Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses and Accountability Options
Congressional research reportMar 5, 2019
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel
Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
and Accountability Options
Michael F. Martin
Specialist in Asian Affairs
Updated March 5, 2019
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R45388
SUMMARY
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel
Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
and Accountability Options
R45388
March 5, 2019
Michael F. Martin
Specialist in Asian Affairs
-re-acte--@crs.loc.gov
At least 17 different reports by United Nations (U.N.) entities and independent human rights
For a copy of the full report,
organizations have been released containing allegations that certain Burmese security force
please call 7-.... or visit
officers and units committed serious human rights violations dating back to 2011. These reports
www.crs.gov.
name nearly 40 individuals and over 100 security units as responsible for such gross human
rights violations as murder, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence, and forced labor.
Some of these individuals, including Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, were identified in four or more
of the reports. Similarly, some of the security units, in particular Infantry Division 33 and Infantry Division 99, were cited by
six or more of the reports. The reports suggest that the commission of human rights abuses by Burma’s security forces is
pervasive, systematic, and endemic. CRS did not independently verify the credibility of these reports.
The Trump Administration has labeled the alleged human rights violations as “ethnic cleansing” and has imposed “limited
targeted sanctions” on five Burmese military officers and two military units it considers responsible for serious human rights
violations against the Rohingya in Burma’s Rakhine State. In August 2018, the State Department released a report
summarizing the results of a survey of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh that concluded that “the vast majority of Rohingya
refugees experienced or directly witnessed extreme violence and the destruction of their homes.” The report also stated “that
the recent violence in northern Rakhine State was extreme, large-scale, widespread, and seemingly geared toward both
terrorizing the population and driving out the Rohingya residents.” The report, however, did not indicate if the violence
constituted genocide, crimes against humanity, and/or war crimes.
Some Members of Congress and other observers view this response as too limited, and have called on the Trump
Administration to take stronger action given the severity of the human rights abuses. The 116th Congress appropriated $3.75
million in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6) for the documentation of human rights violations against
Rohingya and others in Burma. Congress has also placed restrictions and requirements on relations with Burma in previous
appropriations legislation to address human rights issues.
Many of the reports advocate for some form of accountability for the reported human rights violations, including by calling
for the U.N. Security Council to refer the alleged human rights violations in Burma to the International Criminal Court (ICC)
or an ad hoc international criminal tribunal for investigation and possible prosecution. China and possibly Russia are likely to
oppose an ICC referral, and recent statements by President Trump and National Security Advisor John Bolton suggest the
United States may also oppose such a referral. The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber had previously ruled that the ICC’s Prosecutor
can begin a preliminary investigation of the war crime of forced deportation of the country’s Rohingya ethnic minority into
neighboring Bangladesh.
In the interim, the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (UNFFM) has recommended
that an independent international mechanism (IIM) be established to collect and preserve evidence of alleged acts of
genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed in Burma since 2011. The U.N. Human Rights Council has
approved the formation of an IIM, and has urged U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to appoint “the staff of the
mechanism as expeditiously as possible.”
In addition to these measures to support some form of future criminal action against the alleged perpetrators, the UNFFM and
others have expressed support for U.N. sanctions against the Burmese military and others considered responsible for the
abuses. Some of the reports also call on individual nations to impose sanctions on Burma’s military and its government.
Congressional Research Service
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Burmese Security Force Officers and Units Allegedly Responsible for Human Rights
Violations ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Accountability Options.................................................................................................................. 21
Referral to International Criminal Court (ICC) ....................................................................... 21
Creation of Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunal (ICT) .................................................... 22
Preservation of Evidence......................................................................................................... 23
U.N. Sanctions ........................................................................................................................ 24
Bilateral Sanctions on Burma .................................................................................................. 24
Options for Congress ..................................................................................................................... 26
Legislation ............................................................................................................................... 26
Resolutions .............................................................................................................................. 27
Appropriations Provisions ....................................................................................................... 27
Hearings .................................................................................................................................. 27
Congressional Delegations ...................................................................................................... 28
Figures
Figure A-1. Map of Burma (Myanmar) ......................................................................................... 29
Tables
Table 1. Sanctioned Burmese Security Personnel or Units ............................................................. 5
Table 2. Burmese Security Officers Identified in Cited Reports as Responsible for Human
Rights Violations .......................................................................................................................... 7
Table 3. Burmese Military Units Identified in Cited Reports as Responsible for Human
Rights Violations ........................................................................................................................ 13
Appendixes
Appendix. Map of Burma .............................................................................................................. 29
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 29
Congressional Research Service
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
Introduction
Since the onset of the nation’s civil war and ensuing military coup d'état in 1962, Burma’s
military, or Tatmadaw, and its associated security forces, such as the Border Guard Police and the
Myanmar Police Force, have been repeatedly accused of committing murder, rape, and torture
against the nation’s various ethnic minorities. Between 1990 and 2008, Congress passed
legislation imposing various sanctions on Burma in part due to the serious human rights
violations committed by and/or authorized by the Tatmadaw.1 Such allegations of intentional,
pervasive, and systematic abuses arose again following the forced displacement of over 700,000
Rohingya from Burma’s Rakhine State in late 2017, as well as the Tatmadaw’s renewed offensive
against ethnic armed groups in Kachin, Karen, and Shan States (see map in the Appendix).2
The Trump Administration has described that Tatmadaw’s assault on the Rohingya as “ethnic
cleansing” and has applied “limited targeted sanctions” on five Tatmadaw officers and two
military units.3 On December 13, 2018, the House of Representatives passed H.Res. 1091 (116th
Congress) by a vote of 394-1, stating “the atrocities committed against the Rohingya by the
Burmese military and security forces since August 2017 constitute crimes against humanity and
genocide” and calling on the Secretary of State to “determine, based on available evidence,
whether the actions by the Burmese military in northern Rakhine State in 2017 constitute crimes
against humanity, genocide, or other crimes under international law.”
