Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses and Accountability Options
Released: 2019-03-05T00:00:00

Introduction

Since the onset of the nation's civil war and ensuing military coup d'état in 1962, Burma's military, or Tatmadaw, and its associated security forces, such as the Border Guard Police and the Myanmar Police Force, have been repeatedly accused of committing murder, rape, and torture against the nation's various ethnic minorities. Between 1990 and 2008, Congress passed legislation imposing various sanctions on Burma in part due to the serious human rights violations committed by and/or authorized by the Tatmadaw. Such allegations of intentional, pervasive, and systematic abuses arose again following the forced displacement of over 700,000 Rohingya from Burma's Rakhine State in late 2017, as well as the Tatmadaw's renewed offensive against ethnic armed groups in Kachin, Karen, and Shan States (see map in the Appendix ).

The Trump Administration has described that Tatmadaw's assault on the Rohingya as "ethnic cleansing" and has applied "limited targeted sanctions" on five Tatmadaw officers and two military units. On December 13, 2018, the House of Representatives passed H.Res. 1091 (116 th Congress) by a vote of 394-1, stating "the atrocities committed against the Rohingya by the Burmese military and security forces since August 2017 constitute crimes against humanity and genocide" and calling on the Secretary of State to "determine, based on available evidence, whether the actions by the Burmese military in northern Rakhine State in 2017 constitute crimes against humanity, genocide, or other crimes under international law."

Various organizations—including the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission in Myanmar (UNFFM), multiple human rights organizations, and the press—have conducted investigations into allegations that Burmese security forces committed serious human rights violations in Burma's seven ethnic states since the Tatmadaw transferred power to a mixed civilian/military government in 2011. These organizations have released at least 17 reports documenting evidence that appears to support some of these allegations, and implicates specific Burmese security personnel and units as being responsible for the abuses.

In addition to concluding that Burmese security forces were responsible for serious human rights violations, at least two of these reports maintain that the violations were intentional, premeditated, and systemic. Certain Burmese officers and units also appear in more than one report, and in some cases, are identified as being responsible for human rights violations in more than one ethnic state and/or at different times.

The reports vary in their conclusions on the severity of the abuses. Some conclude that certain violations may constitute genocide; in other cases, some describe possible war crimes or crimes against humanity.

This report compiles a list—in tabular form—of the Burmese security personnel and units that have been identified as responsible for serious human rights violations by one or more the following reports:

1. Amnesty International, "All the Civilians Suffer: Conflict, Displacement, and Abuse in Northern Myanmar," June 2017; 2. Amnesty International, "We Will Destroy Everything: Military Responsibility for Crimes Against Humanity in Rakhine State, Myanmar," June 2018; 3. Fortify Rights, "They Gave Them Long Swords: Preparations for Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity against Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State, Myanmar," July 2018; 4. Human Rights Watch, "All My Body Was Pain: Sexual Violence against Rohingya Women and Girls in Burma," November 2017; 5. Human Rights Watch, "Massacre by the River: Burmese Army Crimes against Humanity in Tula Toli," December 2017; 6. Kachin Women's Association in Thailand, "A Far Cry from Peace: Ongoing Burma Army Offensives and Abuses in Northern Burma under the NLD Government," November 2016; 7. Kachin Women's Association in Thailand, "State Terror in the Kachin Hills: Burma Army Attacks against Civilians in Northern Burma," November 16, 2017; 8. Karen Human Rights Group, "Ongoing Militarisation in Southeast Myanmar," October 2016; 9. Legal Aid Network and Kachin Women's Association in Thailand, "Justice Delayed, Justice Denied: Seeking Truth about Sexual Violence and War Crime Case in Burma," January 2016; 10. Network for Human Rights Documentation—Burma, "Report on the Human Rights Situation in Burma, January–December 2017," March 2018; 11. Physicians for Human Rights, "Please Tell the World What They Have Done to Us: The Chut Pyin Massacre: Forensic Evidence of Violence against the Rohingya in Myanmar," July 2018; 12. Refugees International, "Suffering in Shadows: Aid Restrictions and Reductions Endanger Displaced Persons in Northern Myanmar," December 2017; 13. Simon Lewis, Zeba Siddiqui, Clare Baldwin, and Andrew R.C. Marshall, "Tip of the Spear," Reuters, June 26, 2018; 14. Ta'ang Women's Organization, "Trained to Torture: Systematic War Crimes by the Burma Army in Ta'ang Areas of Northern Shan State (March 2011–March 2016)," June 2016; 15. United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, "Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar" (Advanced Unedited Version), August 24, 2018; 16. Women's League of Burma, "If They Had Hope, They Would Speak: The On-going Use of State-Sponsored Sexual Violence in Burma's Ethnic Communities," November 2014; and 17. Women's League of Burma, "Long Way to Go: Continuing Violations of Human Rights and Discrimination Against Ethnic Women in Burma," July 2016.

