[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BURMA'S BRUTAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE ROHINGYA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-72
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-011 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina AMI BERA, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
PAUL COOK, California TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
TED S. YOHO, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois NORMA J. TORRES, California
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
Wisconsin TED LIEU, California
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
TED S. YOHO, Florida, Chairman
DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio AMI BERA, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada
MO BROOKS, Alabama GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Michael F. Martin, Ph.D., specialist in Asian affairs, Foreign
Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, Congressional Research
Service........................................................ 8
Mr. Walter Lohman, director, Asian Studies Center, Davis
Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, The
Heritage Foundation............................................ 19
Mr. Daniel P. Sullivan, senior advocate for human rights,
Refugees International......................................... 28
Ms. Andrea Gittleman, program manager, Simon-Skjodt Center for
the Prevention of Genocide, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum..... 38
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Ted S. Yoho, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, and chairman, Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific: Prepared statement.................................... 3
Michael F. Martin, Ph.D.: Prepared statement..................... 10
Mr. Walter Lohman: Prepared statement............................ 21
Mr. Daniel P. Sullivan: Prepared statement....................... 30
Ms. Andrea Gittleman: Prepared statement......................... 40
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 60
Hearing minutes.................................................. 61
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 62
BURMA'S BRUTAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE ROHINGYA
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ted Yoho
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Yoho. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to
order.
Members present will be permitted to submit written
statements to be included in the official hearing record.
Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5
calendar days to allow statements, questions, and extraneous
material for the record subject to length limitations in the
rules.
As a reminder, I would like to remind the audience members
that disruption of the committee proceedings is against the law
and will not be tolerated. Although wearing theme shirts while
seated in the hearing room is permissible, holding up signs
during the meeting proceedings is not. Any disruptions will
result in the suspension of the proceedings until the capitol
police can restore order. And we thank you for following these
guidelines.
Good afternoon, and thank you to everyone for joining us
today to discuss this sobering topic. The latest outbreak of
ethnic violence in Burma's Rakhine state has brought about the
most urgent humanitarian emergency in the Asia Pacific today.
We are convening this hearing today for two primary
purposes. First, to gather information and impressions from our
expert panel, some of whom recently have been on the ground in
Burma to see this firsthand. And, secondly, to hear their
recommendations for how the U.S. policy can best address this
crisis.
The Rohingya, a stateless Muslim people living in the
Rakhine state, are frequently described as the world's most
persecuted minority. Denied citizenship in Burma and treated as
unwanted, illegal immigrants, their modern history has been a
continuous deprivation of basic human rights, punctuated with
episodes of extreme violence. The latest of these is ongoing,
and it is just unbelievable the amount of persecution that is
going on.
On August 25, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, ARSA, a
Rohingya militant group, launched a coordinated attack on a
security outpost in Burma's Rakhine state, killing
approximately a dozen personnel. In the weeks that have
followed, the Burmese military has carried out a brutal
retaliatory crackdown against the Rohingya population as a
whole, characterized by sickening crimes against humanity.
Human Rights Watch released a report on Monday documenting
widespread and systematic attacks on the Rohingya civilians;
deportations and forced population transfers; murders,
including the murder of women and children; sexual violence;
the razing of villages; and the deployment of landmines along
paths used by the refugees. The reporting is corroborated by
eyewitness accounts on the ground and satellite images, and it
is heart-wrenching in its details.
The military's violence has sparked a massive refugee
outflow into neighboring Bangladesh, which the Economist
reports is the most intense since the Rwanda genocide. In this
latest crisis alone, about 436,000 Rohingya have crossed the
border, overwhelming the aid organizations there and bringing
the total number of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh to near 1
million. An unknown number of additional Rohingya remain
internally displaced within the Rakhine state. The death toll
is in the hundreds at least, and that is at a minimum. But aid
organizations and reporters are denied access to this affected
area, and the total number may be much higher in the tens of
thousands.
The road ahead will be difficult. Responding to the
immediate crisis will be an enormous task, to say nothing of a
sustainable lasting solution to the Rohingya dilemma. Burma has
not created a space for the Rohingya in its society, and there
is little appetite among the Buddhist majority to do so. State
Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi, once thought as a global symbol of
human rights and democracy, has led a lackluster response by
the Burmese Government, focusing on denial and blaming the
victims.
The ARSA militants are also not helping their fellow
Rohingya. Their latest attack came on the very day a commission
headed by the former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan released
his recommendations on easing ethnic tensions in Rakhine. This
was the government's most high-profile effort to improve the
conditions in Rakhine following previous episodes of violence,
and the ARSA attacked just as Aung San Suu Kyi pledged to
implement the panel's recommendations.
Recent reports have indicated that the outflow of refugees
to Bangladesh has slowed or stopped, which foreshadows the next
stage of the crisis: The enormous challenge for humanitarian
aid organizations to shift from lifesaving measures to a longer
term effort to house and feed almost 1 million people, who
under the current circumstances, are totally incapable of
seeing to their own needs.
In Washington, we will need to determine how we can best
support these efforts, as well as what policy options are
available for pressuring the Burmese military to stop its
brutal violence and encouraging the civilian government to take
a firmer stand against the military's atrocities.
So I thank the witnesses for joining us today and look
forward to their testimony and recommendations.
Without objection, the written statements will be entered
into the hearing.
I now turn to the ranking member for any remarks he may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yoho follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am told that the Ambassador from Bangladesh is here.
Thank you, sir, for being here, but more importantly, thank you
for what your country, one of the poorest countries in the
world, is doing to take care of hundreds of thousands of
refugees.
I would also like to introduce the Ambassador of Burma,
but, unfortunately, I can't because that Ambassador is not
here. If that Ambassador were here, that Ambassador could find
out what the world thinks of the policy of the Burmese
Government toward hundreds of thousands of its own citizens.
A humanitarian tragedy is unfolding in Burma, which is also
referred to as Myanmar. Burma's military, the Tatmadaw, moved
against the Rohingya population after an August 25 attack by
Rohingya militants on Burmese security forces. Nearly \1/2\
million Rohingya Muslim refugees have fled their homeland in
the Rakhine state following Burmese military operations against
them.
The U.N. High Commission for Human Rights noted that this
situation seems to be a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.
Late last year, something similar occurred on a smaller scale
when an estimated 60,000 to 90,000 Rohingyas fled to Bangladesh
as a result of Burmese military operations that have followed
in October 2016 Rohingya militant attack on border police.
The vast majority of those who fled to Bangladesh, which
is, as I pointed out, already impoverished and overcrowded,
though the vast majority have fled there, a roughly 40,000 fled
to India. Unfortunately, media reports indicate that India's
border security forces are attempting to prevent Rohingya from
entering India through Bangladesh amidst the ongoing exodus
from Burma, including the reported use of stun guns and pepper
grenades. However, I should point out that the international
law is different for Bangladesh, which is the first resting
place of those fleeing. Once people are in Bangladesh, they are
not being oppressed, although they are not economically viable
at the present time. So whether India has an obligation to
accept them from Bangladesh is a subject that perhaps our
witnesses can get into.
The United States has led an international response to
protect the--we have lead the international response to protect
Muslims in Kosovo and in Bosnia against Serb aggression. We
need to play a role along with others in protecting the
Rohingya in dealing with the humanitarian needs. We also need
to make sure that the Muslim world realizes that we are the
only country to bomb a Christian nation, Serbia, for the
defense of Muslims, something that is not widely focused on in
the Muslim world.
The administration should work to ensure that the physical
needs of hundreds of thousands of refugees are provided for,
secure a halt to Burmese military operations against the
Rohingya, secure a safe return of the Rohingya population back
to Burma, demand that Burma end decades of discrimination
against the Rohingya, including addressing cases of
appropriated land, citizenship rights, political
representation, the lack of free movement, and economic
improvements. This is especially necessary in citizenship
rights. The idea that a people could live in a country
generation after generation and still be called foreigners
under that country's laws is simply outrageous.
We are to urge the United Nations Security Council to
establish a U.N. Security Council probe commission on Burmese
ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya and urge the United
Nations Security Council to establish a U.N.-monitored safe
zone for the Rohingya in Rakhine state to protect it from
future mass killings.
The Burmese Government says it will allow the return of
these refugees, catch-22, when they provide proof of
nationality. Since 1982, the Burmese Government has stripped
the Rohingya of their citizenship, making it impossible for
them to prove their Burmese nationality. This is outrageous.
Every group of people on the Earth has immigrated to where they
live from somewhere else. Since we all came from apparently
eastern Africa, and to say that you are not a citizen of a
country because you cannot prove that your most ancient
ancestors were born there would make us all citizens perhaps of
Ethiopia and not citizens of any other country in the world. I
say that just to show how absurd the position is to deny
citizenship for people not only born in the country, but whose
parents, even grandparents were born in that country.