Various organizations—including the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding
Mission in Myanmar (UNFFM), multiple human rights organizations, and the press—have
conducted investigations into allegations that Burmese security forces committed serious human
rights violations in Burma’s seven ethnic states since the Tatmadaw transferred power to a mixed
civilian/military government in 2011. These organizations have released at least 17 reports
documenting evidence that appears to support some of these allegations, and implicates specific
Burmese security personnel and units as being responsible for the abuses.
In addition to concluding that Burmese security forces were responsible for serious human rights
violations, at least two of these reports maintain that the violations were intentional, premeditated,
and systemic. Certain Burmese officers and units also appear in more than one report, and in
some cases, are identified as being responsible for human rights violations in more than one
ethnic state and/or at different times.
The reports vary in their conclusions on the severity of the abuses. Some conclude that certain
violations may constitute genocide; in other cases, some describe possible war crimes or crimes
against humanity.
1 For more about the history of the imposition of U.S. sanctions on Burma, see CRS Report R41336, U.S. Sanctions on
Burma. For a summary of current restrictions on relations with Burma, see CRS Report R44570, U.S. Restrictions on
Relations with Burma.
2 For more about the forced displacement of the Rohingya and associated alleged human rights abuses, see CRS Report
R45016, The Rohingya Crises in Bangladesh and Burma.
3 On December 21, 2017, the Department of the Treasury placed Major General Maung Maung Soe, commander of
Burma’s Western Command during the assaults on the Rohingya, on its Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked
Persons (SDN) List under the authority of the Global Magnitsky Act. On August 17, 2018, the Department of the
Treasury added Lt. General Aung Kyaw Zaw, Major General Khin Hlaing, Major General Khin Maung Soe, and
Brigadier General Thura San Lwin, as well as the 33rd Light Infantry Division and the 99th Light Infantry Division, to
the SDN list for “their involvement in ethnic cleansing in Burma’s Rakhine State and other widespread human rights
abuses in Burma’s Kachin and Shan States.” (Department of the Treasury, “Treasury Sanctions Commanders and Units
of the Burmese Security Forces for Serious Human Rights Abuses,” press release, August 17, 2018).
Congressional Research Service
1
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
This report compiles a list—in tabular form—of the Burmese security personnel and units that
have been identified as responsible for serious human rights violations by one or more the
following reports:
1. Amnesty International, “All the Civilians Suffer: Conflict, Displacement, and
Abuse in Northern Myanmar,” June 2017;
2. Amnesty International, “We Will Destroy Everything: Military Responsibility for
Crimes Against Humanity in Rakhine State, Myanmar,” June 2018;
3. Fortify Rights, “They Gave Them Long Swords: Preparations for Genocide and
Crimes Against Humanity against Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State,
Myanmar,” July 2018;
4. Human Rights Watch, “All My Body Was Pain: Sexual Violence against
Rohingya Women and Girls in Burma,” November 2017;
5. Human Rights Watch, “Massacre by the River: Burmese Army Crimes against
Humanity in Tula Toli,” December 2017;
6. Kachin Women’s Association in Thailand, “A Far Cry from Peace: Ongoing
Burma Army Offensives and Abuses in Northern Burma under the NLD
Government,” November 2016;
7. Kachin Women’s Association in Thailand, “State Terror in the Kachin Hills:
Burma Army Attacks against Civilians in Northern Burma,” November 16, 2017;
8. Karen Human Rights Group, “Ongoing Militarisation in Southeast Myanmar,”
October 2016;
9. Legal Aid Network and Kachin Women’s Association in Thailand, “Justice
Delayed, Justice Denied: Seeking Truth about Sexual Violence and War Crime
Case in Burma,” January 2016;
10. Network for Human Rights Documentation—Burma, “Report on the Human
Rights Situation in Burma, January–December 2017,” March 2018;
11. Physicians for Human Rights, “Please Tell the World What They Have Done to
Us: The Chut Pyin Massacre: Forensic Evidence of Violence against the
Rohingya in Myanmar,” July 2018;
12. Refugees International, “Suffering in Shadows: Aid Restrictions and Reductions
Endanger Displaced Persons in Northern Myanmar,” December 2017;
13. Simon Lewis, Zeba Siddiqui, Clare Baldwin, and Andrew R.C. Marshall, “Tip of
the Spear,” Reuters, June 26, 2018;
14. Ta’ang Women’s Organization, “Trained to Torture: Systematic War Crimes by
the Burma Army in Ta’ang Areas of Northern Shan State (March 2011–March
2016),” June 2016;
15. United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, “Report of the Independent
International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar” (Advanced Unedited Version),
August 24, 2018;
16. Women’s League of Burma, “If They Had Hope, They Would Speak: The Ongoing Use of State-Sponsored Sexual Violence in Burma’s Ethnic Communities,”
November 2014; and
17. Women’s League of Burma, “Long Way to Go: Continuing Violations of Human
Rights and Discrimination Against Ethnic Women in Burma,” July 2016.
CRS did not independently confirm the veracity of the findings in these reports.
