

Rohingya - "there are of course ways in which with hindsight 1 think the situation could have 

been handled better ... we believe that fur sake of long-term stability and security, we hare to be 

filir to all sides." 

This is a message of minimisation that drastically understates the magnitude of crimes against 

humanity that have occurred. 

I understand why some have preached patience with Suu Kyi, given that she does not have direct 

authority over Burma's military. They say there is a danger the military may dismantle the 

civilian government if she raises concerns about their brutal repression of the Rohingya. And 

having met her personally, I know of and greatly respect her brave struggle against repression 

while under house arrest for nearly two decades. 

But none of that justifies inaction, or even worse, justification in the face of genocide. 

Suu Kyi must openly and honestly address the brutal repression of Bunna's Rohingya Muslims. 

A vital first step would be for her to move the civilian government to free the two jailed reporters 

who exposed particular cases of violence against the Rohingya. 

I have introduced a resolution, H.Res. 1057, calling on her to do just that - use the power 

invested in the civilian government to prevent the continued imprisonment of the brave reporters 

for shining a light on the truth. 

I strongly urge this Committee to report similar legislation to the House floor as soon as possible. 

We must come together and speak with one voice that jailing reporters for exposing the truth is a 

grave injustice, especially when that truth is the crime of genocide. 

Thank you. 
65

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK


32302d-2.eps
66


32302d-3.eps

The two main phases of violence-the first in October 2016 and the second beginning in August 

2017-followed attacks against Burmese security forces by the Rohingya insurgent group 

Arakan Rohingya Salvation Anny (ARSA). The vast majority of reported incidents against 

Rohingya took place from August to October 2017. The survey shows that the military, which 

used the ARSA attacks to justify its so-called counterinsurgency operations in northern Rakhine 

State, targeted civilians indiscriminately and often with extreme brutality. 

Forty-five percent of refugees witnessed a rape, and the majority of rapes witnessed were 

committed, in whole or in part, by the army. Overall, nearly 40% of refugees saw a rape 

committed by members of the Burmese security services-either police or militaryincluding 18% who saw them commit a gang rape. 

• Members of the security services, as well as non-Rohingya civilians in some cases, 

targeted children and pregnant women. 

• Those who were left behind because they were elderly, sick, or otherwise intirm were 

frequently found dead when their relatives returned to check on them. 

The survey reveals that the recent violence in northern Rakhine State was extreme, large-scale, 

widespread, and seemingly geared toward both terrorizing the population and driving out the 

Rohingya residents. The scope and scale of the military's operations indicate they were wellplanned and coordinated. In some areas, perpetrators used tactics that resulted in mass 

casualties, for example, locking people in houses to burn them, fencing off entire villages before 

shooting into the crowd, or sinking boats full of hundreds of fleeing Rohingya. 

2 
67


32302d-4.eps

Map 1: Survey Sites and Destroyed Am as of Origin Unc]assified 

3 
68


32302d-5.eps

INTRODUCTION 

In spring 2018, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) worked with funding from the 

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) to design and carry out a survey to 

document claims of atrocities committed against the ethnic Rohingya in Burma's northern 

Rakhine State since October 2016. INR combined a quantitative approach to sampling with a 

qualitative, semi-structured questionnaire. This approach allowed investigators to systematically 

collect data on events that refugees encamped in Bangladesh had witnessed in their northern 

Rakhine State villages. Expert and well-trained investigators and their translators took special 

steps to create a comfortable interview structure that reduced possible stress on the respondents, 

allowed for the investigator to obtain clarifying detail on perpetrators and events, and separate 

firsthand experience from hearsay testimony. 

DRL contracted with an expert outside group to gather a team of 18 experienced human rights 

investigators from around the world to conduct the research. INR trained the team on sampling 

methodology, and the National Geospatial-lntelligence Agency (NGA) created a map atlas that 

allowed the investigators to identify and locate where events occurred. The 1,024 survey 

respondents included only adults who left northern Rakhine State on or after October I, 2016, 

though reports of violence date from as early as January 2016. 1 

What follows is an analysis of the resulting data, which illuminates the excessive use of force the 

Bunnese Anny and police unleashed on the Rohingya population in the name of 

counterinsurgency clearance operations after the October 2016 and August 2017 Arakan 

Rohingya Salvation Anny (ARSA) attacks. The survey's most salient findings fall into the two 

periods that coincide with these Burmese military operations: the first focused during October 

2016 and the second, and far more violent period, from August-September 2017 (see Figure 2). 

40% 

30 

20 

10. 

figure 2: Most Killings, injuries Took Place in August and September 2017 

Percent of killings or injuries witnessed per month (Jan 2016~pril 2018) 

4).% 

1 'Vhile the sunrey \Yas open to respondents of any ethnicity, only Rohillb':ya were captured in the sample. 

4 
69


32302d-6.eps

llA~kgr6un~ on System~tlc Abps~ .·. ·•· ·.· •. .· •. . > .. . .. ·· ·.·.. . • 

Til~ Rohingy11 ha~e expe~ellc~4 decMes .qfpersecutioo~nd. v1\:l!epqe,largely p~~etnited ?Y.·· 

I3utn)e.se S.ect~rity seryicesal!d.tqe govewment. The roots or anti·Roiiirig~asen.timents and.· 

discnlllinationlie in alongs.t:~n4i!tgheliefin f3unnathat Rohlngyaare not;.natlve:'to B!lt)11fl .• 

hilt aniv:ed t'r(mi Bi\n@adeshduriJ1g .Briti?h c?lonj~ ~e. RE1hjngya separatist movei)l.eUt$. ijl · 

·.the 194Q~a!t<l19SO~,an(iperiodic;.towcleyel.uflrestshwe, cqntribute t<> tk.e stat.e.,.sa;n:ctioned 

narrative that ~e }tphingya ~~ asee\lrityponcern.tobe CQUtatned and mlfsi oetre<Ued 

s~parately frOm those the)IWRSfqer to be rig~tful 8UD\1l:l~e citi~en.s • Buntia:s milital)" 

gov(\nupent.gradual!y• Stripped }tohingyl). Or th:eir citi~tm~hip !l\IQ ·othe,trig~tsjn .a Series.of 