The United States, who was closely involved in bringing
democracy to Burma, in a process that included elections in
2010 and 2015, the release of political prisoners, the
formation of a civilian government, and the lifting of U.N.
sanctions. The United States should also take the lead of
holding democratic practices, and democracy goes with fair
treatment of minorities and a protection of minorities. It must
press the Burmese Government to end military operations against
the Rohingya, accept the refugees back, and grant them
citizenship. I think they are already legally citizens.
Recognize that citizenship.
In September of last year, I, along with other members of
this subcommittee, met with Aung San Suu Kyi as the former
administration decided to lift a number of economic sanctions
on Burma. It is clear, after the massacres and cleansing of
October 2016 and the recent actions, that we need to reevaluate
that policy.
Last week, the State Department announced the U.S. is
providing an additional 32 million in humanitarian assistance.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses whether that is
sufficient.
And I yield back.
Mr. Yoho. I thank the ranking member.
I too also would like to welcome Ambassador Ziauddin. Thank
you for being here, for representing Bangladesh, and thank you
for the support you have given to this crisis that is ongoing.
I would like to commend the ranking member on his pointing
out that the United States is a Nation that is--the only nation
that has bombed a Christian nation to protect the Muslim
populace.
With that, I would like to turn to Mr. Chabot from Ohio for
an opening statement.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for holding this really very important hearing at a
critical time.
The news, as you indicated, from the Rakhine state about
the humanitarian crisis, unfortunately, seems to be getting
worse every day. As a former chairman of this committee, I have
been following this with really great concern for some time
now.
The previous administration touted Burma as a success story
and relaxed many of the restrictions that have been
longstanding, including on the Burmese military. Unfortunately,
we are seeing that, in many ways, the Burma that we see today
isn't that much different than the one that we knew only a few
years ago. There have been some improvements, but far too few.
A number of us at the time were warned that this democratic
transformation was incomplete and that President Obama and then
Secretary of State Clinton's optimism was premature. The
current situation in Rakhine state, unfortunately, seems to
illustrate that we were right, much as I wish that we had been
wrong.
So I look very much forward to this very distinguished
panel here and hearing what solutions, what we can do to help.
So I thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.
Now we will go to Mr. Rohrabacher for an opening statement.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have been following the events in this
part of the world for a number of decades, but I will have to
admit that I have a very shallow information base, knowledge
base on what is happening on the issue being described today.
So I will be very interested in hearing a history of this.
I realize that I have been very active in the past in
trying to support the Karens and the Karenis who were
brutalized by the Burmese Government. And the Karens and the
Kareni, of course, are Christians, or at least a large segment
of their population is Christian. I understand from the people
I know in Burma that there is a great deal of brutality still
going on by the Burmese Government toward the Karens and the
Kareni. However, being Christians, they don't seem to get as
much attention as it is when we see a group of Muslims who are
under attack.
I think that it is up to us to send a message to Burma that
this type of repression, both whether it is Christians or
Muslim, that attacks on unarmed civilians is unacceptable. But
let me also note that we need to send a message to the people,
to the Muslim people of the world that our human rights agenda
is not just a front to attack Muslim regimes when they are
doing something wrong, but when the Islamic people are being
victimized, that we care about them just as we do anyone else.
So I thank you for this hearing today. I plan to educate
myself from what we are going to hear from the witnesses. So
thank you very much.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Now we will go to Mrs. Ann Wagner for an opening statement.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this
hearing. I too am devastated by the news coming out of Burma.
For over 60 years, the Burmese Government has persecuted
religious and ethnic minorities across the country. War has
raged in Karen states, Chin states, Shan states, Kachin states,
and the list goes on and on.
The Obama administration lifted sanctions. Actually, Burma
was becoming a democracy, but Burma's Government had no
authority over the nation's powerful military. Human rights and
democracy activists across Burma feel abandoned. The Christians
in Kachin states have been ignored by the West. The Rohingya
Muslims have been left for dead. With more Rohingya now living
outside of Burma than living inside of Burma, the international
community must stop demanding action and take action. We are in
part to blame for not holding the Burmese Government and
military accountable for their actions.
So I want to thank you all very much for coming today. And
a special thanks to Mr. Sullivan and to Ms. Gittleman for the
advocacy work that you do in this arena. And my sincere thanks
to the Ambassador from Bangladesh for the generosity of your
country in opening up your border.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mrs. Wagner.
This hearing today is so important because of the
atrocities that going on out there, and we depend on the
information that you guys give us, the panel, on the direction
we go. When we look at the history of this, the length of time
this has been going on, I don't know how the world can stand by
and do nothing. And so you guys are going to bring this out
into the open. And I don't want to say you are not doing
anything because you are the Ambassadors, you are dealing with
this in a good way, and we commend you. But we have to bring a
stop to this. This is the 21st century, and we are doing stuff
from the stone age to people on the ground.
We met with an NGO yesterday, and he was showing us graphic
pictures of charred bodies that were lined up, people with
flamethrowers burning people in the 21st century. It is
unacceptable, and we need to bring this to an end with the
world community.
So with that, I look forward to your testimonies. And I
want you to understand that so much of what you guys tell us in
a hearing goes into legislation that we put on through the
State Department, maybe the Treasury or other organizations, so
be very specific, be bold. I give you the permission. You can
direct us. Use this opportunity to say, if I could write the
legislation, this is what I would do to bring this to an end.
So I welcome your testimonies.
You are limited to about 5 minutes. Try to end when the red
light goes on or ends at 5 minutes. Make sure you press your
button so the microphone is on.
With that, I am going to introduce the panel. We are going
to start with Dr. Michael Martin, specialist in Asian affairs
for the Congressional Research Service, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division. Thank you for being here. Mr.
Walter Lohman, thank you for being back. Director of the Asian
Studies Center for the Heritage Foundation. Dr. Daniel
Sullivan, senior advocate for human rights at the Refugee
International. And Ms. Andrea Gittleman, program manager for
the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide at the
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. That is a mouthful. Thank you
for being here.
And, Dr. Martin, if you don't mind, we will start with you,
and look forward to hearing from you.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. MARTIN, PH.D., SPECIALIST IN ASIAN
AFFAIRS, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENSE, AND TRADE DIVISION,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Mr. Martin. Chairman Yoho, Ranking Member Sherman, and the
members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the current crisis in
Burma's Rakhine state, the status of the Rohingya who have fled
to Bangladesh, as well as those remaining in Burma.
The current crisis in Burma's Rakhine state is not the
first time in which thousands of Rohingya have fled to
Bangladesh, nor is it the only crisis in Burma that involves
forced displacement for thousands of Burmans from their home.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, there were over 375,000 internally displaced persons
in Burma at the end of 2016 due to the nation's ongoing civil
war. In addition, more than 100,000 refugees live in camps in
Thailand as a result of past fighting in Karen, Kareni, Mon,
and Shan states. Some of these refugees have been living in
camps for over 30 years.
While Burma's civil war and ongoing humanitarian challenges
are issues in their own rights, it is the plight of the
Rohingya that has captured the world's attention.
Since Burma's military junta, the State Peace and
Development Council transferred power to a mixed civilian
military government in 2011, large-scale forced displacement of
Rohingya have occurred on four occasions from June to October
2012, again in the spring of 2015, during the winter of 2016-
2017, and most recently, starting on August 25, 2017. The
latest displacement began after the Arakan Rohingya Salvation
Army, or ARSA, allegedly attacked 30 security outposts northern
Rakhine state. Burma's military, or Tatmadaw, responded by
initiating a clearance operation in the townships of
Buthidaung, Maungdaw, and Rathedaung. As a result, over half of
Burma's estimated 1.1 million Rohingya are now in refugee camps
in Bangladesh, and I would add that that percentage is probably
low.
During my 2-week trip to Burma earlier this month, I
visited three camps of internally displaced persons, or IDPs,
in northern Shan state. I also interviewed six individuals who
said they had been beaten by Tatmadaw soldiers for their
alleged support of ethnic armed organizations, or EAOs,
operating near their villages. Their stories of abuse at the
hands of the Tatmadaw were amazingly similar, maybe not
surprisingly similar, to those being told by the Rohingya right
now in Bangladesh. I would also add that none of them accounted
similar beatings by EAO soldiers.
During my trip, I was repeatedly told that most Burmans,
including other ethnic minorities, welcome the Tatmadaw's
clearance operation and the resulting displacement of the
Rohingya. The popular narrative among Burmans is that the
Rohingya are Bengalis, illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, and
are part of an effort to transform Burma into a Muslim nation,
as was done in Indonesia and Malaysia centuries ago. When
asked, people discredit claims of misconduct by the Tatmadaw
soldiers and attribute any human rights abuses to ARSA.
While many international observers have criticized State
Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi for her failure to take action, few
have directed their criticism at Burma's Commander in Chief,
Senior General Min Aung Hlaing. Under Burma's 2008
constitution, a constitution written by the Tatmadaw, General
Min Aung Hlaing has supreme authority over all of Burma's
security forces, including the Tatmadaw, border guard forces,
and the Myanmar police force. State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi
and the civilian government have little direct authority over
those security forces.