Congressional Research Service
2
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
The UNFFM report recommends that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) refer the
human rights abuse allegations to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigation and
possible prosecution.4 The report specifically identifies six Burmese military leaders—
Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing; Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice
Senior General Soe Win; Commander, Bureau of Special Operations-3, Lieutenant General Aung
Kyaw Zaw; Commander, Western Regional Military Command, Major General Maung Maung
Soe; Commander, 33rd Light Infantry Division, Brigadier General Aung Aung; and Commander,
99th Light Infantry Division, Brigadier General Than Oo—as warranting investigation and
possible prosecution by the ICC. The UNFFM also calls for the creation of
an independent, impartial mechanism to collect, consolidate, preserve and analyse evidence
of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights violations and abuses and
to prepare files to facilitate and expedite fair and independent criminal proceedings in
national, regional or international courts or tribunals.
In addition, the UNFFM recommends the UNSC “should adopt targeted individual sanctions,
including travel bans and asset freezes, against those who appear most responsible for serious
crimes under international law” and impose an arms embargo on Burma.
The Department of State has conducted a preliminary investigation into alleged human rights
abuses in Rakhine State. According to an article in Politico, there was sharp disagreement within
the State Department on whether to categorize the Tatmadaw’s attacks on the Rohingya as
genocide or crimes against humanity.5 On August 28, 2018, then-U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations Nikki Haley presented to the U.N Security Council some of the details of a then
unreleased version of the State Department’s report. She stated, “The results are consistent with
the recently-released UN independent international fact-finding mission on Burma.” 6 Among the
details Haley mentioned were the following:
The investigation involved interviews with 1,024 Rohingya refugees in camps in
Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar region;
82% of the refugees witnessed the killing of a Rohingya; 51% witnessed sexual
violence; and 20% witnessed violence against 100 or more people; and
Burmese military and security forces were the perpetrators “of the overwhelming
majority of these crimes.”
On September 24, 2018, the State Department posted online a 20-page publication entitled
Documentation of Atrocities in Northern Rakhine State.7 The State Department issued no press
release or statement regarding the release of the summary. According to the publication’s
executive summary, “the vast majority of Rohingya refugees experienced or directly witnessed
extreme violence and the destruction of their homes.” The summary also concluded “that the
recent violence in northern Rakhine State was extreme, large-scale, widespread, and seemingly
geared toward both terrorizing the population and driving out the Rohingya residents.” The
publication is generally consistent with Ambassador Haley’s statement before the UNSC, but did
4 For more about the UNFFM report, see CRS In Focus IF10970, U.N. Report Recommends Burmese Military Leaders
Be Investigated and Prosecuted for Possible Genocide, by Michael F. Martin, Matthew C. Weed, and Colin Willett.
5 Nahal Toosi, “Leaked Pompeo Statement Shows Debate over ‘Genocide’ Label for Myanmar,” Politico, August 13,
2018.
6 United States Mission to the United Nations, “Remarks at a UN Security Council Briefing on the Situation in Burma,”
press release, August 28, 2018.
7 State Department, Documentation of Atrocities in Northern Rakhine State, September 24, 2018, at
https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/286063.htm.
Congressional Research Service
3
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
not indicate if the State Department considers the atrocities to be genocide, crimes against
humanity, and/or war crimes.8
On July 30, 2018, President Win Myint appointed former Philippine Deputy Foreign Minister
Rosario Manalo; former Japanese Ambassador to the U.N. Kenzo Oshima; the chief coordinator
of the Union Enterprise for Humanitarian Assistance, Resettlement and Development in Rakhine,
Aung Tun Thet; and the former chair of Myanmar’s Constitutional Tribunal, Mya Thein, to head
the Independent Commission of Enquiry (ICOE), which “will investigate the allegations of
human rights violations and related issues, following the terrorist attacks by ARSA.”9 President
Win Myint’s announcement did not indicate any deadline for the commission to complete its
investigation. Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice Senior General Soe Win reportedly said, “the
military is on standby to offer full cooperation with the commission.”10
The ICOE visited Rakhine State on December 21, 2018, as part of its investigation. Manalo
reportedly stated during the visit, “We are gathering the truth. Fake news should not be believed.
Everything should be based on evidence.”11 The ICOE also set a deadline of January 31, 2019, for
people to submit evidence of the commission of human rights abuses.
Since Burma’s security forces began its “clearance operations” in August 2017, Commander-inChief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing has repeatedly denied that his troops committed human
rights abuses in Rakhine State, or elsewhere in Burma. On February 15, 2019, Min Aung Hlaing
told Asahi Shimbun that “there is no certain proof that the national army was involved in the
persecution” of Rohingya.”12 He also said that such accusations “hurts the nation’s dignity.”
Besides the United States, Australia, Canada, and the European Union have imposed sanctions on
Burmese military or security officers responsible for human rights violations in Burma (see Table
1). The European Union placed sanctions on seven Burmese security officers on June 25, 2018,
and another seven officers on December 21, 2018. On June 25, 2018, Canada placed sanctions on
the same seven officers as the EU. On October 5, 2018, Australia placed financial sanctions of
five Burmese security officers.
Three people appear on all four lists—Lt. General Aung Kyaw Zaw, Major General Khin Maung
Soe, and Major General Maung Maung Soe. Two officers, Brigadier General Aung Aung and
Brigadier General Than Oo, have been sanctioned by Australia, Canada, and the EU, but not the
United States.
8 “U.S. Accuses Myanmar Military of ‘Planned and Coordinated’ Rohingya Atrocities,” Reuters, September 24, 2018.