CRS did not independently confirm the veracity of the findings in these reports.

The UNFFM report recommends that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) refer the human rights abuse allegations to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigation and possible prosecution. The report specifically identifies six Burmese military leaders—Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing; Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice Senior General Soe Win; Commander, Bureau of Special Operations-3, Lieutenant General Aung Kyaw Zaw; Commander, Western Regional Military Command, Major General Maung Maung Soe; Commander, 33 rd Light Infantry Division, Brigadier General Aung Aung; and Commander, 99 th Light Infantry Division, Brigadier General Than Oo—as warranting investigation and possible prosecution by the ICC. The UNFFM also calls for the creation of

an independent, impartial mechanism to collect, consolidate, preserve and analyse evidence of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights violations and abuses and to prepare files to facilitate and expedite fair and independent criminal proceedings in national, regional or international courts or tribunals.

In addition, the UNFFM recommends the UNSC "should adopt targeted individual sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, against those who appear most responsible for serious crimes under international law" and impose an arms embargo on Burma.

The Department of State has conducted a preliminary investigation into alleged human rights abuses in Rakhine State. According to an article in Politico , there was sharp disagreement within the State Department on whether to categorize the Tatmadaw's attacks on the Rohingya as genocide or crimes against humanity. On August 28, 2018, then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley presented to the U.N Security Council some of the details of a then unreleased version of the State Department's report. She stated, "The results are consistent with the recently-released UN independent international fact-finding mission on Burma." Among the details Haley mentioned were the following:

The investigation involved interviews with 1,024 Rohingya refugees in camps in Bangladesh's Cox's Bazar region; 82% of the refugees witnessed the killing of a Rohingya; 51% witnessed sexual violence; and 20% witnessed violence against 100 or more people; and Burmese military and security forces were the perpetrators "of the overwhelming majority of these crimes."

On September 24, 2018, the State Department posted online a 20-page publication entitled Documentation of Atrocities in Northern Rakhine State . The State Department issued no press release or statement regarding the release of the summary. According to the publication's executive summary, "the vast majority of Rohingya refugees experienced or directly witnessed extreme violence and the destruction of their homes." The summary also concluded "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 publication is generally consistent with Ambassador Haley's statement before the UNSC, but did not indicate if the State Department considers the atrocities to be genocide, crimes against humanity, and/or war crimes.

On July 30, 2018, President Win Myint appointed former Philippine Deputy Foreign Minister Rosario Manalo; former Japanese Ambassador to the U.N. Kenzo Oshima; the chief coordinator of the Union Enterprise for Humanitarian Assistance, Resettlement and Development in Rakhine, Aung Tun Thet; and the former chair of Myanmar's Constitutional Tribunal, Mya Thein, to head the Independent Commission of Enquiry (ICOE), which "will investigate the allegations of human rights violations and related issues, following the terrorist attacks by ARSA." President Win Myint's announcement did not indicate any deadline for the commission to complete its investigation. Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice Senior General Soe Win reportedly said, "the military is on standby to offer full cooperation with the commission."