The events of the past month in Burma raised a number of
potential issues for Congress. Congress may consider the
immediate humanitarian crisis in Bangladesh and Burma, as well
as the possible long-term assistance that may be required.
Congress may also address whether allegations of human rights
abuses by the Burmese security forces, ARSA, or others in
Rakhine states can be properly investigated, and if found
credible, adjudicated in an appropriate manner.
In addition, this crisis provides an opportunity for the
United States to reflect on its policy toward Burma in general.
The events in Rakhine state reveal much about the relationship
between the Tatmadaw and Aung San Suu Kyi and her government,
as well as relations among Burma's various ethnic groups and
the nation's prospects for peace. It has also raised question
about Burma's role in regional geopolitical strategic and
security relations, including those with China and India.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral remarks. Thank you
again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to the
subcommittee's questions on either my oral or written
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Yoho. Dr. Martin, I appreciate it, and thank you for
that great testimony.
We have been blessed and honored to have the chairman of
the full committee, Mr. Ed Royce here, and he has an opening
statement.
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Royce. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Yoho, for giving
me this opportunity, because I did want to register my
observations about the circumstances that we are dealing with
here. And I want to thank you for this important hearing,
Chairman Yoho.
There are few issues more pressing that demand our
attention as much as this issue does this week and last week
and the week before. The plight of the Rohingya, an ethnic
group that many have called the most persecuted in the world,
is also one that deserved our attention a long time ago. As a
matter of fact, if we went back to 1982, if we look at what
this population has been through, a citizenship law denied
Burmese citizenship to Rohingya, even though most of them had
lived in that country for generations. They have been denied
freedom of movement, denied access to an education, to
healthcare. Burmese Rohingya have been marginalized by every
level of government, and that is top to bottom. And today the
persecution of these people have reached new horrific levels.
Fleeing government retaliation for attacks carried out by
the ARSA, a fringe militant group at least 420,000 Rohingyas
have been driven from their homes. They have been forced to
cross the border into Bangladesh. I have heard personally their
stories of what they have been through, of the villages that
have been burned. Hundreds have been killed officially, but we
know the number is many multiples of this. And journalists have
been denied access to large areas of Rakhine state. So that is
why I suspect this number is far, far higher than what is being
reported.
Now, what has been reported so far is that 200 villages
have been burned, but I hear reports that I haven't seen in the
papers yet from others who are connected to the Internet who
tell me about additional villages being burned. Landmines have
been placed inside Burma's borders with Bangladesh, maiming a
handful of those seeking safe haven, but we know more will be
killed by these landmines because no one has made a record of
where they have been placed. It is little wonder that the U.N.
human rights chief called this a textbook example of ethnic
cleansing, and that is a strong but very warranted
condemnation.
In the face of these atrocities, Burma's response has been,
frankly, appalling. I have no illusion that with a young
democratically elected government the challenges facing Aung
San Suu Kyi are immense. But at the same time, if she is only a
counselor, and if the power and the authority actually rests
with the military, she still has the responsibility to speak
out strongly on this issue of human rights. She has got to
bring together widely diverse ethnic groups and work to improve
an economy that suffered for decades under the military junta's
mismanagement. But nothing is more important than providing for
the safety of the people within her borders. And Aung San Suu
Kyi's recent statement questioning why the Rohingya were
fleeing and denying that the military had conducted clearance
operations is wildly off the mark.
The perpetrators of this ethnic cleansing must be condemned
in the strongest terms and held accountable. The Burmese
Government cannot be allowed to blatantly and cruelly mistreat
Rohingya Muslims and other minority groups. The United States
must prioritize the Rohingya and the protection of human rights
in its relations with Burma, and we should use the tool at our
disposal to help put a stop to this violence and to get USAID
down on the ground and to get the Burmese people, the Rohingya
people returned.
Lastly, Bangladesh deserves praise for opening its borders
to this influx of refugees. It is my sincere hope that the
government honors its promise to build shelter for new arrivals
and provide the needed medical care to them.
And again, I thank Chairman Yoho. I thank the Ambassador of
Bangladesh who is with us today. We appreciate what you have
done, and I think this is a very important hearing. I thank the
other members who are engaged in this issue for being involved.
Thanks.
I yield back.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Chairman Royce. I appreciate your
input and being here.
Mr. Lohman, if you would continue the testimony. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MR. WALTER LOHMAN, DIRECTOR, ASIAN STUDIES CENTER,
DAVIS INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY, THE
HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Lohman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sherman, other members of the committee, I appreciate
you having me here to----
Mr. Yoho. Do you have your microphone on?
Mr. Lohman. It is on.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. Maybe move it a little closer.
Mr. Lohman. Okay. Events in Burma over the last month have
been heartrending, but they are only a manifestation of deeper
realities about Burma that must be taken into better account in
U.S. policy going forward, particularly as regards any
normalization of U.S. military ties.
The first reality concerns Burma's relationship with China,
their relationship between their militaries in particular. To
the extent the proposals to open U.S. relations with the
Burmese military are about ``balancing China,'' they vastly
overestimate U.S. leverage.
The one inescapable geographical reality is that China
shares a border with Burma. The Chinese have major interests at
stake there, much bigger than our own: Stability along their
border, access to the Indian Ocean, rights alternative to the
Malacca straits in the South China Sea for their trade, and
access to energy resources, securities interests. The Chinese
play both sides of the fence. They supply and support
insurgencies along the border, and at the same time, they
maintain a close relationship with the Burmese military and the
civilian government.
To maintain this position, the Chinese will compete with
all the carrots and sticks they have, and they have far more
than we do at this point in time on this particular place on
the map. Our own efforts to engage in the military by
comparison only compromise our values with little upside.
The second reality I think Congress needs to take into
account is the potential for the Americans to impact the reform
process in Burma, and particularly impact the way the military
sees reform. As is well known, civilian authorities of Burma
have no control over the military. Some have, therefore,
theorized that the U.S. should give the military a stake in
political reform by offering it benefits, chiefly, contact with
the U.S. military. This ignores equities that the military has
in not fully cooperating with future reforms. The Burmese
military had its own objective for initiating reforms under the
previous regime, objectives that did not encompass fundamental
reform of its own sources of power or its ultimate interest in
crushing the opposition.
The third reality concerns the nature of the Burmese
military itself. The political environment in Burma has
certainly changed. I think we have to acknowledge that. But I
see no reason to believe the military has changed its own
character. The textbook example of ``ethnic cleansing'' in
Rakhine state is, in fact, a culmination of a decades long
history of persecution by successive military governments in
Burma. As Mike Martin pointed out, it is only different in
degree from what has been happening in other ethnic areas for a
very long time, and as Mr. Rohrbacher pointed out as well.
Given these realities, I think it is time for Congress to
step away for a moment and take a look at a broader approach to
Burma, do a reset on our Burma policy, and here are five things
that you could consider.
Number one, remove authorities in the 2015 National Defense
Authorization Act granting DOD authority to establish training
opportunities for Burmese military personnel.
Number two, codify the embargo on the exported defense
articles and services to Burma.
Number three, reimpose restrictions on Americans doing
business with military-linked companies.
Number four, continue the prohibition on IMET and foreign
military financing.
And number five, reimpose asset freezes and visa bans on
Burmese military and give these measures basis in new laws tied
to new goals that are reflective of the time.
It is Congress that dictated Burma policy for 20 years
before President Obama moved to end sanctions. Congress should
reassert its role and enact legislation that updates America's
goals to reflect all that has changed in Burma and all that
hasn't.
At Heritage, we are engaged in a project to develop a
proposal to do just this, and we look forward to reporting back
to you the full scope of our findings. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lohman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Yoho. Mr. Lohman, I appreciate it.
Mr. Sullivan, if you would go ahead. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL P. SULLIVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS, REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Sullivan. First, I would like to take the opportunity
to thank Chairman Royce, Chairman Yoho, and Ranking Member
Sherman, and the members of this subcommittee for holding this
very timely and very important hearing.
Mr. Chairman, there is a tragedy of historic proportions
that is unfolding right now in Myanmar, also known as Burma.
Nearly \1/2\ million of one single ethnic group, the Rohingya,
have now fled from the country. That is at least one-third of
the entire population that was living there up to a month ago.
There are now more people, more Rohingya living in Bangladesh
than there are in Burma, in Myanmar. Hundreds if not thousands
of Rohingya have been killed.
There is no question that crimes against humanity and
ethnic cleansing are taking place. I know this is happening
because I was there in Bangladesh hearing firsthand from people
who had experienced these abuses. Refugees International's
president, Eric Schwartz, who is a former White House official
and assistant Secretary of State, he has spent three decades, a
career in various dozens of humanitarian and human rights
missions, told me that this is one of the worst he has ever
seen.