.1nan~ver&,indl,ldi»g th{\ !982Citiz'enship ~aw; and adecl~loniQ~OI.~tore~;oke their· 

• t~mp(:}ra~ i!1gislrat4op. card~, Stahfviolen<;eagainst theRohingya in.l977;unqerthe ...... · .. . 

miHtacy'/l.Qperation.Oragon Klngl).ityjed again.st'\illl:lgal immigra:fi~ri:~ and a;g;aill·i!J199.1·ln 

· ..what ihey clahned \¥!lSI\. re$p0~setoattacks hytlill~ohingy\l<sotidarity OrganizaUon (RSO), . 

resulted. ~n two separ?~te wa~·es oftefugee~ when ht;ridreds of th~~an~s ~f Rphingya flea . . across.th~ bqrd~r to find r~fuge !rt Banghtdesb: . 

SECTION I: PATTERN OF VIOLENCE TNNORTHERNRAKHTNE {20l6AND 2017) 

On October 9, 2016 a group of ARSA members and other Rohingya villagers attacked three 

border guard police stations, leaving nine policemen dead. The military responded by using 

what it called counterinsurgency tactics against the Rohingya population in the area. Few 

witnessed killings (2%) or destruction of huts (3%) between October and November 2016, most 

likely because the militacy targeted villages in only a few areas (see Map 1; see Tab 2 for 

background on ARSA). 

Authorities Targeted Men for Abduction, Arrest (October 2016-August 2017) 

As part of their military operations beginning in October 2016, Burmese security officials would 

take Rohint,>ya men into custody, ostensibly to question them about ties to or knowledge of 

ARSA. As tensions rose between Burmese officials and Rohingya in northern Rakhine State, 

increasing numbers of men and boys were taken into custody. To avoid being taken away by 

security services, men spent nights hiding in the woods, leaving their wives and children 

vulnerable to invasive searches by security services. Many of these women reported being 

groped, stripped, or violated while intruders searched their homes and their bodies for valuables 

or possible weapons. 

Abductions of Women (October 2016-Angust 2017) 

Refugees also reported abductions of women. In the year before the attack on her village, one 

woman said that the military would take the "beautiful" girls and they never came back. In 

another notable case, four months before the major attack, one refugee said the military told each 

village in his area that they had to provide 20 women so they could "teach them tailoring," but 

the village never heard from them again. 

5 
70


32302d-7.eps

Though in many cases the victim's fate is unclear, refugees reported instances in which women 

had been raped after abduction. The week prior to an attack on his village, a man was walking in 

a forest near a military outpost when he saw four Rohingya girls tied up with ropes, heavily 

bleeding and "half dead." They told him the military had kept them there for three days raping 

them. 

Increased Restrictions (2017) 

On August 25, 2017, ARSA launched attacks against about 30 police and anny posts in northern 

Rakhine state, triggering a harsh military reaction. The majority of the attacks and three-quarters 

of the reported killings witnessed by the refugees in our survey occurred between August and 

October of 2017. Before the most acute violence broke out, a majority reported increased 

movement restrictions-even above the nonnallevels. 

Dozens reported that Burmese authorities removed fences before the attacks, either by doing so 

themselves or by forcing Rohingya villagers to do so. Tn some cases, the military said they did 

not want Rohingya hiding militants. Removing fences also was meant to humiliate Rohingya, as 

it forced them to urinate and defecate in the open air. Tn at least 50 cases, respondents reported 

that the military and other actors removed knives, tools, iron, and other sharp objects that could 

be used as weapons. Tn some cases, local authorities photographed these objects as evidence of 

ARSA presence in the village. 

One-third who had these items taken said such restrictions had existed in their village for 

years. In about one-quarter of the cases, local authorities took these objects after the 

October 2016 attacks, and through summer 2017. Three-in-ten said the objects were 

removed between a month and a day before the attack, while the remaining 11% said they 

were removed while the attack was in progress or immediately prior. 

• Rohingya most often cited the military as the culprit (in 88% of cases), but in some cases, 

civilians (31%) and police (22%) participated. Tn each, the removal of these objects 

facilitated the subsequent ground assaults, killings, and property destruction. 

"When the military came, they would steal whatever we had, including knives we cuuld 

nut cut vegetables or fish. " Female, age 30 

Systematic, Large-Scale Violence Strikes Villages (August-September 2017) 

After August 25, on the days when violence broke out in their villages, some respondents 

reported the attacks began in the early morning before most residents were awake. These attacks 

explicitly targeted Rohingya, and left neighboring non-Rohingya sites (e.g. Buddhist stupas) and 

critical infrastructure (e.g. cell phone towers) untouched during the assaults (see Image I, next 

page). During these large-scale attacks, homes and property were destroyed, and scores of 

Rohingya were killed as they fled their villages. These attacks generally lasted 1-4 days, 

depending on the size of the village. Rohingya said the arrny was involved in nearly all (92%) of 

the ground assaults-at times alone (32%), but sometimes accompanied by other security forces 

(26%), civilians (11 %), or both (23%). 

The stories from some refugees show a pattern of planning and pre-meditation in their villages 

on the part of the attackers. In one case, the local heads of the military and police called together 

6 
71

NOTE: The preceding document has not been printed here in full but may be found 

at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108717

f


32302d-8.eps
72

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


32302e-1.eps
73


32302e-2.eps

AIHRC/39/CRP.2 

I. Introduction 

l. The Independent Intcmational Fact-Fmding Mission on Myanmar (hcrcmaftcr ·'the 

Miss10n'") was established hy' Human Rights Counc1l resolution 34/2L adopted on 

24 Mar<..:h 20 l7. The President of Lhe COLmcil appointed Mar...::uki Daru::;man (lmlonesia) a::; 

chairvcrson and Radhika Coomaras\vamy (Sri Lanka) and Christopher Sidoti (Australia) as 

members. A :'lecretariat \Yas recmited by the Office of the United Nations I ligh 

Commisswnl!r for Human Rights (OHCHR). Thi...! core l!...!am \'-US composed of a 

coordinator, fact-finding team leader and five lnunan nghts officers, legal adviser!repm1ing 

officer, military adviser, se'\ual and gender-based violence adviser, secunty officer, l\\O 

language assistants and administrative suppmi. 