9 Office of the President, “Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar Establishes the Independent
Commission of Enquiry,” press release, July 30, 2018, http://www.president-office.gov.mm/en/?q=briefing-room/news/
2018/07/30/id-8913.
10 “Military Pledges Cooperation with Commission of Inquiry on Rakhine,” Irrawaddy, August 31, 2018.
11 Nyan Lynn Aung and Pyae Thet Phyo, “Rakhine Enquiry to Focus on Evidence, Not Fake News, Says Commission
Chair,” Myanmar Times, December 13, 2018.
12 “‘No Proo’’ Myanmar Military Persecuted Rohingya: Army Chief,” Frontier Myanmar, February 16, 2019.
Congressional Research Service
4
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
Table 1. Sanctioned Burmese Security Personnel or Units
By Sanctioning Nation or Organization
Australia
Canada
European Union
United States
Brigadier General
Aung Aung
Brigadier General
Aung Aung
Brigadier General
Aung Aung
Lt. General Aung
Kyaw Zaw
Lt. General Aung
Kyaw Zaw
Lt. General Aung
Kyaw Zaw
Lt. General Aung
Kyaw Zaw
Brigadier General
Khin Hlaing
Major General Khin
Maung Soe
Major General Khin
Maung Soe
Major Aung Myo Thu
Major General
Maung Maung Soe
Major General
Maung Maung Soe
Staff Sergeant Ba
Kyaw
Major General Khin
Maung Soe
Brigadier General
Than Oo
Brigadier General
Than Oo
Brigadier General
Khin Hlaing
Major General
Maung Maung Soe
Commander Thant
Zin Oo
Major General Khin
Maung Soe
Brigadier General
Thura San Lwin
Infantry Division 33
Corporal Kyaw Chay
Brigadier General
Thura San Lwin
Infantry Division 99
Major General
Maung Maung Soe
Major General Nyi
Nyi Swe
Brigadier General
Than Oo
Major Thant Zaw
Win
Commander Thant
Zin Oo
Brigadier General
Thura San Lwin
Inspector Tun Naing
Source: CRS, March 5, 2019.
Burmese Security Force Officers and Units
Allegedly Responsible for Human Rights Violations
The following tables list the names of Burmese security force officers (Table 2) and units (Table
3) that have been identified in one or more of the reports mentioned above as being responsible
for human rights violations in Burma since 2011.13 For purposes of this report, the “types of
responsibility” include the following:
Authorization—Authorized and/or ordered other security personnel to commit
human rights abuses on Burmese civilians;
Commission—Committed the human rights abuses and/or took no action to
prevent the commission of human rights abuses; and
Cover-up—Became aware of credible allegations that security personnel under
their command had committed or were committing human rights violations, but
13 The inclusion of any person or security unit in any table in this report is not to be construed as the author of the
report or Congressional Research Service confirms or supports the allegations made by the listed reports.
Congressional Research Service
5
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
took no action to stop the further commission of human rights violations;
attempted to conceal alleged human rights violations by Burmese security
personnel; and/or tried to prevent or undermine investigations or prosecutions of
alleged human rights violations by Burmese personnel.
With regard to the type of human rights violation committed, this report classifies them into six
categories
Arbitrary arrest—includes the arrest and/or detention of civilians without
discernible evidence that the civilians had committed some crime;
Attacks on civilians—includes intentional assaults of civilians and attacks
conducted with a disregard for the potential of causing harm to civilians;
Extrajudicial killing—includes the intentional killing of civilians and the killing
of civilians during military attacks conducted with a disregard for the potential of
causing harm to civilians;
Forced labor—includes forcing civilians to carry military equipment or supplies,
to serve as “human shields” for military units, and/or to use civilians as human
“landmine detectors”;
Sexual violence—includes rape, attempted rape, and other forms of sexual
assault; and
Torture—includes torture and/or the physical abuse of civilians.
While the military personnel and units listed in the tables have not been proven to be responsible
for human rights abuses, their identification in one or more of the reports listed above may
indicate that there is reason for further investigation of the allegations. Information in the tables
suggests certain patterns about the human rights abuse allegations, including the following:
Pervasive and systemic abuse by Tatmadaw—Table 3 includes more than 100
military units, including 3 Regional Operations Commands, 6 infantry divisions,
and more than 90 infantry battalions, indicating that alleged human rights abuse
is not limited to a few “troubled” units;
Geographically pervasive—The reports link certain military units with similar
human rights abuses in all of Burma’s ethnic minority states—Chin, Kachin,
Karen (Kayin), Karenni (Kayah), Mon, Rakhine, and Shan;
“Troubled” units—The reports repeatedly implicate certain units in abuses,
including the following:
Infantry Division 33—This unit is identified in six reports, involving a
variety of alleged abuses in the States of Kachin, Rakhine and Shan;
Infantry Division 99—This unit is also identified in six reports, involving a
variety of alleged abuses in the States of Kachin, Rakhine, and Shan; and
Infantry Battalions 324, 502, 503 and 567—These units were identified in
three different reports as committing a variety of human rights abuses.
