Myanmar: U.S. Specialist
/- Why might it be important for a country like the United States to refer to something as “genocide”?
- Why might governments be hesitant to use such a label?
Mr. Bera: [...] Later this month will mark 3 years since the Tatmadaw, the Burmese military, began what they called clearance operations against the Rohingya in the Rakhine State. In reality, what we witnessed was ethnic cleansing and what should be considered a genocide. According to the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, what took place was actually the killing of thousands of Rohingya civilians, as well as forced disappearances, mass gang rapes, and the burning of villages in the hundreds.
We decided to hold this hearing because although our Nation and the world is grappling with a pandemic and massive economic recession, we have to continue to remain vigilant and watch what is happening around the world. [...]
What the hearing will look at is–you know, it’s clear that three years later, Burma is still not respecting the basic human rights of the Rohingya. Three years later, the victims in Burma and Bangladesh and the international community are still dealing with the consequences. That is what this hearing will examine. What is the current status of those who have fled to Bangladesh and were placed in Cox's Bazar? [...] And how have Burma's neighbors welcomed or not welcomed the Rohingya refugees.
This hearing will also examine the role of the United States and the international community. What additional steps should the U.S. Government and the international community take to help the Rohingya people and assist Bangladesh in caring for them? How should we ensure justice and accountability for the victims of this brutal campaign against the Rohingya perpetrated by the Burmese military? And, finally, this hearing will examine prospects for peace and the return of the Rohingya State–or of the Rohingya to the Rakhine State. [...]
Mr. Yoho: [...] During my time in Congress, my colleagues and I have repeatedly striven to hold the government of Myanmar accountable for its ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya. I was proud to be a cosponsor of the BURMA Act of 2019, which passed the House late last year and have led multiple efforts to usual the Treasury Department to hold Myanmar accountable through sanctions, which has led to the Trump Administration imposing visa and economic sanctions on nine Tatmadaw military officers and two military units for their involvement in extrajudicial killings in the Rakhine State.
While some actions have been taken, it has clearly not been enough to stop the violence. Despite many condemnations and sanctions from the United States and the international community, the Rohingya [continue] to face discrimination, violence, murder, rape, torture, and death from their own government.The approach our country and the international community has taken to resolve this crisis has failed.
Part of solving the crisis of this magnitude rests in definition, which some have been too cautious to act on. Let's be clear: what is happening in Myanmar toward the Rohingya is State-sponsored genocide, period. It has been our commitment since the Holocaust to resolve and to say “never again.” [...]
Mr. Schwartz: [...] I’ll now turn to the question of genocide and the requests of a broad coalition that the State Department declare Burma responsible for genocide. [...]
A declaration would recognize the crime for what it is and promote accountability. It would bring global attention that could help prevent further atrocities. It could rally international pressure. It would signal solidarity with both the Rohingya and with Bangladesh and other countries that are hosting Rohingya. [...]
Ms. Nu: [...] Dear distinguished members, all of this was preventable. This was the failure to address root causes of persecutions against Rohingya. Similar tactics used against ethnic minorities in Myanmar for decades continue today as military inflict abuses on civilian in Rakhine, Shan, and Koran States while the peace process has been stalled. So far, impunity has reigned for most atrocities in Myanmar. [...]
I want to thank the U.S. for imposing sanctions on Myanmar military officials and ask that you also impose financial sanctions on military owned businesses since the income generated from these businesses enable the military to continue its brutal acts. [...]
The U.S. Government should call the crimes what they are: genocide. Refusing to do so helps the Myanmar government in its aim to deny our identity and existence as Rohingya people. [...]
Ms. Enos:. [...] There are five reasons to put into the record for why the U.S. Government should issue an atrocity determination. I will cover three now. No. 1, a designation counters the narrative, that the U.S. does not care about human rights. Atrocities committed against Rohingya are among the most significant human rights violations committed during the Trump Presidency. A strong U.S. response would telegraph to other countries that the U.S. continues to support freedom and human rights. Failure to do so has the potential to embolden bad actors who will believe that there are little to no negative consequences for engaging in human rights violations while maintaining a diplomatic relationship with the U.S.
No. 2, a designation demonstrates a U.S. commitment to preventing atrocity. Atrocity determinations transcend administrations and ensure that survivors receive the help that they need. [...]
Should the Trump Administration issue a determination of its own on the Rohingya, it would demonstrate moral and political leadership, and serve as an opportunity for the Administration to highlight its burgeoning atrocity prevention efforts. [...]