The ICOE visited Rakhine State on December 21, 2018, as part of its investigation. Manalo reportedly stated during the visit, "We are gathering the truth. Fake news should not be believed. Everything should be based on evidence." The ICOE also set a deadline of January 31, 2019, for people to submit evidence of the commission of human rights abuses.

Since Burma's security forces began its "clearance operations" in August 2017, Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing has repeatedly denied that his troops committed human rights abuses in Rakhine State, or elsewhere in Burma. On February 15, 2019, Min Aung Hlaing told Asahi Shimbun that "there is no certain proof that the national army was involved in the persecution" of Rohingya." He also said that such accusations "hurts the nation's dignity."

Besides the United States, Australia, Canada, and the European Union have imposed sanctions on Burmese military or security officers responsible for human rights violations in Burma (see Table 1 ). The European Union placed sanctions on seven Burmese security officers on June 25, 2018, and another seven officers on December 21, 2018. On June 25, 2018, Canada placed sanctions on the same seven officers as the EU. On October 5, 2018, Australia placed financial sanctions of five Burmese security officers.

Three people appear on all four lists—Lt. General Aung Kyaw Zaw, Major General Khin Maung Soe, and Major General Maung Maung Soe. Two officers, Brigadier General Aung Aung and Brigadier General Than Oo, have been sanctioned by Australia, Canada, and the EU, but not the United States.

Burmese Security Force Officers and Units Allegedly Responsible for Human Rights Violations

The following tables list the names of Burmese security force officers ( Table 2 ) and units ( Table 3 ) that have been identified in one or more of the reports mentioned above as being responsible for human rights violations in Burma since 2011. For purposes of this report, the "types of responsibility" include the following:

Authorization —Authorized and/or ordered other security personnel to commit human rights abuses on Burmese civilians; Commission —Committed the human rights abuses and/or took no action to prevent the commission of human rights abuses; and Cover-up —Became aware of credible allegations that security personnel under their command had committed or were committing human rights violations, but took no action to stop the further commission of human rights violations; attempted to conceal alleged human rights violations by Burmese security personnel; and/or tried to prevent or undermine investigations or prosecutions of alleged human rights violations by Burmese personnel.

With regard to the type of human rights violation committed, this report classifies them into six categories

Arbit rary arrest —includes the arrest and/or detention of civilians without discernible evidence that the civilians had committed some crime; Attacks on civilians —includes intentional assaults of civilians and attacks conducted with a disregard for the potential of causing harm to civilians; Extrajudicial killing —includes the intentional killing of civilians and the killing of civilians during military attacks conducted with a disregard for the potential of causing harm to civilians; Forced labor —includes forcing civilians to carry military equipment or supplies, to serve as "human shields" for military units, and/or to use civilians as human "landmine detectors"; Sexual violence —includes rape, attempted rape, and other forms of sexual assault; and Torture —includes torture and/or the physical abuse of civilians.

While the military personnel and units listed in the tables have not been proven to be responsible for human rights abuses, their identification in one or more of the reports listed above may indicate that there is reason for further investigation of the allegations. Information in the tables suggests certain patterns about the human rights abuse allegations, including the following:

Pervasive and systemi c abuse by Tatmadaw — Table 3 includes more than 100 military units, including 3 Regional Operations Commands, 6 infantry divisions, and more than 90 infantry battalions, indicating that alleged human rights abuse is not limited to a few "troubled" units; Geographically pervasive —The reports link certain military units with similar human rights abuses in all of Burma's ethnic minority states—Chin, Kachin, Karen (Kayin), Karenni (Kayah), Mon, Rakhine, and Shan; "Trouble d " units —The reports repeatedly implicate certain units in abuses, including the following: Infantry Division 33 —This unit is identified in six reports, involving a variety of alleged abuses in the States of Kachin, Rakhine and Shan; Infantry Division 99 —This unit is also identified in six reports, involving a variety of alleged abuses in the States of Kachin, Rakhine, and Shan; and Infantry Battalions 324, 502, 503 and 567 —These units were identified in three different reports as committing a variety of human rights abuses.