I would like just to share one story that I think is
illustrative. There is a woman named Lila, a 28-year-old mother
of three daughters all under the age of seven. She told me how
just a few days before she had been in her village in Rakhine
state when soldiers, Myanmar soldiers came and surrounded her
village, lit their homes on fire, shot at them. They fled. One
of the soldiers grabbed her by the arm and tried to drag her
away. She somehow escaped. Her husband told them to go ahead
without him. He was going to try to get the family cows and
bring them over. She with her three young daughters went by
foot over the border to Bangladesh hiding in waist-deep water
for long periods of time and arrived with just the clothes on
her back. Just a few days later, she heard from neighbors who
arrived that they had found her husband's body in the river
with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. This is just one
of so many stories that I and so many others have heard from
people fleeing.
It is important to recognize ARSA, and it is important to
recognize that there are other minorities, Rakhine Buddhists
and Hindus who have been killed and displaced, but it is
nowhere near on the scale of the Rohingya.
The response of the Myanmar military has been grossly
disproportional. It has also unleashed a humanitarian tragedy
and crisis in Bangladesh. The Government of Bangladesh, to its
great credit, has largely welcomed the Rohingya. It will be
vital for the government to continue to work with international
agencies, the UNHCR, the International Organization for
Migration, and international NGOs to address the needs. I would
just highlight the need for psychosocial and other services for
gender-based violence, and the heightened risk of human
trafficking.
The announcement of $32 million in U.S. aid was a very
welcome shot in the arm, but U.N. agencies are now reporting
there will be at least $200 million needed over the next 6
months to address the crisis.
In the interest of time, I am happy to speak further on the
humanitarian situation with the question period. But
ultimately, the only true long-term solution is to address the
root causes, and I would just like to highlight three levels of
responsibility.
First and foremost, as we have heard, a name I think we
should be hearing more and more is Senior General Min Aung
Hlaing and the military. It is the Myanmar soldiers who are at
the front lines of committing these abuses, and they are also
those with the most power to bring them to an end.
Secondly, there is the civilian leadership in Aung San Suu
Kyi. She has not simply been silent; she has refused to allow a
U.N. factfinding mission to come in. Her office has accused
international NGOs of supporting terrorism. In her first
address on the crisis to the world last week, she expressed
ignorance as to why people were fleeing in such numbers, and
indicated that the fact that less than 50 percent of the
villages being burned was, by her account, was somehow okay.
Yes, she is limited in her influence by the military, but
she still has a strong voice. And so far, she has only used it
largely just to defend actions that are patently indefensible.
The third level of responsibility is with world leaders,
and in the context of this hearing, with the U.S. Government. I
thank Members of Congress and members of this subcommittee for
speaking out on the Rohingya, but so much more is needed.
There are several steps that the U.S. Congress can take,
and I just quickly highlight a few. Prohibiting military to
military cooperation with Myanmar; placing targeted sanctions
on Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and other senior leaders, as
well as military-owned enterprises; urging the Trump
administration to list those individuals on the Specially
Designated Nationals list; also, pressing the Trump
administration to work through the U.N. Security Council for
multilateral measures, including an arms embargo, targeted
sanctions, and authorization of collecting of evidence and
possible referral to the ICC if accountability is not had.
I would also emphasize support for robust humanitarian
efforts in Bangladesh and the need to push for humanitarian
access within Myanmar. Ultimately, for long-term solutions the
Kofi Annan advisory commission recommendations should be
implemented.
Allow me to end on just a personal reflection that when I
first started hearing the accounts of what was happening,
getting videos from credible sources and seeing the masses
moving to the border, I knew this was something different, and
it had shades of Darfur, Srebrenica, and Rwanda. I hope that we
are not looking back in the same way and asking what more could
we have done to prevent the Rohingya going down that same road.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Yoho. Mr. Sullivan, I appreciate your testimony. I read
it, and I could tell it was laced with a lot of emotion, and I
can tell that by your testimony, and I appreciate you being
here and reporting to us.
Ms. Gittleman, if you would be so kind.
STATEMENT OF MS. ANDREA GITTLEMAN, PROGRAM MANAGER, SIMON-
SKJODT CENTER FOR THE PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE, U.S. HOLOCAUST
MEMORIAL MUSEUM
Ms. Gittleman. Thank you, Chairman Yoho and Ranking Member
Sherman, for convening this hearing on such an urgent matter.
I speak on behalf of the United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum, Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide. We
draw upon lessons learned from the Holocaust, and the failure
to prevent genocide then, in order to inform policy decisions
today. It is with great alarm that we are here to discuss yet
another situation of mass atrocity that the world is failing to
prevent and local authorities are refraining from halting.
The Simon-Skjodt Center sounded the alarm about early
warning signs of genocide against the Rohingya 2 years ago.
Even then, the warning signs were clear, including the denial
of citizenship, segregation between Rohingya Muslims and
Buddhist Rakhine, and impunity for violence against Rohingya.
In fact, Burma had been listed as one of the top three
countries most likely to experience a state-led mass killing in
the Museum's early warning project, and that has been every
year since the project began. These warning signs were known,
yet not heeded by leaders within Burma and others around the
world.
During a recent period of renewed international engagement,
the Burmese Government perpetuated an enabling environment for
mass atrocities. Over the past year, the Simon-Skjodt Center
worked with the human rights organization Fortify Rights to
gather testimony from Rohingya who have fled northern Rakhine
states.
As discussed, deadly attacks by a group known as ARSA were
followed by the Burmese military so-called clearance
operations, operations that the government stated were to
address the threat of militants, but in practice, were brutal
and disproportionate attacks against Rohingya civilians. Those
who survived shared stories that consistently described the
brutality of the Burmese military and their associates, how
they attack entire villages and kill men, women, and children,
and employ barbaric tactics such as rape and torture under the
guise of countering militants.
I spoke to Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh earlier this
year after the first round of these so-called clearance
operations, and people shared with me horrific stories of
witnessing soldiers murder their family members, of fleeing for
their lives not knowing of the fate of their loved ones. Women
shared disturbing details of sexual violence that appears to
have been systematically perpetrated.
While the threat posed by ARSA and any militant group
should be taken seriously, the greatest risk to civilians in
Rakhine state today is coming from the Burmese military. We are
witnessing the commission of crimes against humanity and ethnic
cleansing on a horrific scale. Without an immediate end to
atrocity crimes and the creation of safe conditions so that
those displaced can safely and voluntarily return in the
future, we will witness a brutally effective campaign to rid
all Rohingya from Burma.
There is mounting evidence that genocide is happening in
Burma. There needs to be additional investigation on the intent
of perpetrators in order to make a definitive legal declaration
of genocide. The Burmese Government is currently blocking
efforts to investigate those crimes, but the U.S. has the
ability to support such an investigation in order to bring the
full truth to light.
While investigations should, of course, move forward, by
the time an investigation can be made into genocidal intent, it
may be too late. We should not wait for a formal legal finding
of genocide before taking action.
The military is the primary perpetrator of mass atrocities
and should be pressed with all of our available resources to
cease its illegal campaign against Rohingya civilians. While
the most urgent demand is for mass atrocities to cease, we must
also address the underlying policies and institutions that
allowed such crimes to occur.
The ultimate responsibility for deescalating the current
cycle of violence and protecting the lives and freedom of
Burma's minority populations rests with the country's de facto
leader, Aung San Sui Kyi. As a basic principle, we should not
fear pressing democratically elected leaders to squarely
confront mass atrocities within their country. We can
understand the nature of Burma's democratic transitions and the
outsized role the military continues to play, while at the same
time expecting moral responses from its civilian-led
government.
The U.S. Congress does not need to choose between stopping
mass atrocities and supporting a democratic government. After
all, a democracy in which mass atrocities are occurring is
still wholly unacceptable. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gittleman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Yoho. Those were great words. I appreciate that. You
know, so many times we promote democracy, and a democracy, if
you go back to Ben Franklin, was two wolves and a sheep
deciding what to have for lunch. The sheep always loses.
The beauty of our Nation as a republic, a constitutional
republic that protects the rights of a minority, and when you
have a--you know, I think you said a lot by saying that in the
face of fledgling democracy, do we throw everything at that and
forsake what is going on on the ground to the people that are
getting abused. I appreciate that.
Mr. Lohman, you talked about your five recommendations, and
I agree with you. They are good. But I see those as more long-
term to prevent future in the future. What do you do for the
now, because they need help now? Are they effective enough? If
we were to do all five of your recommendations, do you think
that would bring the atrocities to an end?
Mr. Lohman. No, I don't. I mean, in fact, I agree with you.
These are more long-term, broader recommendations getting at
the bigger problem, which is the role of the military in Burma
and its participation in this sort of thing throughout the
country, not just with regard to the Rohingya.