Congressional Research Service
6
Table 2. Burmese Security Officers Identified in Cited Reports as Responsible for Human Rights Violations
Listed by rank
Name
Senior General Min Aung
Hlaing
Vice-Senior General Soe
Win
CRS-7
Rank
Commander-in-Chief
Deputy Commander-inChief
Type of Human Rights
Violation
Reports Alleging
Responsibility
Type of Responsibility
Location of Violation
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Authorization, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“We Will Destroy
Everything” (2)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Authorization, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Authorization, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“Tip of the Spear” (13)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Forced labor,
Sexual violence, Torture
Authorization, Cover-up
Kachin State, Rakhine
State, Shan State
“Report of the
Independent International
Fact-Finding Mission” (15)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Authorization, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“We Will Destroy
Everything” (2)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Authorization, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Forced Labor,
Sexual violence, Torture
Authorization, Cover-up
Kachin State, Rakhine
State, Shan State
“Report of the
Independent International
Fact-Finding Mission” (15)
Name
Rank
Type of Human Rights
Violation
Type of Responsibility
Location of Violation
Reports Alleging
Responsibility
General Mya Tun Oo
Joint Chief of Staff
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Authorization, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Lt. General Aung Kyaw
Zaw
Chief of Bureau of Special
Operations
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Forced labor,
Sexual violence, Torture
Authorization, Cover-up
Kachin State, Rakhine
State, Shan State
“Report of the
Independent International
Fact-Finding Mission” (15)
Lt. General Kyaw Swe
Minister of Home Affairs
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Major General Moe Myint
Tun
Chief of Staff of the Army
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Major General Maung
Maung Soe
Commander of Western
Regional Command
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Forced labor,
Sexual violence, Torture
Authorization, Cover-up
Kachin State, Rakhine
State, Shan State
“Report of the
Independent International
Fact-Finding Mission” (15)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Authorization, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“We Will Destroy
Everything” (2)
Major General Khin
Maung Soe
CRS-8
Commander of Military
Operations Command 15
Name
Rank
Type of Human Rights
Violation
Reports Alleging
Responsibility
Type of Responsibility
Location of Violation
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Major General Aung Win
Oo
Chief of Police
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Brigadier General Kyaw
Swar Linn
General Staff Officer
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Brigadier General Sunny
Ohn
Deputy Commander of
Western Regional
Command
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Brigadier General Hla
Myint Soe
Commander of the
Regional Operation
Command
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Brigadier General Aung
Aung
Commander of Light
Infantry Division 33
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Authorization, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“We Will Destroy
Everything” (2)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Forced labor,
Sexual violence, Torture
Authorization, Cover-up
Kachin State, Rakhine
State, Shan State
“Report of the
Independent International
Fact-Finding Mission” (15)
CRS-9
Name
Brigadier General Than
Oo
Rank
Commander of Light
Infantry Division 99
Type of Human Rights
Violation
Reports Alleging
Responsibility
Type of Responsibility
Location of Violation
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Authorization, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“We Will Destroy
Everything” (2)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Forced labor,
Sexual violence, Torture
Authorization, Cover-up
Kachin State, Rakhine
State, Shan State
“Report of the
Independent International
Fact-Finding Mission” (15)
Brigadier General Aung
Zeya
Commander of Military
Operations Command 5
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Brigadier General Maung
Maung Khin
Former Chief of Police
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Brigadier General Thura
San Lwin
Former Chief of Police
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Colonel Aung Myat Moe
Commander of Rakhine
Regional Police Force
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Colonel Phone Tint
Minister of Rakhine State
Security and Border
Affairs
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
CRS-10
Name
Rank
Type of Human Rights
Violation
Type of Responsibility
Location of Violation
Reports Alleging
Responsibility
Colonel Sein Lwin
Chief of Rakhine State
Police Force
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Colonel So Kyaw Htet
Commander of Tactical
Operations Command
333
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Major Aung Myo Thu
Infantry Division 33
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“We Will Destroy
Everything” (2)
Major Aung Phyo Myint
Infantry Battalion 503
Sexual violence
Commission, Cover-up
Shan State
“Justice Delayed, Justice
Denied” (9)
Major Kyaw Zay Ya
Commander of Infantry
Battalion 551
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Major Thant Za Win
Infantry Battalion 564
Arbitrary arrests, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killing, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“We Will Destroy
Everything (2)
Captain Lwin Maung Soe
Infantry Battalion 438
Sexual violence
Cover-up
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace”
(6)
Captain Mone Nawng
Infantry Battalion 277
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Captain Myo Jaw Maung
Infantry Battalion 325
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Lt. Sein Min
Infantry Battalion 512
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Second Lt. Tha Beh
Border Guard Force
Battalion 1016
Forced labor, Torture
Commission
Karen State
“Ongoing Militarisation”
(8)
CRS-11
Name
Staff Sergeant Ba Kyaw
Rank
Infantry Battalion 564
Type of Human Rights
Violation
Reports Alleging
Responsibility
Type of Responsibility
Location of Violation
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“We Will Destroy
Everything” (2)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks
on civilians, Extrajudicial
killings, Sexual violence,
Torture
Commission`
Rakhine State
“They Gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Second Corporal Ye Min
Tun
Army Artillery 315
Sexual violence
Commission
Mon State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Corporal Kyaw Chay
Border Guard Police
Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“We Will Destroy
Everything” (2)
Lance Corporal Myint
Thein
Infantry Battalion 513
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Commander Mo Hein
(rank unknown)
Infantry Battalion 284
Torture
Commission
Karen State
“Ongoing Militarisation”
(8)
Commander Tun Naing
(rank unknown)
Commander of Taung
Bazar Border Guard
Police Base
Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“We Will Destroy
Everything” (2)
Source: CRS compilation.
Note: Number in final column refers to list of reports provided in text above.