2. The Mission presented an oral update at the Human Rights Couneirs thi1iy-~ixth 

session (19 September 2017) and an oral interim report at the thili)-"-seventh session 

(12 March 2018), and delivered a video statement al the twenty-seventh special session of 

the Council (5 December 2017). In its decision 361115. the Cmmcil requested the Mission 

to submit its final repolt at Jts tlmiy'-ninth session. The main fmdings and recommendations 

of thl: MissiOn an:: conlamed m doeLLml:nl A/HRC/39/64. A/HRC/39/CRP.2 conlams the 

full fnctnnl and legal analysis, \Vith snppmiing information, underpinning document 

A/lffi.C/39/64 TL also includes recommendations directed more broadly than the 

accmmtability recommendatiOn~ in that document. 

.J. The Mission deeply regrets the lack of cooperatiOn ti·om the Government of 

Myanmar, despite repeated appeals from the Human Rights Council and the Mission. The 

Mission requested m-country access through letters of-t. September 2017. 17 November 

2017 and 29 January 2018. It sent a detailed list of questions on 27 March 2018. Each time 

its members travelled to Geneva, the Mission requested a meeting \Yith the Permanent 

Misswn of the Republic of till: Umon of Myamnar to the Umted Nations cmd Other 

lntemationnl Organ17:ationf.. in Cienevn, ~hvit?:erland. l"he Mission had some limited 

informal contact with Govemmenl representatives but received no of.ficml response to its 

letters requesting fonnalmcetings, 111-country access or infonnation. The Mission's draft 

main findings and recommendations were shared \Yith the Ciovernment pnor to their 

submission and public release. providing an opportunity to comment or make factual 

conectwn~. No response was received. The 1vlission's letters to the Government arc m 

annex 2. 

ll. Mandate, methodology and legal framework 

A. Mandate 

-t.. Resolution 34/22 mandated the Mission ''to establish the facts and circumstance~ of 

the alleg-ed recent human rights violations by mihtary' and securit)-' forces. and abuses, in 

Myanmar, in particular in Rakhine State, mcluding but nol limited Lo arbitrary detention, 

tm1urc and inhuman treatment rape and other fonn~ of sexual violence, extrajudicial, 

summary or arbitrary hllmgs, enforced disappearances, forced displacement and unlawful 

dcslruclwn of properly, wiLh a VIC\'1.' to ensunng full accountabthly for p(,-rpdralors <md 

justice for victims·-

5. In the inteq)retation of this mandate, the Mission considered the resumption of 

hosLiliL1es in Kachin State and esc..:alation in Shm1 Stale in 2011 and the outbreak. of nu~1or 

violence in Rakhine State in 2012 as key recent turning point~ that generated rcnc\vcd 

violence and further allegations of senous human rights violations and abuses. The Mission 

thl.--rdon.: dctemrined that focusing on Lhe situation in Kachin, Rakhine and Shm1 States 

since 2011 vmuld allow It to fulfil its nwndate in a contextnahsed mam1er The Mission 

sd . .:cted s~..:veral ':\Ig:mlicant mctd~..:nts form-depth fact-lindmg, mnnng: to make fmdmgs on 

specific allegations of humnn rights violationf.. and abuses \Vhile revealing broader pattems 

of conduct. 
74


32302e-3.eps

A/HRC/39/CRP.2 

6. The Misswn considered tlwt the types of violations and nbuses listed in the Council 

resolution \Vere Illustrative, and that it \VDS nwndated to consider the full range of violations 

of mtcmahonal la\\' as appropnatc. In lmc \\~th the Council. s request to cxannnc alleged 

human rights violations and abuses, the Mission decided to e'\amine allegations against 

bolh State and non-Stale aclors. Finally, considering Lhe objecLive of the m<.mdate ('\vith a 

vinv to ensuring full accountalnlity for perpetrators and justice for Yictims'·), the Mission 

endeaYoured to identify perpetrators. as \Vell as to make findings about responsibility' and 

n::wmmendations on ao:..:countabihty. 

7. Tho;; M1sswn notes \VIlh o:..:onccm lhal alkgahons of human nght~ nolalwns and 

abuses occurring in other parts of Myanmar aho merit in-depth fact-finding. l"ime and 

resource constraints led the Mission to limit itself to Rakhine, Kachin and Shan Slates, 

particularly in hght of the events that unfOlded since August 2017 that rcqmrcd significant 

attention. The Mission is comfortable, howeveL that its g-eographic. temporal and subject 

matkr focus allowed for solid overall findings and recommendations. 

B. Methodology 

8. The Mission was acutely aware of the complexity and sensitivity of the situation It 

\Vas mandated to examine, as \Vcll a~ of allegations fi·om all sides that the spread of false 

information about events has been commonplace. l"his awareness reinforced Jts 

cmmnitment to meticulously follow established methodologies and best practices for 

human rights fact-finding, as developed h:v the lJnited Nations. In doing so. the M1ssion 

strictly adhered to the principles of ·"do no harm··, independence. impartiality, objectiYity, 

transparency and integrity 

9. In particular, the Misswn followed the best practices established flx commissions of 

inquiry and fact-findmg missions. outlined in the 2015 OHCHR. publication, International 

Commissions of Im1uiry and Fad-Finding Missions on Intemational Iluman Rights Lmv 

and International I lumanitarian Lmv- CTuidance and J>ractice 1 

1. Standard of proof 

10. Consistent \Vith the practice of United Nations fact-finding: bodies. the Mission 

employed the "'reasonable ground~'· standard in making factual dcterminatwn~ on 

indiYidual cases, incidents and patterns of conduct. The standard was considered met ·when 

a ~u.fficient and reliable body of primary mformation. consistent \\-ith other infonnation, 

would allow an ordinarily prudent person lo reasonably conclude lhal a case, incident or 

pattcm of conduct occurred. This standard of proof IS lmvcr than that n::qmrcd m cnmmal 

proceedings. 