An atrocity determination now may serve as a catalyst for other countries to provide aid. I recommend that Congress and the executive branch pursue the following: first, make an official public legal determination on crimes committed against Rohingya; second, evaluate relevant financial tools to craft an overarching sanctions policy toward Burma, one that targets Burmese military owned enterprises [...]
An atrocity determination can be issued at any point in time. Secretary Pompeo has the authority and discretion to issue such a determination at whim. But should he choose not to, Congress also has the option to press the Administration to do as it did in the case of ISIS genocide, which I am happy to address more during Q&A. Perhaps this method could be successful again. Issuing a genocide determination now would be win for the Administration. The administration should do so now before it is too late. [...]
Mr. Yoho: [...] we see this over and over again. We see it in China in the Xinjiang Province. We see it elsewhere in the world. And we’ve said “never again,”' but yet it happens over and over again. And without having a direct conflict, the best thing I think we can do as a Nation is economic pressure. I would assume that China is their largest trading partner. But what other nations are coming to the table outside of the U.S.? What other developed nations? Are we seeing the EU? Are we seeing Japan? Are we seeing any other country? And then, particularly, since the majority of the Rohingya are Muslims and they practice their Muslim faith or they try to, what Muslim countries are coming to the table to be actively engaged, or is this the U.S. alone? Because if we can get these other countries engaged, we can put that economic pressure on there and squeeze them there, in addition to the sanctions that we are doing? Does anybody want to comment on that? [...]
Mr. Schwartz: Sure. I would be happy to. I think key interlocutors, economic interlocutors for Burma include not only China but India, Japan, Indonesia, the E.U. And the challenge is to marshal an international effort and there really has been an absence of leadership in that effort to marshal, you know, a truly international effort. The Muslim world has–governments with Muslim majority populations have been regularly supportive of declarations against what the Burmese military have done, but that has not really translated into genuine political and economic pressure.
Mr. Yoho: Okay. Let me bring this up then: We know in January 2020 the U.N. reported genocide going on and called their commander in chief and five generals to face charges of crimes, but yet the U.N. Security Council has yet to issue such a designation. This is just something I am going to say is that we as a Nation need to invoke these other nations. And we need to have this at the U.N. to where they bring this up and then, from that, move that coalition to put that economic pressure on anybody that is trading with them. And, again, what we see is China is the bad actor. China could come to the table and help us resolve so many issues around the world, yet they are on the opposite end, fuming and working against us. Until we get agreement in countries working in the same direction, this will not end. [...]
Mr. Green: [...] I believe that foreign policy and foreign affairs right now are probably the most challenging ever in the United States' history, far more complex than ever before [...]
And Myanmar is an excellent example of that, where we face an Asian nation undergoing this humanitarian, human rights crisis. But as in the past, when Americans fight for other nations and people's human rights, we bring security to our own world and, thus, ourselves.
When we have to stand with these people who are–this is an atrocity, as it has been called already in the committee meeting, “genocide,” in some ways. However, we also have to consider–and I think it was Representative Titus who mentioned this–China continues to grow its malign influence throughout the world. Relationships in that region are clearly have to be considered and how it empowers their actions. [...]
Ms. Enos: [...] But the U.S. decision not to call it genocide, not to call it crimes against humanity, I think, has really hampered international aid efforts, and I think if you were to have such a determination, you have the potential to really galvanize much needed aid and assistanceduring a time when needs are ever increasing with COVID-19.
And I would just add, very briefly, that any sort of atrocity determination that is issued does not require any sort of new case before the ICJ or the ICC. It actually does not have any sort of legal requirements to pursue international justice, but I do think that the Administration would be wise to pursue alternative legal and judicial mechanisms for holding the Burmese military accountable in addition to targeting and levying the much needed sanctions, you know, and continuing that sanctions pressure against the Burmese military, especially against Burmese, military-owned enterprises.
Mr. Yoho: [...] I have got to make a few comments here because I saw this administration being attacked and not doing enough, dropping the ball on this. But we have had two witnesses talk about, you know, under President Obama, the sanctions got released. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, was bragging about the democracy she helped form in Burma when it was a shell game, we find out now.
And these atrocities were going on way before this, and they continued all the way through this, but the work that happened in the State Department allowed for the sanctions to be released. And so these attacks are tawdry. I mean, they are just cheap shots that aren't going to solve any problems, and I really don’t appreciate this. [...]
So, if you want to focus on politics, that is great. This is not the place to do it. We need to come together with policies that we can pass in a bipartisan manner that we can get and work through the Senate, so that we can get these policies enacted so that we can bring this genocide, which is ultimately what this hearing is about, to an end, and we can only do that if we are working bipartisanly together. [...]