Accountability Options

The extensive list of reports alleging that Burma's security forces have committed genocide, crimes against humanity, and/or war crimes has reinforced calls for some form of accountability mechanism to investigate and possibly prosecute the perpetrators of the alleged abuses. Many of the reports and various human rights organizations have proposed various accountability mechanisms, including referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC), the creation of an ad hoc international criminal tribunal, the imposition of U.N. sanctions, and the enactment of bilateral restrictions on relations with the Burmese government and/or the Burmese military.

Referral to International Criminal Court (ICC)

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which entered into force on July 1, 2002, established the procedures by which cases can be referred to the ICC's Prosecutor for investigation and possible prosecution. Bangladesh (see below) is a party to the Rome Statute; Burma is not. Article 13(b) states the ICC may exercise jurisdiction if "one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations." To date, the Security Council has referred one case under Article 13(b), that of the situation in Darfur, Sudan, in 2005.

Under Article 27 of the U.N. Charter, nonprocedural decisions of the UNSC, including a referral of a case to the ICC, "shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members." The five permanent members of the UNSC are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States; the current 10 nonpermanent members are Bolivia, Cote d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Peru, Poland, and Sweden.

Many observers expect China, and possibly Russia, to veto any proposed referral to the ICC. When asked if the United Kingdom would support a referral to the ICC during his visit to Burma in late September 2018, the U.K.'s Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt indicated that his government was considering "a number of different options." France has not issued any public statement on a possible UNSC resolution to refer the case to the ICC.

The Trump Administration's position on the possible referral to the ICC is uncertain. In her August 25, 2018, statement to the UNSC, Ambassador Haley said, "Here in the Security Council, we must hold those responsible for violence to account." She also commended Kuwait, the Netherlands, Peru, and the United Kingdom for working "to keep the Security Council's focus on the atrocities in Burma." National Security Advisor John Bolton, however, gave a speech on September 10, 2018, stating the Administration's policy toward the ICC, in which he said, "We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us." Bolton did not make any reference the Burma situation.

In April 2018, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda asked the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber to determine whether the Court may exercise jurisdiction over the forced deportation of Rohingya from Burma into Bangladesh, which the Prosecutor argued constituted a crime against humanity. The Prosecutor argued that because forced deportation of Rohingya occurred partially on the territory of Bangladesh (a state party to the Rome Statute), the Court may exercise jurisdiction over the crimes. On September 6, 2018, the Pre-Trial Chamber agreed, deciding that the ICC Prosecutor can begin a preliminary investigation into the situation in Bangladesh, opening the possibility of prosecuting Burmese officials. On September 18, 2018, ICC Prosecutor Bensouda announced that she was initiating the preliminary investigation, which will also take into account "a number of alleged coercive acts" that resulted in the forced displacement, including killings, sexual violence, enforced disappearances, and the destruction of property. Her office is to also consider if other crimes under Article 7 of the Rome Statute ("Crimes Against Humanity") may be applicable. A preliminary examination team from the ICC is scheduled to visit Bangladesh in March 2019. Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has said that her government will cooperate with the ICC team. Burma rejected the Pre-Trial Chamber's decision, and has stated it will not assist the ICC investigation.

Creation of Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunal (ICT)

A possible alternative to the ICC could be the creation of an ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal (ICT) to investigate and potentially prosecute perpetrators of human rights abuses in Burma. Such a tribunal was established by the UNSC on May 25, 1993, "for the sole purpose of prosecuting persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia between 1 January 1991 and a date to be determined by the Security Council upon the restoration of peace." The UNSC established another ICT on November 8, 1994, "for the sole purpose of prosecuting persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994." In addition, the UNSC previously has established Special Courts in Cambodia, East Timor, Lebanon, and Sierra Leone to adjudicate cases of alleged human rights violations in those four nations.