11. Individual cases or incidents contained m the report are based on al least one 

credible source of first-hand information, wh1ch \Vas independently corroborated by at least 

one other cred1bk soLLrCl: of mfonnalwn. Spl:cliic ma.Jor mc1dent~. such as those ~el oul m 

chapter Von Rakhine State, are based on multiple accmmts from eyewitnesses and Yictims, 

allowing for in-depth fact-finding and detailed event reconstruction V/hcrc the report 

describes patterns of conduct, these are based on multiple credible sources of f1rst-hand 

information, \\·hich arc consistent with and corroborated by the overall body of credible 

information collected. In the fe\v instances where this standard was not met. hut the 

Mi~swn still considered it appropriate Lo inclLtde the infonnalion. this is ~luted e;-..plicilly. 

12. In cnse~ of tortme or sexual and gender-based Yiolence, \Vhere a second independent 

source of information \\as often unavailable, the Miss1on cons1dered the case or incident 

corroborated \Vhen it obtained one first-hand account which it assessed as cred1ble and was 

con~islenl with \\hat was kno\\n about the incident or the e~tablished pattem~ of simil<.Lr 

incidents in the area, and in line \Yith the intervie\ver's own observations (for example, 

~c.:Lrs or s1gn~ of trauma). 
75


32302e-4.eps

AIHRC/39/CRP.2 

13. The Mission considered the follo\ving to be smu·ces of first-hand infonnation: 

contldentialmten:iews conducted by the Mission or its staff with Ytctims, wltnesses, 

vi dim's close family members, perpelrators or fonner Myanmar orricials vvilh direcl 

knowledge of the issues brought before the Mission, \Vhcrc it \Vas assessed that the 

source \Vas credible and reliable; 

• satellite imagery' from reliable sources, authenticated v1deo and photo material as 

wdl as doc..:uments contaimng firsl-h.:md information from a rdiable source; 

• pubhcly annlabk: adnnsswns ofrdcv<.ml facts by My<.mmar oJTicwls: 

• laws, pohcu.:s and dtrccllvcs of Myanmar a':\ well as mkrnal Myanmar lklcLUncnts. 

prmided that they were receJYed from a credible and rehahle source and their 

authentivity vould be vonfirmed. and 

• ::;tatistivs, survey::; and other qu<.mtitatiH: mfonnation generated by Myanmar or the 

United Nations, to the extent that the data \Vas based on an apparently smmd 

methodolo~' and the inputs underlying the data \\'ere considered originating from a 

vn:dtbk <.md reliabk soun.:l!. 

14. The Mtsston reh!...!d on thi...! follo\Hng typi...!::i of mfonnahon to eorroborak Jir::;t-hand 

information and providing overnll context to violations 

• confidential interviews conducted by the Mission or its staff with w1tnesses who 

revei\ed the infonnatwn direvtly from a person known to them (and not a::; a 

nnnour), provided that the Mission assessed the source to be credible and reliable. 

• summaries of wltncss accounts contained in publications or in submissions from the 

United Nations. research mstitutes and human nghts organizations. ·where the 

Mtsswn assl!ss!...!d the ::;ource to be vri...!dtblc <.md rehablc. 

• ::;urrnnarj descnpl10ns of pattem::; of condu<..:t von lamed m c;.._pcrl mll-'1"\'te\V::i, pubhc 

reportf.., submissions, academic resenrch puhhcations, documentarief> and f>imilar 

materials. '>\here the Mission assessed lhe source to be credible and reliable. 

15. In it::; as::;essment of sevond-hand sourves. the Mi::;::;ion endeavoured to intervie\\ the 

researcher or author of the publication, submission or tex1 to assess its crcdibihty and the 

methodology used. 

1(). The reliabihty and credibihty' of each source was carefully assessed The Mission 

con::;tdered whdher the ::;ourcl! was trustworthy, vonstskntly probmg U1c \'l-Tactty of thetr 

statemenb Such assessment took into nccmmt among other considerations: 

• the \Yitness- political and personal interests. potential biases and past record of 

reliability, where known: 

• the witne::;::;' apparent capacity to recall events correctly. considering his or her age, 

trauma. hmv far back the events occuncd. and so on; 

• the positwn of the \Vitncss in relation to the ~ubjcct of the mforrnation; 

• where and hmv the \Vitnes~ obtained the infonnntion: 

• the reasons for \Vhich the witness prmided the information. 

17. The Mission also considered the mformation 's relevance to the fact-finding \York. Jts 

intemal con::;istency and coherence, <.md it::; con::;istency vvith and corroboration by other 

information, among other factors. Assessment of the validlty of the infonnation was 

separate from the assessment of its reliabihty' and credibili~'· The Mission did not assume 

that a <.:rcdibk and rcliabk ::;ourcl! would n<.:cc::;::;arily provide accurate <.md valid 

infonnation. 

18. Where this report refers to an accmmt of a witness, the Mi ~~ion has accepted the 

statement as assessed and described to he tmthful and relevant, unless stated othen't-ise 

D1rect references to specific \Yitness statements in the report should not be taken as an 

indication that it was the ::;ole basis of judgment in relation to the issLtes under analy ::its. 

These direct references and citations \Vcrc included to provide an example or illustratwn. 
76


32302e-5.eps

A/HRC/39/CRP.2 

2. Collection of information 

19. Tho;; M1~swn obtmn~d a vasl qLLanlity of pnmaJ!· and s~condary mfonnahon It 

conducted R75 in-deplh inlervie\\'s vvith viclnns and eyewitnesses The Missmn look care lo 

divcrsit~· its somcc~ of information It intcrvlc\vcd individuals fiTllll different ethnic and 

religious backgrounds (including I ~amar, ethnic Rakhine, Rohingya2, Kaman Muslims. 