CRS-12
Table 3. Burmese Military Units Identified in Cited Reports as Responsible for Human Rights Violations
Listed in alphabetical order
Name
Type of Human Rights Violation
Type of
Responsibility
Location of
Violation
Reports Alleging
Responsibility
Army 315th Artillery
Sexual violence
Commission
Mon State
“If They Had Hope” (16)
Army 315th Artillery
Sexual violence
Commission
Mon State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Army 367th Artillery
Attacks on civilians, Extrajudicial killings
Commission
Kachin State
“State Terror in the Kachin
Hills” (7)
Army 372nd Artillery
Attacks on civilians, Extrajudicial killings
Commission
Kachin State
“State Terror in the Kachin
Hills” (7)
Border Guard Force Battalion 1013
Extrajudicial killing
Commission
Karen State
“Ongoing Militarisation” (8)
Border Guard Force Battalion 1014
Arbitrary arrest, Torture
Commission
Karen State
“Ongoing Militarisation” (8)
Border Guard Force Battalion 1015
Attacks on civilians
Commission
Karen State
“Ongoing Militarisation” (8)
Border Guard Police
Arbitrary arrests, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killing, Sexual violence, Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“We Will Destroy Everything”
(2)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killing, Forced labor, Sexual
violence, Torture
Commission
Kachin State,
Rakhine State,
Shan State
“Report of the Independent
International Fact-Finding
Mission” (15)
Infantry Battalion 4
Arbitrary arrest
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Infantry Battalion 9
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 11
Arbitrary arrest
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Infantry Battalion 13
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“State Terror in the Kachin
Hills” (7)
Infantry Battalion 17
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Attacks on civilians
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 22
Attacks on civilians
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 23
Attacks on civilians
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
CRS-13
Name
Type of Human Rights Violation
Type of
Responsibility
Location of
Violation
Reports Alleging
Responsibility
Infantry Battalion 29
Arbitrary arrest, Forced labor
Commission
Kachin State
“Report on the Human Rights
Situation in Burma” (10)
Infantry Battalion 33
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 37
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 41
Attacks on civilians, Forced labor
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 45
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 71
Attacks on civilians
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 77
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 86
Extrajudicial killings
Cover-up
Kachin State
“Report on the Human Rights
Situation in Burma” (10)
Infantry Battalion 88
Attacks on civilians
Commission
Shan State
“Report on the Human Rights
Situation in Burma” (10)
Attacks on civilians
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 95
Arbitrary arrest, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 106
Extrajudicial killing, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 107
Attacks on civilians
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 115
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians, Forced
labor, Sexual Violence, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 121
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 123
Attacks on civilians
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 124
Extrajudicial killing
Commission
Karen State
“Ongoing Militarisation” (8)
Infantry Battalion 130
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killing, Forced labor, Sexual
Violence, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Attacks on civilians, Extrajudicial killing,
Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
CRS-14
Name
Type of Human Rights Violation
Type of
Responsibility
Location of
Violation
Reports Alleging
Responsibility
Infantry Battalion 131
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 139
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 141
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 142
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 144
Attacks on civilians, Forced labor, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 145
Extrajudicial killing
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 147
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 149
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 205
Forced labor
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 217
Attacks on civilians, Extrajudicial killings
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Infantry Battalion 223
Attacks on civilians
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 237
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 240
Attacks on civilians, Extrajudicial killings
Commission
Kachin State
“State Terror in the Kachin
Hills” (7)
Infantry Battalion 249
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Justice Delayed, Justice
Denied” (9)
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 269
Sexual violence
Commission
Chin State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 286
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 291
Extrajudicial killing, Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 297
Extrajudicial killing
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Infantry Battalion 298
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“If They Had Hope” (16)
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 317
CRS-15
Name
Type of Human Rights Violation
Type of
Responsibility
Location of
Violation
Reports Alleging
Responsibility
Infantry Battalion 320
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 321
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“Justice Delayed, Justice
Denied” (9)
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 323
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 324
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killing
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Attacks on civilians, Extrajudicial killing,
Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 325
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 333
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 336
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 345
Sexual violence
Commission
Rakhine State
“Report of the Independent
International Fact-Finding
Mission” (15)
Infantry Battalion 370
Arbitrary arrest
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Infantry Battalion 381
Extrajudicial killing
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Arbitrary arrest, Forced labor
Commission
Kachin State
“Report on the Human Rights
Situation in Burma” (10)
Infantry Battalion 382
Arbitrary arrest, Forced labor
Commission
Kachin State
“Report on the Human Rights
Situation in Burma” (10)
Infantry Battalion 389
Attacks on civilians, Extrajudicial killings
Commission
Kachin State
“Justice Delayed, Justice
Denied” (9)
Infantry Battalion 402
Forced labor
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 417
Extrajudicial killing
Commission
Shan State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
CRS-16
Name
Type of Human Rights Violation
Type of
Responsibility
Location of
Violation
Reports Alleging
Responsibility
Infantry Battalion 423
Attacks on civilians
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 424
Arbitrary arrest, Torture
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Infantry Battalion 426
Torture
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Sexual violence
Commission
Karenni State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 427
Arbitrary arrest, Torture
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Infantry Battalion 437
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 438
Sexual violence
Commission, Cover-up
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“Long Way to Go” (7)
Attacks on civilians
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians, Forced
labor, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Arbitrary arrest, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Report on the Human Right
Situation in Burma” (10)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killing, Forced labor, Sexual
violence, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Arbitrary arrest, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Report on the Human Right
Situation in Burma” (10)
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Justice Delayed, Justice
Denied” (9)
Extrajudicial killing, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 505
Attacks on civilians, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 506