I mean, in my estimation, the most immediate need would be
to bring relief to those people now and to end the atrocities
and bring relief to them. I mean, unfortunately, we don't have
many tools at our disposal, but an effective tool is to
actually bring it to an end immediately. I don't think anyone
in the U.S. is prepared to bring military force to bear that
would do that, and certainly cutting off generals and putting
them on the SDN list and that sort of thing, especially since
that is going to take a lot of time, it is not going to do it
either.
I think the only thing we have right now is moral suasion.
We have appeal to the U.N. Security Council. We have some of
those things to do, but I don't want to overestimate how much
effect that can have on the current situation.
Mr. Yoho. All right. I have a follow-up question. This is
going to be to Dr. Martin. The previous U.S. administration
dramatically removed U.S. sanctions on Burma following the
electoral victory of Aung San Suu Kyi. The National League for
Democracy. Was lifting the sanctions a mistake? Should
sanctions have been eased in a more gradual stepwise manner,
assuming or thinking that in the future sanctions will be put
back on?
Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. As
you know, I am an analyst for CRS. In the capacity I am here, I
am not supposed to make comment or recommendations.
Mr. Yoho. We won't tell anybody.
Mr. Martin. Okay. But I will draw from your previous
question in terms of immediate things that can be done. For
example, currently, the President has the authority to say for
national interest reasons the members of the military can enter
the United States, and under JADE Act 5(b), they are not
supposed to be given those visas to enter the United States.
The administration, both the previous one and the current one,
do hand those out with some regularity. So the administration
could, at this point, stop handing out those visa waivers. It
is immediate action they can take.
Second, section 5(b) of the JADE Act is still in effect in
terms of the law. It just has been waived because of the
Presidential executive order that said we no longer are going
to impose the economic sanctions on four designated categories
of people, which includes military leadership. It is within the
authority of the President, or whomever he designates, to
reverse or undo that executive order. So if you are looking for
something that could be done from the administration side
revoking that executive order, on doing it would reimpose the
SDN list--or excuse me, wouldn't reimpose the SDN list, but
would make the JADE Act 5(b) back into effect.
So one of the things that is a little bit complicated in
this situation is that many of the laws imposing sanctions are
still on the books. They are still there. They are not being
enforced right now because of the previous President's waiving
of those sanctions.
Mr. Yoho. That is good information, and we will look into
doing that immediately and give those recommendations.
Mr. Sullivan, Aung San Suu Kyi has repeatedly stated to the
international community, that international coverage of the
situation in Rakhine state is biased and inaccurate and
incomplete. Is there any merit to her claims? If so, in what
respect, and what impact might this have on U.S. relationships
with her government? I mean, you have been there.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. Thank you for the question. I think if
you are there and you speak to the people about what has
happened, it is very clear, as I laid out in my testimony, and
this is backed up by satellite images, by videos that have come
out. It is very clear that something is happening, so it is
honestly mind-boggling that she would say that she doesn't have
any idea why, why people are leaving in such numbers. So it can
and should have an effect on the bilateral relationship.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. I appreciate your comments. I am out of
time.
I am going to yield to the ranking member, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Martin, how much aid do we give to Burma,
particularly USAID, do we know?
Mr. Martin. I don't know the precise figure off the top of
my head. I can certainly----
Mr. Sherman. Can you give me a range?
Mr. Martin. Roughly about $80 million a year right now,
fiscal year.
Mr. Sherman. So the first thing we could do is cut back. Is
much of that for democracy and human rights promotion or is it
mostly economic development?
Mr. Martin. There is a combination of economic development/
promotion, but also, we have been a significant supporter of
the peace process that is underway under the terms of what is
called the national ceasefire agreement. Bear in mind, only
eight of the roughly 22, 23 EAOs have signed that ceasefire
agreement. And I will throw in that----
Mr. Sherman. There is the slogan no justice no peace, the
idea that we would be giving money to the Burmese Government to
help it achieve its objectives. Now, human rights and democracy
may not be its objectives, but anything that is consistent that
we would be giving them money for that seems absurd, especially
when we are talking about doing things that would cost the U.S.
taxpayer money, such as sanctions or humanitarian aid, all of
which may be warranted, but we should first do the thing that
reduces expenditures.
I am going to ask this question probably for the record,
unless somebody knows, but I hope Dr. Martin and his team at
the CRS will get me an answer. What is being done to publicize
to the Muslim world China's support for this murderous regime?
And what is being done to publicize the fact that we are doing
more to protect the Rohingya than any other state, other than
those in the immediate neighborhood?
I don't see anyone anxious to answer that question right
now, so I will ask that for the record.
Now, an uncomfortable question: Is ARSA engaging in some
smaller atrocities? And given our support for the Rohingya, can
we persuade them to limit their actions to those against the
Burmese military?
Mr. Lohman, or anyone else?
Mr. Sullivan. There are reports of ARSA carrying out
attacks and----
Mr. Sherman. Against civilians?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. And, of course----
Mr. Sherman. And for the record, they are tiny in quantity
compared to what the Rohingya people are facing. At the same
time, they undermine the moral case that we are trying to make.
They also undermine the ability of the Burmese Government to
change its policy and become more reasonable. One atrocity
against Buddhists in Rakhine State could make it difficult for
those inside the Burmese Government to change its policy.
Let's see. Is Voice of America carrying the message that it
should? Does the average person in Burma know what the world
thinks of what their government is doing?
Mr. Lohman? Anybody know? If we don't have an answer, I
will ask for the record.
Mr. Martin. I can get you more information, sir. I know
Radio Free Asia, for example, has regular stories about what is
going on in Rakhine State.
Mr. Sherman. And are those in----
Mr. Martin. They focus primarily----
Mr. Sherman. Are those in the Burmese language?
Mr. Martin. Yes, there is a Voice of America-Radio Free
Asia Burmese broadcast.
Mr. Sherman. One would hope that they would have the
courage at the Burmese service to push these stories, not just
in the--I assume we have a--that we also broadcast in the
language of Bangladesh. It is a lot easier for that service to
cover this message.
I will just throw this out here: If the Burmese Government
disenfranchises some of its people--I mean, a government has a
certain amount of territory for the benefit of its people. They
have disclaimed over 1 million of their people. If they
permanently show that they are unwilling or unable to protect
the Rohingya, is a long-term solution the transfer of territory
to Bangladesh?
We obviously, as a Nation, don't like to see sovereign
borders change, but when a nation refuses to allow its own
people to live on its territory, it loses the right to control
that territory.
Dr.Martin?
Mr. Martin. Real quick. Since you bring that up, because in
the early days when there was a previous insurgent group among
the Rohingya, what they wanted at that time was to be part of
what was Pakistan, East Pakistan.
Mr. Sherman. Which is today Bangladesh.
Mr. Martin. Which is today Bangladesh.
So I do not know if Aung San's leadership or the Rohingya
people in general would want that----
Mr. Sherman. Obviously, the first choice is the return of
the refugees' citizenship, protection, and living in harmony
with the other people of Rakhine State. But if that cannot be
achieved, then a transfer of population has been achieved
through this ethnic cleansing; perhaps a transfer of territory
would go along with it.
For the record, I want to point out that the Ambassador for
Bangladesh has no comment.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We will now go to Mrs. Ann Wagner.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very, very much. I
appreciate it, as I said in my opening statement, your
willingness to hold this hearing.
In 2013, there was an article in the Emory International
Law Review calling for an international investigation into mass
atrocity crimes against Rohingya Muslims. I know this because
one of my staff members, Rachel Wagley, actually published the
article.
Sadly, everything written then is just as pertinent today,
and this was back in 2013. It is heartbreaking how little the
conflict has changed.
Ms. Gittleman, you wrote that even if an investigation is
conducted, we cannot wait for a formal finding of genocide to
take action. I agree.
What are the obstacles to establishing an international
investigation? Where is the United Nations? And how do you
believe the U.S. should leverage its influence to spur some
sort of international investigation?
Ms. Gittleman. Well, thank you for the question,
Representative Wagner.
I think this is a really important issue. The reason why we
might not have sufficient information in order to make a legal
declaration about the situation is because it is so difficult
to access the areas of northern Rakhine State where the
military has been committing these crimes. There has been a
fact-finding mission that was created by the United Nations
Human Rights Council.
So far, the Burmese Government has resisted any efforts to
cooperate with that mission to allow them to undertake their
investigation in a way that would get them the access that they
require. I think the situation now in the face of denials and
obstacles placed by the Burmese Government that requires a
greater push internationally for an independent investigation.
I think the United States is well placed as one of the key
players, both on the Security Council and as one of the forces
that I think would help mobilize more support for an
international investigation.
This would be an extremely important next step.
Mrs. Wagner. It has been going on, well, for 60 years, but
for 5 years now with Rohingya Muslims. Well past time.
Ms. Gittleman or Mr. Sullivan, we hear so many stories of
rape and sexual abuse coming out of Burma, and you outlined
some of that, Ms. Gittleman. The Bangladesh Embassy has
reported that many of the Rohingya flowing into Bangladesh are
women and children.