IImdus and individuals from Kachin and Shan ethnic groLLps). It also ink:rvie\\ed a number 

of members of non-State aimed groups, as well as some fmmcr officials of Myanmar State 

institut1ons. Due to the lack of cooperat10n from the Government of Myanmar, it was 

Lmabk to mkn'IC\\ any scrvmg govcmm.;;nt o1TI<..aals or mcmb(,'fS of Its nulllary forces ' 

20. Tho;,; M1ss1on us!..!d vanous mdhodolog1.;;al approach.;;s to sckcl persons for 

intervJe\vs. l"his mcluded random selectwn. for example hy visiting different areas of a 

refugee i..:amp or di.ITerent refLtgee centres \\"ithoLLt pre-anangemenl. Specifli..:ally in relation 

to the situation in Rakhine State, each visit to southem Bangladesh aho priontiscd 

intervJe\vs with persons \Vho had most recently arrived from M)-'anmar to ensure the receipt 

of ·'fresh'. mforrnation. Additionally, Lhe Mission targeted intenie\vees to corroborate 

specific incidents or pattems The Mission ensured that it did not rely on an)' single 

organi7ation or mdividual to assist. 'l o the extent possible, the Mission also strove to only' 

speak \'l.'lth persons who had not prenoLtsly spoken w1th any othL-'f orgam.Latwn or m!..!dHL 

outlet nnd confinned this nhead of the interview. 

21. Nearly' 40 per cent of mterviewees \Vere female \Vhile the majority' of interYie\vs 

predominantly pertained to the situation in Rakhme State, more than 200 intervie\VS \\"ere 

related to the situatwn in Kachin and Shan States, \\'ith fmther intcrTicws relating to both 

situations, or to the country as a whole. lnten:iews \\·ere mostly conducted in person, 111 a 

safe and pnvate setting .:md in the presence of a trusted_ professwnal mterpreter \\here 

required. Some interviews were conducted rcmotel)-'. through ~ccnrc channels of 

commtmication and taking: add1tional precaut1ons to ensure reliability (for example, a visual 

lml or a knovm cmd lru':\tl:d mll:nnnhary). 

22. The Mission obtained a large body of satellite imagery and analysis with the support 

of lJNOSAll, and received a vast amount of documents, photographs and v1deos- some 

clandestinely recorded or obtained by the soLLrce. It only used those materials that it was 

able to authenticate. All infonnation \vas checked against secondary infOnnation assessed 

as credible and reliable, mcluding organi?ations' raY\' data or notes, expert mtervieY\'S, 

submissions .:md open sourcl! material. The Misswn 's inkmal !..!xp.;;rtisl: indud!..!d human 

nghts and law, sexunl and gender-based violence, psychology and elnld psychology, 

militaJ)" afrairs and forensics. and specialist advice was SOLLght in digital \enrication 

2:1 To culled mfonmttion, the M1ssmn members travelled to Bangladesh. Tndonesia, 

Malaysia, Thailand, and the Umtcd Kingdom of Great Britam and Northcm Ireland. 

Requests to Yisit China and India did not receive a response. Mission members Yisited the 

refugee camps in Cox's Bat:ar (Bangladesh) at Lhe start of Lhe mandate, shortly after the 

ani val of vast numbers of Rohingya refugees, and once again ncar the end of the mandate 

in July 201 N to take stock of the s1tuation prior to the finali?:atwn of their report to the 

Human Rights Coum.al. Tho;,; M1ss10n sl!crd.:mat und.;;rtook numerous add1honal flddmissions bet\veen September 2017 and July 2018, of several weeks at a time, primarily to 

intervJe\\- victims and \\"ilnesses Specifir.;ally in relation to the unfoldmg events after 

25 August 2017 in Rakhme State, a team \o;as deployed nnmcdiatcly to conduct intcrYic\vs 

\Vlth persons who had just tled My·anmar. The Mission also held over 250 consultations 

w1th other stakeholders, induding intergovemmental and non-govemmental organi..Lations_ 

researchers, and diplomats - in person and remotely. It received written submissions_ 

The Missmn is consciouc. oCLhe senc.ili\·ity concerning the lcrm "'Rohingya·' in Myanmar, \.\here the 

group 1s generally re!Crred to as ''Bengali'. The Mission uses the term in line \Vlth the concerned 

group's right to self-identit\'. 3 The Missmn did, ho\.\cvcr, undertake an e:--lensi\e analysis oCpuhl1e statements made b) gD\·crnment 

and military oflicwl s. 1 UNOSAT 1s the Operatwnal Satellite Applications Programme of the Umted Nat1om Inst1tute tOr 

Training and Research (UNTTAR). 
77


32302e-6.eps

AIHRC/39/CRP.2 

10 

including through a public call. The Mission fmiher engaged with a number of United 

Notions entities and other lnunanitanan actors. It ts pmiicnlarly grateful to the Office of the 

Umtcd Nations Htgh Cmmmsstoncr for Human Rtghts and to other Umtcd Nattons officwls 

and entities that pro,·ided relevant infonnation and supp01t. It regrets that a nurnher of 

Unikd Nation::; entities did not provide similar ::;upporl. 

24. The Mtsston further regrels that it \HIS not able lo visit Myanmar .:md underlake mcmmtry fact-finding. The Mission was nevertheless able to gather the informatwn necessary 

to establish facts and dra\v conclusions in accordance \Vith its mandate As is apparent from 

thl: pn.:ccdmg paragraphs_ thi...! Mtsswn accessed a largo;; volum~ <.md \Hdc vandy of ~oun.:~~­

mostly outside bnt nlso inside the country. lmpmtantly_ it had access to victims and 

eyewitnesses \\ho lefl Myanmar throughout the period under review, induding very 

recently. Moreover, considering the severe risk of intimidation and reprisals against 

individuals \Yho eng:age \Vith independent human rights hod1es (see helmv-) and the 

n::~trictwns impo~ed on other intemational actors operating in~ide Myamnar, the Mission is 

convmccd that access to the cmmtry \o;ould not necessarily have generated more reliable or 

valid information. 'l he Miss10n is confident that it spoke \\'ith victims and \Vitnesses in a 

~afl: cnvironml:nL \\hL-'1"~ they could spo;;ak frl:dy and \\ithout fear ofr~pn~al~. 