In general, the UNSC has stipulated the scope of the International Criminal Tribunal or Special Court, including the time period to be considered. The Special Courts were set up with the support of the government of the nation in question, whereas the two ICTs were created when the government of the nation in question was unable or unwilling to undertake the criminal proceedings.

Preservation of Evidence

On September 28, 2018, the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) approved a resolution that establishes an "ongoing independent mechanism to collect, consolidate, preserve and analyse evidence of the most serious international crimes and violations of international law committed in Myanmar since 2011" by a vote of 35 in favor, 3 opposed, and 7 abstentions. The three nations voting against the proposal were Burundi, China, and the Philippines. Japan was one of the seven nations that abstained.

The UNHRC resolution instructs the mechanism to

Prepare files in order to facilitate and expedite fair and independent criminal proceedings, in accordance with international law standards, in national, regional or international courts or tribunals that have or may in the future have jurisdiction over these crimes, in accordance with international law.

The mechanism also is to have access to the information collected by the UNFFM, be able to continue to collect evidence, and be provided the capacity to document and verify relevant information and evidence. The UNHRC requested that U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres appoint "the staff of the mechanism as expeditiously as possible" and "allocate the resources necessary for the implementation of the present resolution." The resolution also extended the mandate of the UNFFM "until the new mechanism is operational."

The UNFFM had recommended the creation of "an independent, impartial mechanism to collect, consolidate, preserve and analyze evidence of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights violations and abuses and to prepare files to facilitate and expedite fair and independent criminal proceedings in national, regional or international courts or tribunals." It also stated the mechanism "could resemble the 'International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism [IIIM] to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011,' created by United Nations General Assembly resolution 71/248," which was adopted in December 2016. Various human rights organizations have also expressed support for the creation of such a mechanism. In December 2018, the U.N. General Assembly approved $26.7 million to fund the "independent, impartial mechanism."

The Trump Administration has not indicated its position on the establishment of an "independent, impartial mechanism" for Rakhine State, but it has demonstrated its support for the IIIM. In February 2018, Ambassador Haley stated the following:

The United States has also announced that we will contribute to the International, Impartial, and Independent Mechanism on international crimes committed in Syria—the IIIM. The United States strongly supports the IIIM as a valuable tool to hold the Assad regime accountable for its atrocities, including its repeated and ongoing use of chemical weapons.

In FY2018, the United States provided nearly $350,000 in support of the IIIM.

The 116 th Congress appropriated funds in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ) for investigation and documentation of alleged human rights violations in Burma, but not explicitly for an "independent, impartial mechanism." Section 7043(a) included the following provisions:

Bilateral Economic Assistance.—…

(B) USES.—Funds appropriated under title III of this Act for assistance for Burma—…

(vi) shall be made available for programs to investigate and document allegations of ethnic cleansing and other gross violations of human rights committed against the Rohingya people in Rakhine state: Provided , That such funds shall be in addition to funds otherwise made available for such purposes;

(vii) shall be made available for programs to investigate and document allegations of gross violations of human rights committed in Burma, particularly in areas of conflict.

The House committee report that accompanied the act ( H.Rept. 116-9 ) allocated $3.0 million out of the $82.7 million Economic Support Fund for Burma for "Documentation of human rights violations against Rohingya," and $0.75 million for "Documentation of human rights violations in Burma." The report further stipulated that

funds made available for programs to investigate and document allegations of ethnic cleansing and other gross violations of human rights committed against the Rohingya people in Rakhine state shall be made available for civil society organizations in Bangladesh and Burma. Prior to the obligation of any such funds, the Assistant Secretary for DRL shall ensure the establishment of a standard documentation format and documentation procedures for use by such organizations, and shall identify an appropriate repository for such information.

It also specified that

funds made available for programs to investigate and document allegations of gross violations of human rights committed in Burma shall be made available for civil society and international organizations, including those in countries bordering Burma.