Can you talk about the risks facing women and girls in
Rakhine State and help us understand how the international
humanitarian response can better confront sexual violence?
Ms. Gittleman. Sure, I will address quickly and then turn
to my colleague.
What we have seen from people who have fled such horrific
violence and who have come into Bangladesh, many have shared
stories of use of rape and other forms of sexual violence. The
way that they describe these crimes being committed makes it
appear that they are being done systematically so that it is
being used as a weapon specifically against women and girls,
against Rohingya women and girls. This is not ad hoc. This
isn't something extraneous. It certainly isn't part of any kind
of counterinsurgency operation.
This is something that has been--we have heard stories from
people from across different geographic areas, which leads us
to believe this might be something that is quite widespread.
So, if you imagine women and girls fleeing from their
homes, seeing horrific violence, being subjected to sexual
violence, running, getting over the border, which may take days
or weeks, once they arrive with very little possessions, little
money, then they need to set about accessing the kind of
healthcare and services that they would require. And you can
only imagine how daunting that must be for people who have
experienced so much trauma. So there needs to be assistance to
make sure that those many people can get the aid that they
need.
Mrs. Wagner. Let me just jump in here because I have
limited time, as I have another question that I want to--thank
you very much. It is just horrific.
I am so disappointed and angered, frankly, by Suu Kyi's
actions or lack of actions. To whoever can best answer, has she
made some sort of agreement with the Burmese military to enable
violence against Rohingya? Does she have any political room
whatsoever to provide any moral leadership at this point with
respect to the Rohingya? Surely other minorities in the country
can sympathize with the plight of the Rohingya. Please.
Mr. Sullivan. Yeah, I can't speculate as to what her
motivations are, and I share the disappointment. But the fact
is she does have a powerful voice and she was voted in
overwhelming, has lots of support that she can garner.
Just quickly on your previous question, I would just point
to, as I mentioned in my testimony, I was in Bangladesh a few
months ago, and Refugees International released a report at
that time in July based on what had happened since the influx
of 87,000 Rohingya after October 2016 and talked about the
gender-based violence and the accounts that we heard. So you
can only imagine that today, with over 400,000----
Mrs. Wagner. Right.
Mr. Sullivan [continuing]. Approaching 500,000 now, what
level of a challenge that is. And there were doctors from the
U.N. just yesterday or the day before who came out and talked
about documenting dozens of cases.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Ms. Wagner.
We will now go to Dr.Bera from California.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the ranking member, and also thank you to the
witnesses.
You know, this is tragic. I mean, as Mr. Sullivan pointed
out, we are seeing genocide and ethnic cleansing repeating
itself. If we just think about our moral character and our
values as a Nation, we can't sit idly by. You have outlined a
few ways that we can approach this in terms of trying to
leverage the Burmese Government and the Burmese military.
From the public perspective, in my own community back in
Sacramento, different groups are starting to come back,
religious groups, public advocates, et cetera. They are trying
to raise awareness. So, again, a lot of people aren't paying
attention to the plight of the Rohingya, but they are trying to
raise local awareness.
Mr. Sullivan, maybe from your perspective, what can the
public do right now because we also want to see that public
pressure?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. Thank you. I think going back to what
you do in democracy, you contact your representatives, and
hopefully there are more like those on this subcommittee that
are hearing about this and speaking out and realizing how
urgent of a situation this is. As I mentioned, it is just
patently different from pretty much anything I have ever seen.
It is just really urgent. I think there are a lot of advocacy
groups out there that try to get this information out and get
people motivated.
Mr. Bera. So just trying to raise the volume on it----
Mr. Sullivan. Raise the volume----
Mr. Bera [continuing]. So more and more people are aware--
--
Mr. Sullivan [continuing]. Reach out to local newspapers
that kind of thing.
Mr. Bera. Maybe sticking with you, Mr. Sullivan, I am a
physician by training with a background in public health.
Thinking about the number of refugees who have fled to
Bangladesh, you mentioned that you were recently in the camps
there. Can you talk about the conditions in the camp?
Mr. Sullivan. Sure. As I say, it was just starkly different
from just a few months ago where areas that had been all green
are just overrun. People carrying bamboo sticks and tarps and
rope to try to prop up shelters. The monsoon rains are going
on, so people walking through ankle-deep mud. It is just an
immense challenge just to record who is coming in.
The Bangladesh Government, working with UNHCR and others
have begun to take biometric information and give out cards to
try to keep track of who is there. But they have maybe done
around 13,000 of the nearing 500,000 that are there now.
Mr. Bera. Okay. The majority are in camps, and what we have
seen in Jordan with Syrian refugees is they have tried to
assimilate them and get them into urban communities. But I have
to imagine the majority in Bangladesh are living in camp-like
settings. That raises public health concerns, and real public
health concerns because not just the tragedy of being forced
from their home; now we very much have to think about the
possibilities of disease and so forth and the toll that would
take on morbidity.
Are they seeing those public health issues right now?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, it is a huge risk. I mean, there was
already, there were outbreaks after the October influx. This is
just on a much larger scale. So, yeah, it is a very high risk.
Mr. Bera. Bangladesh is not a wealthy country. What can and
what should we be doing at the congressional level and at the
international level to help support the refugees?
Mr. Sullivan. As I mentioned, there was $32 million that
the U.S. Government gave, but the needs are a lot more. So
getting that financial support out there and making sure that
there is proper coordination and going along with guidelines,
internationally accepted guidelines, building shelters, and
providing medical care.
Mr. Bera. My colleague, Mr. Sherman, has identified $80
million that potentially we could move over.
You know, it is tragic. I know we can't speculate on Aung
San Suu Kyi's motives here, but for someone who has previously
been held in pretty high regard by many of us, the lack of not
using that bully pulpit to speak out and push back--I mean,
this is a person who previously has shown moral courage. If
they are paying attention and listening, if she is watching
this, there was never a time for moral courage like the time
right now.
So this is the time to use that bully pulpit.
Thank you, and I will yield back.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Dr.Bera.
Now, we will go to Mr. Rohrabacher from California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just a
suggestion, and first of all, I appreciate your holding this
conference. I have learned a lot. That is the purpose of the
conference. We would have learned more, I believe, had we had
someone from the Burmese Government here to give their side of
the story.
I have been chairman of various subcommittees. No matter
how reprehensible the other side is on whatever issue, I have
always made sure that both sides had a chance. I think it would
have been interesting to hear an interaction and charges and
refutations and how someone would have responded to the charges
we have heard today.
I have learned a lot, as I say. Let me ask some more
fundamental questions here. In the Rakhine State, how many of
those people are Rohingyas--I am sorry I mispronounced it--what
percentage are that, and what percentage are other ethnic
groups?
Mr. Martin. Congressman Rohrabacher, let me try to give you
a rough idea. First off, the easiest answer is no one actually
knows. A couple years ago, Burma tried to conduct a nationwide
census of its population, the first one in decades. But when it
came to Rakhine State, when they wanted to do a census of the
Rohingya households, the provision was they had to self-
identify as Bengalis. That was objectionable to all those----
Mr. Rohrabacher. What is your guess as to----
Mr. Martin. Well, the figure that is normally put around is
1 million to 1.1 million Rohingya.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. And the population of----
Mr. Martin. And then I can't remember the exact figure off
the top of my head of the Rakhine. The Rakhine, who tend to
live in the southern part of the state, are the majority of the
population, but scattered throughout the state are other ethnic
groups. Interestingly enough, there is another group called the
Kamar, who are also Sunni Muslims.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Martin. They are citizens----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Martin [continuing]. But they are a very small
percentage. Then you have----
Mr. Rohrabacher. So, overall, what is the guess of the
population?
Mr. Martin. I believe the figure is around 5 million.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Two million? Five million?
Mr. Martin. Yeah, I would have to double check that on you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. We don't know.
Okay. Anybody else have a guess?
Okay. I don't want to even guess, but there are 1 million
people that are part of this ethnic group that now has been
targeted. We know that. And they were denied citizenship. This
ethnic group that we are talking about today has been present
in this state since Burma became a country in 1948. This is not
a new group that showed up.
So to claim that they are illegal immigrants, which Burma
does, is inaccurate in that they have been there the whole
time.
Let me just note, in Burma, having a little background in
Burma, I know about the Chins, the Kachin, the Karens, the
Karennis. And now we know this ethnic group as well as--they
are in the same area. There are several ethnic groups.
So the idea that if there is ever going to be any peace in
that country, basically the Burmese who control the capital and
control the country as a whole, had better be accepting of that
or there is just going to be one big blood bath as we have
seen, by the way. There were, again, hundreds of thousands of
Karens and Karenni who were Christians, who had to leave Burma
in order to flee for Thailand, 20, 30 years ago. I know I
visited them and I visited Aung San Suu Kyi when she was under
house arrest. And let me just say I, too, am disappointed that
she has not spoken up.
Only a respect for human rights by that country as a whole
with all of these people is going to bring about, you know, any
type of peace or an end to this.