25. Tho;; MI~swn .;;xprl:sscs It~ dcl:p gratituck for thl: mvaluablc support It r~ccivcd from 

a number of non-g.nwmmental orgamzations and nll the persons who agreed to be 

interv1evved Their dedication to the betterment of the human rights situation in Myanmar is 

truly admirable. 

3. Protection of Ylctlms and\\ ltncsscs 

26. The Mi~~ion paid specific attention to the protection of victims and witne~~e~. Its 

initial protection assessment indicated that persons who speak out about the human nghts 

situation in the countl"}' and \Yho engage \Yith United Nations mechanisms have been 

~ub]~cl to n..,11nsals. Th~ lv11ss1on wa~ th.;;rcforc c:-..lrcmcly cautious m all mkracllons with 

victims and \Yitne:-.se:-., mnking constnnt assessments of the need to e:-.tablish contact \Yith 

persons \>vho may be placed at risk as a result. The Mission established strict security 

protocols to guide these interactions and to ensure that they \'-'Cre conducted through means 

to mitigate the risks. Contacts were not pursued if the Miss10n could not ensure the safety 

of the cooperating person_ if the risk of harm \'-as a~~e~~ed to be too high_ or if the Mission 

did not have sutl"icicnt infOnnation to make an informed dctenmnation on the level of risk. 

ln line \VIth this policy·, the Miss10n has not pursued mtlit1ple leads. 

27 The most signifir..:ant challenge ror the Mission therefore arose f'rom the fear of 

rcpnsals For the Myamnar populatiOn, tlns fear IS ,,;ell fOunded. The MissiOn recerved 

information and venfied mcidents of reprisals agamst persons who have interacted with 

inkrnational actors. Numerous potential vntnesses were afraid to speak \'l-ith the Mission_ 

even on a confidential basis, because they feared for the repercussions on thcmsch:cs or 

fa1mly; members. The Mission did not pressure anyone to speak ·with it. 

2X. Many international actors operating in Myanmar, including aid workers, journalists, 

diplomats and other for~Ign VISitor~ to Myanmar_ Wl:rc also unw1llmg to sharl: knowledge 

and mformation with the Mission from fear that this \vould negntiYely affect their access if 

it became known to the M~·anmar authorilies that they had cooperaled \'1-ilh Lhe M1ssion 

29. The Mission is gravely concemed at the mtimidation and threats faced by Myanmar 

national~ cooperating with Human Rights Council mechanisms mandated to examine the 

situation 111 M)-'anmar. It urges M)-'anmar to guarantee the protection of victims and 

w1tnesse~, and e\erybody \\ho engage~ with the Mission and with other mtemational 

human rights mechanisms, and to undetiake that no one shall suffer harassment threats, 

intimidation, ill-treatment, arrest or other forms of reprisal because of such contact. 

-1. Storage of information 

JO. A secure, confidential electronic database was created to enable the Mission to 

securely record and store information. IL contains lhe sLumnary records of all interne\\S and 

mectmg~ conducted as well as electronic copies of relevant materials collected. As a fully 
78


32302e-7.eps

A/HRC/39/CRP.2 

searchable tool, the database facilitated the organization and retrieval of information for 

analysis and repmt \niting. 

::; I The Mission systematically sought the informed and specific consent of all 

intcrvlc\vccs to usc and/or share the infonnatwn given, cnsming contidcntiality as 

appropriate. The consent of e\·ery person inten:iewed and any' condit1ons attached to it \Vere 

n::wrded in the databa::;e, as \\.ere any potential prokclion ri::;b. 

32. The database will be kept as parl of the Mission's an~hn'es, along \\ith all it::; 

physical records and in line \Yith United Nations requirements regarding the archiYing of 

materials !'he OIICI IR \Vill he the custodian of these arch1ves It is authorised to provide 

access to competent authonlH.;:) (.;arrymg out (.;rclhbk 111\'i,;Shgallons to L~lSLITi,; a(.;(.;Olllllablliiy 

for human tights Yiolations and abuses in Myanmar in line \VJth intemational norms and 

standards Access vvill be be granted to information only in accordance \Vith Lhe tenus of 

the sources· mfonned consent and only after any protection concems arc duly addressed. 

C. Legal Framework 

33. Facts were assessed m light of intcmatwnal human nghts la\v, mtcmational 

humanitarian la\Y and intemational criminal law. as applicable in Myanmar. The M1ssion 

also con:)idered the human rights guarankes under the domestic lmv ofMyanmar. 

I. International human rights law 

.34. Myanmar is hound by the United Nations Chmier and the pledge to take action for 

thl: adu~vcmcnt of ··umvcr:)al rcspl:d for, and obsL-rvanc~ o[ human nghts and 

ftmdamental freedoms for all \Vithont distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion,.. 5 

Regardless of the e'\tent Lo vvhich Stales have ratified spec1fic human rights treaties, they 

must re~pect intemationally recognised human rights. Human rights arc not limited to 

citizens of the State, but must he guaranteed to all individuals within the tenitory or 

.iurisdiclion of the Stale, irrespective of the1r nationality or lack thereof. 6 The content and 

scope of Myanmar's intemational human rights obligation~ arc atiiculated in treaties 

ratified by M:vanmar, in customary' intemationallmv and in various instmments of soft lmv. 

(a) Treaty Law 

.35. i\f.. of August 20 I H, Myanmar has ratified four of the core lJnited Nations human 

nghts treaties. lhe Comention on Lhe Rights of Lhe Child (CRC) and the Optional Protocol 

thereto on the ~ale of clnldren, child prostitution and child pomography (CRC-OP-SC); the 

Convention on the I ~limination of All 1:orms of J)iscrimination against Women (CI ~J)A W): 

the Convention on the Rights of Persons \Vilh Di:)abiliLies (CRPD): and Lhe Inkrnational 

Covenant on Economic, Socwl and Cultural R1g,hts (ICESC) In domg so, Myamnar 

consented to be hound by the obligations miiculated in these treaties and accepted that 

domestic lmvs and pracL1c~ cmmot be mvokl:d to .JUSLify a fmlurc Lo comply.H IL agr~~d to 

engage with the United Nations treaty bodies established to monitor the implementation of 

' United Nations Charter_ arb 55(~) and 56 

Only a limited number of rights can be limited to citizens, under strict conditions (see para. 68 

below). B. Ram~haran. ~~ lhe La\\-Mak.ing Pro0e::.s: From Declaration to Treaty to Custom to 

Prevention'' in Jhe Oxford f!andhookon International I Iuman H1ghts /,aw. ]) Shelton ed (Oxl(Jrd, 

O:..l(Jrd lJniH.,rsity Press. 2013), )1. 511, D. Vv'l;issbrodl. "/1w Human Rights ~~f"Von-C'itizens (Oxf(Jrd. 