Arbitrary arrest, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 501
Infantry Battalion 502
Infantry Battalion 503
Infantry Battalion 504
CRS-17
Name
Type of Human Rights Violation
Type of
Responsibility
Location of
Violation
Reports Alleging
Responsibility
Infantry Battalion 507
Sexual violence
Commission
Karen State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Extrajudicial killing, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 513
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 522
Forced labor
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 536
Arbitrary arrests, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killing, Sexual violence, Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“We Will Destroy Everything”
(2)
Infantry Battalion 537
Arbitrary arrests, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killing, Sexual violence, Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“We Will Destroy Everything”
(2)
Infantry Battalion 551
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killings, Sexual violence, Torture
Commission, Cover-up
Rakhine State
“They gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Infantry Battalion 552
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killings, Sexual violence, Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“Report of the Independent
International Fact-Finding
Mission” (15)
Infantry Battalion 564
Arbitrary arrests, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killing, Sexual violence, Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“We Will Destroy Everything”
(2)
Attacks on civilians, Extrajudicial killings, Sexual
violence
Commission
Rakhine State
“Report of the Independent
International Fact-Finding
Mission” (15)
Arbitrary arrest
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Forced labor
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Battalion 569
Sexual violence, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 574
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Battalion 602
Extrajudicial killing
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Infantry Battalion 727
Extrajudicial killing
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Infantry Battalion 996
Sexual violence
Commission
Shan State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Division 11
Arbitrary arrest
Commission
Shan State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Infantry Battalion 567
CRS-18
Type of Human Rights Violation
Type of
Responsibility
Location of
Violation
Reports Alleging
Responsibility
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“All the Civilians Suffer” (1)
Arbitrary arrest, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Forced labor
Commission
Shan State
“All the Civilians Suffer” (1)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killings, Sexual violence, Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“They gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Attack on civilian, Extrajudicial killings, Sexual
violence, Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“Please Tell the World” (11)
Attack on civilian, Extrajudicial killings, Sexual
violence, Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“Tip of the Spear” (13)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killing, Forced labor, Sexual
violence, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killing, Forced labor, Sexual
violence, Torture
Commission
Kachin State,
Rakhine State,
Shan State
“Report of the Independent
International Fact-Finding
Mission” (15)
Arbitrary arrest, Forced labor, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Arbitrary arrest
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Division 77
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killing, Forced labor, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Infantry Division 88
Arbitrary arrest, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Attacks on civilians, Forced labor, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Arbitrary arrest, Human shields, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“All the Civilians Suffer” (1)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killings, Sexual violence, Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“We Will Destroy Everything”
(2)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killings, Sexual violence, Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“They gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Arbitrary arrest, Torture
Commission
Kachin State,
Shan State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Name
Infantry Division 33
Infantry Division 66
Infantry Division 99
CRS-19
Type of
Responsibility
Location of
Violation
Reports Alleging
Responsibility
Attack on civilian, Extrajudicial killings, Sexual
violence, Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“Tip of the Spear” (13)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians, Forced
labor, Sexual violence, Torture
Commission
Shan State
“Trained to Torture” (14)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killing, Forced labor, Sexual
violence, Torture
Commission
Kachin State,
Rakhine State,
Shan State
“Report of the Independent
International Fact-Finding
Mission” (15)
Infantry Regiment 116
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“Long Way to Go” (17)
Infantry Regiment 323
Sexual violence
Commission
Kachin State
“If They Had Hope” (16)
Myanmar Police Force
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killings, Sexual violence, Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“They gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killing, Forced labor, Sexual
violence, Torture
Commission
Kachin State,
Rakhine State,
Shan State
“Report of the Independent
International Fact-Finding
Mission” (15)
Rakhine State Police Force
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killings, Sexual violence, Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“They gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Regional Operations Command 3
Torture
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Regional Operations Command 6
Torture
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Regional Operations Command 7
Arbitrary arrest, Torture
Commission
Kachin State
“A Far Cry from Peace” (6)
Tactical Operations Command 333
Arbitrary arrest, Attacks on civilians,
Extrajudicial killings, Sexual violence, Torture
Commission
Rakhine State
“They gave Them Long
Swords” (3)
Name
Type of Human Rights Violation
Source: CRS compilation.
Notes: Number in final column refers to list of reports provided in text above. Some reports included the designation as a “light” unit (e.g., “light infantry battalion”);
others did not. This table combines military units of the same type with the numerical designation under the assumption they refer to the same unit. Units in italics are on
U.S. Treasury’s Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons (SDN) list.
CRS-20
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
Accountability Options
The extensive list of reports alleging that Burma’s security forces have committed genocide,
crimes against humanity, and/or war crimes has reinforced calls for some form of accountability
mechanism to investigate and possibly prosecute the perpetrators of the alleged abuses. Many of
the reports and various human rights organizations have proposed various accountability
mechanisms, including referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC), the creation of an ad
hoc international criminal tribunal, the imposition of U.N. sanctions, and the enactment of
bilateral restrictions on relations with the Burmese government and/or the Burmese military.
Referral to International Criminal Court (ICC)
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which entered into force on July 1, 2002,
established the procedures by which cases can be referred to the ICC’s Prosecutor for
investigation and possible prosecution. Bangladesh (see below) is a party to the Rome Statute;
Burma is not. Article 13(b) states the ICC may exercise jurisdiction if “one or more of such
crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council
acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.” To date, the Security Council has
referred one case under Article 13(b), that of the situation in Darfur, Sudan, in 2005.
Under Article 27 of the U.N. Charter, nonprocedural decisions of the UNSC, including a referral
of a case to the ICC, “shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the
concurring votes of the permanent members.” The five permanent members of the UNSC are
China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States; the current 10 nonpermanent
members are Bolivia, Cote d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, the
Netherlands, Peru, Poland, and Sweden.