U.N. Sanctions

The UNFFM and various human rights organizations have recommended that the UNSC impose sanctions on Burma independent of any ICC or ad hoc international tribunal prosecution. Among the possible U.N. sanctions proposed are a global arms embargo; travel bans and the freezing of assets of senior Burmese government and military officials; and a prohibition of trade and/or investment with businesses owned or controlled by the Burmese military, its senior officers, or their families.

The UNSC has imposed sanctions in response to human rights violations, among other factors, in other countries, including the Central African Republic, Haiti, Rwanda, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, and the former Yugoslavia. The UNSC sanctions have included, in some cases, arms embargoes, travel bans, and the freezing of assets.

Bilateral Sanctions on Burma

Another accountability option that has been suggested is for individual nations to impose appropriate sanctions on Burma. The United States currently has some restrictions on relations with Burma, and the Trump Administration has announced some additional restrictions in response to the alleged human rights abuses in Rakhine State, including the imposition of visa and economic restrictions on five Burmese military officers and two military units under the authority of the Global Magnitsky Act (see above). The Trump Administration could potentially sanction additional individuals and units it determines are responsible for serious human rights violations under the authority of the Global Magnitsky Act.

If the Trump Administration were to determine that the alleged human rights abuses that occurred in Rakhine State or elsewhere in Burma constituted genocide, then the United States has the authority to prosecute alleged offenders under the provisions of the Human Rights Enforcement Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-122 ; 18 U.S.C. 1091). The act criminalizes the act of genocide and subjects the offender to a possible death sentence, life in prison, and a fine of "not more than $1,000,000." The act grants U.S. jurisdiction to the case under certain conditions, including if "the alleged offender is present in the United States," regardless of where the offense was committed.

The United States is a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article V of the convention states the following:

The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

Article VII requires that "(t)he Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force." Bangladesh, Burma, and the United States are parties to the Convention.

Prior to the events in Rakhine State, the United States had maintained several types of restrictions on relations with Burma, including

restrictions on the issuance of visas to Burmese government and military officials; limits on bilateral and multilateral economic assistance; and prohibition on the sale of U.S. military equipment.

In addition, Section 7043(a)(1)(C) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ) stated that FY2019 bilateral economic assistance

(i) may not be made available to any individual or organization if the Secretary of State has credible information that such individual or organization has committed a gross violation of human rights, including against Rohingya and other minority groups, or that advocates violence against ethnic or religious groups or individuals in Burma; and

(ii) may not be made available to any organization or entity controlled by the armed forces of Burma.

Other restrictions on relations are currently being waived under the authority of presidential executive orders or presidential determinations. These include

a general ban on the import of goods from Burma; a ban on the import of Burmese jadeite and rubies, and products containing Burmese jadeite and rubies; a ban on the import of goods from certain Burmese companies; the "freezing" of the assets of certain Burmese nationals; a prohibition on providing financial services to certain Burmese nationals; restrictions on U.S. investments in Burma; restrictions on bilateral assistance to Burma; and restrictions on U.S. support for multilateral assistance to Burma.

In addition, former President George H.W. Bush suspended Burma's benefits under the U.S. Generalized Systems of Preferences (GSP) program on April 13, 1989, as part of Presidential Proclamation 5955. Former President Obama restored Burma's GSP benefits on September 14, 2016, via Presidential Proclamation 9492. Any of these waived past restrictions, including the suspension of GSP benefits, could be reinstated by President Trump without the involvement of Congress.

Options for Congress

Congress has various options on how it may respond to the alleged human rights violations in Burma. Legislation has been introduced to modify U.S. policy in Burma, in part to address the alleged human rights abuses. Resolutions have also been introduced expressing congressional views on events in Burma, and calling for changes in U.S. policy. Over the last few years, Congress has also included Burma-related provisions in pending appropriation legislation to shape U.S. policy in Burma. Congress has also demonstrated its ongoing interest in Burma, and the importance of U.S. policy in Burma, by holding several hearings to learn more about developments in Burma and discuss policy options. Several congressional delegations have traveled to Bangladesh and Burma to directly investigate the situation and express to Burma's leaders the importance of the human rights violations allegations to Congress.