OxtOrd UniYcrsity Press, 2008). Sec also A-'1IR.Cl9i43. para. 2. 

- Dates of accession or ratification by Myanmar are: CRC (15 July 1991), CimAW (22 July 1997), 

CRPD (7 December 2011 ), CRC-OP-SC ( 1(J .lanuar) 2012), 1CESC ((J October 2017). Myanmar 

s1gncd the ICESC on 16 July 2015. meaning that it had to refram from actions contrary to the object 

or purpose of the Covenant ffom that date. 8 Vienna Convention on the T.aw of Treaties. art. 27. 

11 
79

NOTE: The preceding document has not been printed here in full but may be found 

at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108717

f


32302e-8.eps
80

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE GERALD E. CONNOLLY, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA


32302f-1.eps
81


32302f-2.eps

areas, with barely enough resources to meet basic needs. The camps that are far past maximum 

capacity, leave many people in desperate need of shelter, water, and food.5 

Unaccompanied refugee minors are consistently one of the most vulnerable populations in the world as 

they are left without guardians to care for them, and are often stranded in a place that is unfamiliar and 

dangerous. They are significantly more susceptible to human trafficking or are subject to other human 

rights violations. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) relies exclusively on the 

United States to resettle children that have been orphaned or separated from their parents. This means 

the U.S. is essential for providing relief for these children that are left without protection. LIRS remains 

one oftwo U.S. refugee resettlement agencies that offers services specifically to unaccompanied 

minors. LIRS works hard to pair these vulnerable children with welcoming families in the U.S. that are 

willing to care for them as their own. LIRS has previously shared the story of a Rohingya refugee minor 

named Fara, a child that was provided a home with an American Family in Michigan. We are sharing this 

story again as it is a powerful testament to the life changing power that the refugee settlement can have 

and the extreme need that exists for such a program. 

Following riots in Myanmar during early 2015, Faro was not able to go to school. In fact, the 

teachers in her Religious school were barred from attending, and the military police would 

continuously come to their villages. According to Faro, Rohingya houses and villages in 

surrounding neighborhoods were burned down and destroyed. Following this kind of continuous 

suppression and terror, she and her family decided to flee the country. 

During the family's journey to Indonesia, a deadly fight took place on a boat. Faro's father, stepmother and half-sister were tragically killed during the fighting. In order to save her life, Fora 

jumped into the sea, and in the process, she was separated from her younger brother and sister. 

After becoming separated from her family members, Fora has been unable to reunite with her 

younger siblings.*" 

This story is similar to that of so many other Rohingya minors that have been directly affected by the 

President's Executive Orders regarding refugee resettlement. The extreme circumstances that the 

Rohingya community has had to face deserves immediate and appropriate action from the United States 

through the means that we have available. The U.S Refugee resettlement Program has proved to be the 

best and most effective form of relief for this situation and should be used to provide the necessary 

relief for this suffering population. 

It is impossible to reconcile the U.S. government's commitment to the Rohingya at a time when the 

Administration has proposed a cap of 30,000 refugee admissions in the 2019 fiscal year, the lowest cap 

ever in the history of the program. The average refugee admissions cap over the last 40 years of the 

program has been 95,000, this new proposed number is not even a third of what the average has been. 

This significantly lower number will directly affect Rohingya refugees and their ability to leave the poor 

conditions that they are currently living in. 

5 11Bangladesh: Refugee camp capacity exhausted; thousands in makeshift shelters," (UNHCR September 08, 2017), 

ava i Ia ble at: LlillJ2l'F..~v. u r!fl.cr. o i5l.D.~Y!~~fulgL?J!lli.9J;i.Q.b24£.Ql1LQ.§I~.gta desh.:r_~l~_e-ca ITm.::f.~~ttY.: 

~!iHLiJ.?1~J!::lbQhl_g.m:t~.:I!!_0t~~bJfi2b.f~l1.?L~l:.lr.DJ 

6 Please see the LIRS "Statement for the Record on The Rohingya Crisis: U.S. Response to the Tragedy in Burma" 

from October 5, 2017 
82

f


32302f-3.eps

Considering the increasing number of Rohingya refugees, as well as the record number of refugees 

worldwide, LIRS believes that the proposed U.S. refugee admissions goal is much too low. In past years, 

the Department of State has reported that women and children make up three-fourths of the refugees 

resettled to the United States. Many of these are single mothers and their families that have narrowly 

escaped the horrors that tore their homes apart. A large number of these women and children were 

subject to rape, torture, or other heinous crimes. For these families, refugee resettlement ensures 

safety and an opportunity to start a new life. It is the only answer for those that are facing this 

persecution every day. 

Ll RS calls on Congress and the Administration to use the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program to provide 

safety and a fresh start for these families that have suffered such extreme loss and suffering. We want 

the United States to be true to its name, and serve as a home for the meek and the tired, especially in 

the face of such widespread persecution. Now is the time for us to act. 

*Names have been changed 
83


32302g-1.eps

Statement for the Record from Representative Gerry Connolly 

Genocide Against the Burmese Rohingya 

September 26, 20 18 

As this Committee meets, the 73'd Session of the United Nations General Assembly is taking place 

in New Y ark. Given the horrific atrocities that the Burmese military perpetrated against the 

Rohingya in Rakhine State, and the ongoing humanitarian crisis that plagues the re±ugees in 

Bangladesh, this issue should be a top priority for the United States at the United Nations this week. 

Tragically, President Trump declined to mention the Rohingya' s plight during his UNGA address, 

and his Administration has failed to pursue full accountability for those responsible for this crisis. 