Let me just note that there--and thank you very much for
the good job you did with the Congressional Research Service on
giving us a background. I notice that the militant group that
is supportive of, and again, the Rohingyas, actually, in August
2017, conducted a coordinated attack on 30 police and army
outposts. So this isn't a bunch of passifists who are now being
slaughtered by the Burmese military.
On October 2016, there was, again, attacks by this
particular, the army representing this ethnic group. I think if
we are going to be peacemakers in the world, which I think the
United States should be--and I agree with you that we need to
participate, go down there and participate in an international
investigation. But we need to be really honest about what we
see and not, again, just take sides because you will get a
headline for today, or it seems that this is what the reality
is, even though we haven't investigated it.
So this reminds me a lot, Mr. Chairman, of the--pardon me
for talking too long here--reminds me of another crisis we went
through early on between the Serbs and the Kosovars. It reminds
me a lot of that. The Serbs were involved with all kinds of
violent activity, and the Burmese remind me a lot of the Serbs
at their worst.
But let me just say that we should be a force for good in
this world and to find out truth. And with truth, we do need
both sides to be telling us their story. And I would hope that
someday that we can play a positive role with the Burmese.
With that said, thank you very much for your testimony. I
have learned a lot.
I will be looking forward to working with you, Mr.
Chairman, to make sure that we play a positive role.
One last question. How much have our Muslim friends in
other countries, especially oil-rich countries, contributed to
the plight of these poor people who are now being pushed into
Bangladesh and are under such horrible circumstances?
Has there been any major help being offered by their fellow
Muslims? Do we know?
Mr. Martin. Yes. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has been
outspoken, as has Malaysia recently, in terms of seeking
support for this community. And I can't think of the name right
now, but one of the multilateral Islamic groups has tried to go
into Rakhine State to provide assistance in the past but has
been rebuffed by the government.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Rebuffed by the Bangladesh Government?
Mr. Martin. No, this is inside Burma.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh, inside Burma.
Mr. Martin. Inside Myanmar.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Well, I am not looking for people
who are outspoken. I am looking for someone who is outspent. So
I hope we could get some assistance down, because what was
described today, these people are in a desperate situation.
Good people around the world should try to save them in this
desperate situation.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you both for your comments.
We will next go to Mr. Connolly from Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome to our panel.
Mr. Sullivan--well, any of you--I mean, is this, from an
international legal point of view, ethnic cleansing?
Mr. Sullivan. Ethnic cleansing doesn't have a clear, legal
definition, but by any kind of standards of what it has been
described of as displacing an entire group of people forcibly,
then yes, it absolutely--and as the High Commissioner for Human
Rights has said, it is a textbook case of ethnic cleansing.
Mr. Connolly. Right. So you are right: It is not exactly a
legal concept, I suppose, in the Hague, but when the
Commissioner for Human Rights uses it, it has some force of
meaning.
Do we believe that it is the intention of the Burmese
Government or Burmese military, or both to, in fact, cleanse
Burma of the Rohingya, period?
Any of you can feel free.
Ms. Gittleman. There are many legal terms that can be used
to describe this situation. Crimes against humanity appears----
Mr. Connolly. No, no. Ms. Gittleman, my question is: Do we
believe that it is the intention of the military or the
Government of Burma to, in fact, eliminate the Rohingya from
Burma or Myanmar?
Ms. Gittleman. What we are seeing today is a campaign of
ethnic cleansing. What we don't know----
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Gittleman, I know that.
Ms. Gittleman.--is the exact intent----
Mr. Connolly. We have established that. I am asking a
different question.
Is it the intention, do we believe, of the current
Government or the military of Myanmar to essentially be
Rohingya-free? Is that what they are doing?
Ms. Gittleman. What we don't know is the exact intent of
those perpetrators?
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Lohman, do you have any views on that
matter?
Mr. Lohman. No, I mean, I agree. We don't----
Mr. Connolly. Please speak into the microphone, Mr. Lohman.
Mr. Lohman. We don't know their intent. I mean, how can we
know their intent?
Mr. Connolly. Can you make a wild guess given the fact that
\3/4\ of 1 million people are in Bangladesh?
Mr. Lohman. Yes, absolutely. I would say, by the looks of
it, yes, it is ethnic cleansing.
Mr. Connolly. Dr.Martin? No, I am not asking that question.
Mr. Lohman. Okay.
Mr. Connolly. Are they trying to make sure that Burma or
Myanmar is in fact free of all Rohingyas? Is that their goal?
So that that ethnic minority no longer is present in their
country? That is my question.
Is there a strategic goal here, besides, ``We just don't
like them, and we are responding,'' as you in your testimony
said, clearly overreacting, ``to insurgent attacks on the
Burmese military''?
Mr. Martin. I will speak to the record of what we know from
what has been said. Aung San Suu Kyi in her speech of September
19 to the international community said that she would welcome
the return of the Rohingya. However, it is under a 1993
agreement with Bangladesh and its provisions about
documentation or verification of the fact that they were
residents, not necessarily citizens, of Burma before.
So I believe there is some indication, at least on her
statements, of a willingness to see a return of some portion,
exactly what portion, of the roughly \1/2\ million who have
left.
Mr. Connolly. But she----
Mr. Martin. Now, in terms of the military, I did speak to a
lieutenant general when I was in Naypyitaw just 2 weeks ago.
They do not portray this as any effort on their part to try to
make the people move out of the area. All they are doing is
pursuing ARSA's members and their sympathizers.
However, I cannot find the quote right now, but there was a
quote from a few years ago when there was a similar incidence
of Rohingya leaving, where somebody senior in the military
said, ``If some friendly nation will take all 1 million of
them, we would be happy to see them all leave.''
Mr. Connolly. Yeah.
Mr. Martin. And that is on the historical record. So I
would suspect one could infer that, at least in the Tatmadaw,
there are some who would----
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Mr. Martin [continuing]. Welcome it.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Because I think we have to be
clear about that. I mean, frankly futzing around about, ``Well,
we are not sure about their intent, who can read their minds,''
their behavior is what tells us what is happening. This isn't
some localized action. This is mass relocation of people to
another country. And thank God Bangladesh is there and willing
to accept them. I mean, the international community owes
Bangladesh, a very poor country, a great debt of gratitude for
receiving the Rohingya, it seems to me. They are a poor
country. They already had large numbers of the Rohingya already
there, and now they are almost doubling, more than doubling
that population.
Have people in, besides Aung San Suu Kyi, have people in
the legislative body in Myanmar spoken out against what is
happening? Anyone know?
Mr. Sullivan. I haven't seen any speaking out within the
Parliament. The popular opinion is very much against the
Rohingya and----
Mr. Connolly. Right.
Mr. Sullivan [continuing]. It is a very dangerous kind of
thing to speak out, which is why the international pressure is
so much more important.
Mr. Connolly. And, Dr.Martin, I think you cited the Aung
San Suu Kyi, but she is severely circumscribed by the military.
I mean, she doesn't control the military directly. So, if the
military wants to continue doing this, it is not entirely
within her ability to influence that situation.
I was in--I am sorry--Myanmar, last year, and I was very
struck by the competing centers of power in Naypyitaw and the
great caution with which each side sort of wanders past the
other.
Mr. Lohman, you look like you wanted to comment on that. I
would welcome the comment.
Mr. Lohman. I was going to say, I mean, I agree with that
sentiment. And I----
Mr. Connolly. Please speak into the microphone.
Mr. Lohman [continuing]. I may be in the minority here, but
I think we have to be careful not to be too hard on Aung San
Suu Kyi as I do think she is very tightly restrained.
Mr. Connolly. Right.
Mr. Lohman. I find it hard to believe that in the last 20
years, she has completely changed her character to the point
where she would support this kind of thing.
If anything, I think her remarks are a demonstration of how
tightly constrained she is.
Mr. Connolly. Yeah.
Mr. Lohman. She could come out tomorrow and be very vocal
about it, but how is that going to change the situation? That
doesn't pull on the heartstrings of the military. They could
care less what she thinks or anybody else in the civilian
government thinks.
They could end this whole experiment in democracy tomorrow
if they want, and I think she well understands that. So I don't
want to give her a complete benefit of the doubt. I know she
said some things that are a little bit puzzling and disturbing,
sort of in a positive sense. She said things about Rohingya
that make you wonder. But I think we do have to give her a
little bit of the benefit of a doubt. We haven't supported her
for 25 years for nothing.
Mr. Connolly. I am going to end, Mr. Chairman, but I just
think that is a very critical point. I thank Mr. Lohman for
making that point.
I was struck by the same thing. The latitude she has,
especially when the military is involved, is very limited. It
is a very delicate dance with two powers coexisting very
uneasily in Myanmar. None of that is to say one should not
speak out about a blatant human rights violation such as we are
witnessing now. But as to her intent and how she is reacting,
there are some severe limitations on her that could have severe
consequences if she stepped over unwritten boundaries.