Whatever additional actions or measures, if any, Congress takes to address the alleged human rights violations in Burma will likely be influenced by other elements of bilateral relations, as well as regional concerns such as China's growing influence in Southeast Asia. Some Members of Congress and the Trump Administration view Burma as undergoing a fragile and difficult transition from an oppressive military dictatorship to a potentially democratic, civilian-run federated state, and are concerned that imposing additional restrictions on relations with Burma could undermine that transition. Other Members of Congress and Administration officials see the human rights abuses in Kachin, Karen, Rakhine, and Shan States as proof that the Tatmadaw's leaders have no intention of permitting such a transition to occur.

Legislation

In the 115 th Congress, two bills were introduced pertaining to U.S. policy in Burma with provisions related to the alleged human rights violations—the Burma Unified through Rigorous Military Accountability (BURMA) Act of 2018 ( H.R. 5819 ) and the Burma Human Rights and Freedom Act of 2018 ( S. 2060 ). Both bills would have imposed a visa ban on senior military officers involved in human rights abuses in Burma, placed new restrictions on security assistance and military cooperation, and required U.S. opposition to international financial institution (IFI) loans to Burma if the project involves an enterprise owned or directly or indirectly controlled by the military of Burma. S. 2060 also would have required the President to review Burma's eligibility for the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program.

The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, on May 17, 2018, ordered H.R. 5819 to be reported favorably out of committee, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and agreed to seek consideration under suspension of the rules. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations reported S. 2060 favorably out of committee on February 12, 2018, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, but the bill never received floor action by the Senate.

Resolutions

Ten separate resolutions in the House or Senate pertaining to Burma were introduced during the 115 th Congress; one passed. In the 116 th Congress, one Burma-related resolution has been introduced, S.Res. 34 , that resolves that the Senate (among other things):

condemns the violence and displacement inflicted on Burma's Rohingya and other ethnic minorities; and urges the Secretary of State to make a determination whether the actions by the Myanmar military constitute crimes against humanity or genocide and to work with interagency partners to impose targeted sanctions on Myanmar military officials, to include Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, responsible for these heinous acts through existing authorities.

Appropriations Provisions

As previously described, the 116 th Congress included provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ) placing restrictions on the provision of bilateral economic assistance, international security assistance, and multilateral assistance to Burma. Similar provisions could be included in the appropriations legislation for the Department of Defense and the Department of State for FY2020.

Hearings

Since September 2017, Congress has held several hearings on Burma, including the following:

A House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing on September 26, 2018, entitled, "Genocide Against the Burmese Rohingya." A House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing on October 4, 2017, entitled, "The Rohingya Crisis: U.S. Response to the Tragedy in Burma." A House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific hearing on September 27, 2017, entitled, "Burma's Brutal Campaign Against the Rohingya." A Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing on October 24, 2017, entitled, "Assessing U.S. Policy Towards Burma: Geopolitical, Economic, and Humanitarian Considerations." A Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing on July 25, 2018, entitled, "Victims' Rights in Burma."

At all of these hearings, most of the Members of Congress present indicated that they view the acts of Burma's security forces in Rakhine State and elsewhere in Burma as either genocide or crimes against humanity. Many also stated that the Trump Administration's response to date has been inadequate given the severity of the human rights abuses.

Congressional Delegations

Congress may also consider sending congressional delegations and staff delegations to Bangladesh and Burma to investigate the alleged human rights violations and ascertain the views of the alleged victims on what forms of accountability should be pursued. These delegations could also meet with Burmese government officials and Burmese military leaders to hear their perspectives of the human rights allegations, and to express the delegation's opinion on what measures the Burmese government and military should make to investigate and possibly prosecute those individuals, military units, and organizations that have been accused of committing genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Burma.

Appendix. Map of Burma