The Trump Administration should make a public genocide determination based on the evidence, 

push for accountability at the United Nations for those responsible for these horrendous acts, and 

employ US leadership to tully ±lind the U.N.'s Joint Response Plan to address urgent 

humanitarian needs in Bangladesh. 

Amnesty International recently released a report that examines in detail the Burmese military's 

atrocities against the Rohingya people and determines that these actions amount to crimes against 

humanity under international law. Following that report's release in July 2018, I led a letter with 

Chairman Ted Yoho urging Treasury Secretary Mnuchin to review the report's findings and 

consider these heinous abuses as the Trump Administration develops sanctions against Burma. 

While the Trump Administration announced new sanctions on some members of the Bunnese 

military who are responsible for these atrocities in Aut,>ust, the Administration has thus far declined 

to levy sanctions against the most senior military leadership. Coupled with the reports from the 

Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar and the State Department's recently 

released Documentation of Atrocities in Northern Rakhine State, there is ample evidence to make 

a public determination regarding whether or not acts of genocide occurred. Yet, Secretary of State 

Pompeo has failed to do so. 

While US. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has said that the State Department's 

report is consistent with the Fact-Finding Mission's reports, National Security Advisor John 

Bolton is thwarting Haley's etl'orts by undennining the International Criminal Court (ICC). These 

uncoordinated actions of the Trump Administration undermine US. e±Jorts to push our 

international partners to hold the Burmese military accountability and weaken US. global 

leadership on these matters. The United States should be leading the charge at the UN. Security 

Council to refer this case to the ICC. Instead, many of our partners our questioning whether the 

United States would even support such a referral. 

The Burmese military's violent extermination campaign, including razing Rohingya villages, 

placing landmines along the border, killing civilians, and committing sexual violence, has sparked 

the region's largest refugee crisis ever. Bangladesh is now hosting more than one million Rohingya 

refugees. The sheer volume quickly overwhelmed Bangladesh's two formal refugee camps, and 

the vast majority of refugees are now living in fragile and unsanitary conditions in informal camps, 

roadside settlements, and even in uninhabited forests Bangladesh has shown incredible generosity 

in welcoming these refugees, but it is critical that the international community works with 

Bangladesh to respond to both the urgent humanitarian needs of the Rohingya refugees and also 

the long-term needs of this population. 
84

f


32302g-2.eps

Yesterday, Ambassador Haley announced an additional $185 million to help the displaced 

Rohingya, with $156 million earmarked for refugees and host communities in Bangladesh, 

bringing total U.S assistance for the crisis to $389 million this year. Nonetheless, the U.N. High 

Commissioner for Refugees has called for a redoubling of the international humanitarian response 

in Bangladesh, citing the pace and extreme vulnerability ofretugees, and the U.N. Joint Response 

Plan remains only one-third funded. The Trump Administration also recently announced a cap of 

30,000 refugees for FY 2019, the lowest ceiling since the enactment of the Retugee Act of 1980 

(P.L 96-212) amidst a record high refugee crisis. Slamming the door on refugees abandons 

American values and threatens our national security interests. That is why I am introducing a bill 

that would require the President to set the refugee admissions ceiling at a minimum of 110,000 

refugees annually. 

Tragically, state-sponsored persecution and violence against the Rohingya in Burma is nothing 

new. In 2014, I joined several of my colleagues in writing to the Administration to outline a few 

disturbing trends in Burma's democratic transition, including continued discrimination and 

violence against the Rohingya. The latest violent crackdown has only compounded such concerns. 

I visited Burma with the House Democracy Partnership to meet with members of the legislature 

and the new democratically elected government ofAung San Suu Kyi in 2016. The United States 

needs to strike a balance between supporting Burma's democratic transition, while urging an end 

to violence and discrimination against Rohingya. The outsized power of the military within 

Bunna's civilian government is an obstacle to Burma's democratic progress and hinders the 

government's attempts to prevent an explosion of sectarian violence in Rakhine State. Burma's 

govcmment must cease its policy of keeping the minority Robingya population stateless, displaced, 

and in a constant state of humanitarian crisis. 

The Rohingya are one of the most persecuted communities around the world. They have endured 

horrific abuses at the hand of the Bunnese Government for far too long. Our failure to hold 

accountable those responsible for these heinous atrocities gives a green light to human rights 

abusers not just in Burma, but around the world. As Elie Wiesel said "human sutl'ering anywhere 

concerns men and women everywhere." As Bangladesh continues to host more than one million 

Rohingya refugees, the United States must address both the urgent humanitarian needs and the 

long-term societal needs of the Rohingya people. 
85

Æ


32302i.eps

Question: 

Question for the Record from Representative Dina Titus 

Genocide Against the Burmese Rohingya 

September 26, 20 18 

Can you explain what China and Russia have to gain by opposing a UN Security Council referral 

to the International Criminal Court~ 

Ms. Van Susteren's Answer: 

The Voice of America (VOA) is mandated by Congress to provide news and information about 

the United States to a global audience and to do so at the highest professional standard. While 

VOA certainly covers news about China and Russia as well as the International Criminal Court in 

multiple languages to interested audiences, VOA respectfully declines to otier an agency opinion 

about the intentions of China and Russia's actions. VOA operates inside an editorial firewall 

established in its legislation, and does not engage in U.S. policy development or analysis. 

Mr. Pomper's Answer: 

Neither China nor Russia is an ICC state party and both have been quite sparing in their support 

for U.N. Security Council referrals to the court. In general, both China and Russia tend to set a 

high bar when it comes to supporting coercive measures by the Council under Chapter VII of the 

U.N. Charter, such as an ICC referral The bar is especially high when there are strong bilateral 

ties with the country in question, as there are between China and Myanmar. The United States 

similarly has a history of protecting its partners and allies from action by the Security Council 

The Council has only referred situations to the ICC in two instances Darfur (2005) and Libya 

(2011). 

In 2007, China and Russia double-vetoed a resolution focused on Myanmar that would have urged 

it to release all political prisoners, move toward democracy, and stop attacks against minorities. 

That resolution did not contain an ICC referral or other coercive measures.