So we do need to understand that as we approach this
massive human rights problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoho. I appreciate your input. We will next go to Mr.
Perry from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen on
the panel.
How many Rohingya are left? What is the estimate? Is there
1 million to start or do we know?
Mr. Martin. Like I said earlier, there is no accurate
figures on exactly how many were there beforehand. But if we
say roughly \1/2\ million have fled at this point since
August----
Mr. Perry. August 25th, accordingto this.
Mr. Martin. August 25th, that would reduce that population
to half. You had 87,000 before, earlier in the year. So roughly
somewhere between a quarter to half.
Mr. Perry. Quarter to half a million left, right?
Mr. Martin. Of the percentage; 200,000 to 500,000.
Mr. Perry. 200,000 to 500,000. And according to this, this
is what I referenced. I read it last night. Wall Street Journal
article from a week or so ago: Since August 25th, an estimated
430,000 have fled Rakhine State.
So, if the numbers are accurate here, in about a month, I
mean, we are all talking here, right? These people are being--
heck, if they are lucky, they are being kicked out. If they are
unlucky, they are not going to make it anywhere. They are dying
in place. That is what it seems to me. It seems like it was
about a month ago.
So my question is, what can be done right now? How is an
investigation going to happen in a sovereign nation that
refuses to let anybody come in to investigate?
Ms. Gittleman. Well, I think you raise an important
question about all the Rohingya who remain in northern Rakhine
State. We know the numbers of people who have crossed to
Bangladesh, but there remains a significant fraction who are
still in northern Rakhine State, whether they are displaced
from their homes we don't know because we can't access the
area. But those people, of course, remain at extremely high
risk of atrocities, if they haven't been targeted yet.
Mr. Perry. Yeah, I imagine.
Ms. Gittleman. So they would require protection. They
require aid, just as people who have crossed the border have.
Mr. Perry. So no sooner is Burma or Myanmar, or whatever
you want to call it, going to allow, as a sovereign nation,
going to allow the United States or Bangladesh or China or
anybody else come in and tell them how to run their railroad;
the answer seems to be somewhere in the U.N., right?
The clock is ticking. So, since we are not probably going
to be able to force anything as a sovereign nation, any more
than we would want Burma to force anything on the United
States, what is the United Nations doing, and what are we doing
in concert with the United Nations right now to take action
right now, today, within a few days? Because in 30 days, we
probably won't talk about this anymore because it will be
history, right? We will be writing about it. So what is
happening now?
Mr. Sullivan. Yeah, tomorrow, the U.N. Secretary General
will be addressing the U.N. Security Council for the first time
in open debate. There has been closed discussion.
It was very welcome that the Trump administration, after
about 3 weeks, came out with a call for the U.N. Security
Council to take swift action.
I would say that, you know, I laid out some of the things I
would recommend, including the multilateral sanctions, arms
embargo.
On the accountability----
Mr. Perry. Sir, with all due respect, I don't think the
U.N. needed to wait for President Trump to come out. This is
what we have a U.N. for. Talking about sanctions when this is
going to be over in a month, according to these numbers, or
substantially if these hold, a discussion tomorrow is
meaningless. What you need is a vote. And Burma has to accept
some kind of envoy to go into their country and witness and
have an investigation. Everybody in the room knows it. Other
than that, all we are talking about is platitudes and we wish
this could happen.
Sanctions aren't going to do anything in that amount of
time. By the time sanctions matter, it is all going to be over.
And they are not even having the discussion yet.
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I agree. But I think you can't wait for
that. And there are things that are being done. Like the U.N.
fact-finding mission is going to Bangladesh, where they can
access people, and collecting evidence.
Mr. Perry. Are they going to be allowed to be in Rakhine
State, this fact-finding mission?
Mr. Sullivan. The government has said they will not allow
them.
Mr. Perry. So all that is pointless as well.
While I appreciate the information, I appreciate your
passion, compassion, and your interest in this, it is very
frustrating. But all we are doing is talking right now, and it
doesn't seem like there is a solution in this room that is
recognized. The solution is at the U.N.
And somebody ought to not wait until tomorrow. Somebody
ought to be meeting right now and not having a discussion
about, ``Is this happening,'' but have a vote right now
tonight, today, on going in there and doing something, right?
That is what needs to happen. Otherwise, this is all just
unfortunate conjecture, and these poor people are either going
to leave or be killed. That is the answer, unfortunately.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Yoho. I appreciate your comments and your passion. And
you bring up a very good point.
Mr. Sullivan, reading your--I believe it is your testimony.
Yeah, it was yours--your recommendations, ``Congress should,''
and you listed several things: Press the Trump administration
to work through the U.N. Security Council.
One of your bulleted points were support for a referral to
the International Criminal Court unless Myanmar authorities
take significant measures to address the human rights.
I am thinking the same thing Mr. Perry did. Why?
I mean, we see what is going on. We need to put the
pressure on now. Our recommendations that are going to come out
of this meeting because of you guys are going to be for JADE
Act to be revoked immediately. The $63 million that was
requested for aid to Burma, our recommendation is we are going
to hold that. Our team doesn't know that yet. I guess they do
now. Then to go to the U.N. and say, ``you need to do something
now. We demand you act now.''
This is something, again, that we are in the 21st century,
and I see these atrocities going on that makes you not even
want to be part of the human race to see these going on.
Everybody out here, in here, has a Representative that you vote
for. Demand that they do something about that. Please do
something about that.
Let's see, what else do I have here? This is a question I
want to ask. If you all can comment on this, if you have time
for one more question: Burma is a member of the ASEAN nations,
one of the members of 10 nations. What is the sentiment of the
other nations in ASEAN with this kind of action? Do they have
the wherewithal, the fortitude to say, ``What you are doing is
wrong, and you need to bring it to an end''?
What are your thoughts on that? We will start with
Dr.Martin, if you have time and patience.
Mr. Martin. Sure. Real quickly. ASEAN actually just
recently released a statement with respect to what is going on
in Burma, or Myanmar, as they call it. It was expressing
concern, would be the way I would phrase it. Malaysia objected
to that statement saying that it did not address sufficiently
the situation in Rakhine State or the situation for the
Rohingya.
Two other aspects with respect to ASEAN: They have a
traditional policy of noninterference in internal affairs, and
so this would be considered possibly an internal affair; they
don't want to get involved. However, they also have set up an
ASEAN Human Rights Commission, which has been criticized for
being ineffective and not taking much action. So one could
argue that this is a time where the ASEAN Human Rights
Commission could step up and take an active interest.
Mr. Yoho. Mr. Lohman?
Mr. Lohman. Yeah, if you think the U.N. is ineffective
addressing the situation, ASEAN is completely useless.
So, I mean, because of their noninterference principle and
other considerations, you know, they have watched this over the
last 25 years or so and done really nothing about the whole
range of issues in Burma.
So I wouldn't expect much, at least in being able to help
this current situation.
The one area that might be able to be of some assistance is
helping to get humanitarian aid into the country. Back in 2008,
they played a role in cyclone. In August, I was there and they
did play a role; it was very late. The Burmese prevented
humanitarian assistance from coming in to address the results
of a natural disaster, but eventually they did, and they did
through ASEAN. So they may be able to be of some help in that
regard.
Mr. Sullivan. I would just add that the Prime Minister of
Thailand will be meeting with the White House early next week.
So that is an opportunity to express their need to put more
pressure on Myanmar and to accept Rohingya who are fleeing.
Ms. Gittleman. I think we are seeing growing concern from
other countries in the region, which as I said, is a different
tack. With ASEAN, of course, they have been premised on
cooperation, and I think it is the sheer urgency of this crisis
that is making some countries in the region change their tune.
Mr. Yoho. I just want to say how much I appreciate you all
being here because you are bringing to light, you know, you are
shining a light on just a terrible tragedy and atrocity that is
going on around the world.
As you brought up, Mr. Sullivan, how many times are we
going to go through this? We have seen this throughout history.
We have seen it, you know, Auschwitz, in World War II and all
the genocide that happened there. Rwanda, Bosnia, Serbia,
Darfur.
How many more times do we want to tolerate this? There has
got to be a better way. The U.N. is an effective--but there
needs to be an enforcement mechanism within the U.N., a
multinational enforcement, that can bring this kind of garbage
to an end. These kinds of crimes against humanity just need to
be brought to an end. And the people that are responsible for
this, we need to prosecute those people, and it needs to be
done rapidly to send a signal out to the rest of the world.
And for clarification, it was not a very revocation of the
JADE Act. It was the no waiver on the--I can't read that--what
does that say--on the sanctions.
So we are going to act on what you guys told us. I
appreciate it.
Ambassador Ziauddin, thank you for being here and what your
country is doing. Our office is going to reach out to you to
work on this more specifically.
With that, the meeting is adjourned.
The notes will be added to the congressional record, and we
thank you again for your time, your patience, and your
tolerance.
[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]