Many observers expect China, and possibly Russia, to veto any proposed referral to the ICC.
When asked if the United Kingdom would support a referral to the ICC during his visit to Burma
in late September 2018, the U.K.’s Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt indicated that his government
was considering “a number of different options.”14 France has not issued any public statement on
a possible UNSC resolution to refer the case to the ICC.
The Trump Administration’s position on the possible referral to the ICC is uncertain. In her
August 25, 2018, statement to the UNSC, Ambassador Haley said, “Here in the Security Council,
we must hold those responsible for violence to account.” She also commended Kuwait, the
Netherlands, Peru, and the United Kingdom for working “to keep the Security Council’s focus on
the atrocities in Burma.” National Security Advisor John Bolton, however, gave a speech on
September 10, 2018, stating the Administration’s policy toward the ICC, in which he said, “We
will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the
ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already
dead to us.”15 Bolton did not make any reference the Burma situation.
In April 2018, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda asked the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber to determine
whether the Court may exercise jurisdiction over the forced deportation of Rohingya from Burma
14 Simon Lewis and Shoon Naing, “UK’s Hunt Says Pressed Suu Kyi on ‘Justice and Accountability’ for Rohingya,”
Reuters, September 20, 2018.
15 The full text of Bolton’s speech is available at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/full-text-john-boltonspeech-federalist-society-180910172828633.html.
Congressional Research Service
21
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
into Bangladesh, which the Prosecutor argued constituted a crime against humanity.16 The
Prosecutor argued that because forced deportation of Rohingya occurred partially on the territory
of Bangladesh (a state party to the Rome Statute), the Court may exercise jurisdiction over the
crimes. On September 6, 2018, the Pre-Trial Chamber agreed, deciding that the ICC Prosecutor
can begin a preliminary investigation into the situation in Bangladesh, opening the possibility of
prosecuting Burmese officials.17 On September 18, 2018, ICC Prosecutor Bensouda announced
that she was initiating the preliminary investigation, which will also take into account “a number
of alleged coercive acts” that resulted in the forced displacement, including killings, sexual
violence, enforced disappearances, and the destruction of property.18 Her office is to also consider
if other crimes under Article 7 of the Rome Statute (“Crimes Against Humanity”) may be
applicable. A preliminary examination team from the ICC is scheduled to visit Bangladesh in
March 2019.19 Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has said that her government will
cooperate with the ICC team. Burma rejected the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision, and has stated it
will not assist the ICC investigation.
Creation of Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunal (ICT)
A possible alternative to the ICC could be the creation of an ad hoc International Criminal
Tribunal (ICT) to investigate and potentially prosecute perpetrators of human rights abuses in
Burma. Such a tribunal was established by the UNSC on May 25, 1993, “for the sole purpose of
prosecuting persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law
committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia between 1 January 1991 and a date to be
determined by the Security Council upon the restoration of peace.”20 The UNSC established
another ICT on November 8, 1994, “for the sole purpose of prosecuting persons responsible for
genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory
of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed
in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994.”21 In
addition, the UNSC previously has established Special Courts in Cambodia, East Timor,
Lebanon, and Sierra Leone to adjudicate cases of alleged human rights violations in those four
nations.
In general, the UNSC has stipulated the scope of the International Criminal Tribunal or Special
Court, including the time period to be considered. The Special Courts were set up with the
support of the government of the nation in question, whereas the two ICTs were created when the
government of the nation in question was unable or unwilling to undertake the criminal
proceedings.
16 International Criminal Court, “Prosecution’s Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Statute,”
ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-1, April 9, 2018.
17 International Criminal Court, “Decision on the ‘Prosecution’s Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction Under Article
19(3) of the Statute,’” ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-37, September 6, 2018.
18 International Criminal Court, “Statement of ICC Prosecutor, Mrs Fatou Bensouda, on Opening a Preliminary
Examination Concerning the Alleged Deportation of the Rohingya People from Myanmar to Bangladesh,” press
release, September 18, 2018.
19 “PM Assures ICC of Support in Examining Rohingya Crisis,” Daily Star, February 17, 2019.
20 United Nations Security Council, Resolution 827, S/RES/827, May 25, 1993.
21 United Nations Security Council, Resolution 955, S/RES/955, November 8, 1994.
Congressional Research Service
22
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
Preservation of Evidence
On September 28, 2018, the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) approved a resolution that
establishes an “ongoing independent mechanism to collect, consolidate, preserve and analyse
evidence of the most serious international crimes and violations of international law committed in
Myanmar since 2011” by a vote of 35 in favor, 3 opposed, and 7 abstentions.22 The three nations
voting against the proposal were Burundi, China, and the Philippines. Japan was one of the seven
nations that abstained.
The UNHRC resolution instructs the mechanism to
Prepare files in order to facilitate and expedite fair and independent criminal proceedings,
in accordance with international law standards, in national, regional or international courts
or tribunals that have or may in the future have jurisdiction over these crimes, in accordance
with international law.
The mechanism also is to have access to the information collected by the UNFFM, be able to
continue to collect evidence, and be provided the capacity to document and verify relevant
information and evidence. The UNHRC requested that U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres
appoint “the staff of the mechanism as expeditiously as possible” and “allocate the resources
necessary for the implementation of the present resolution.” The resolution also extended the
mandate of the UNFFM “until the new mechanism is operational.”
The UNFFM had recommended the creation of “an independent, impartial mechanism to collect,
consolidate, preserve and analyze evidence of violations of international humanitarian law and
human rights violations and abuses and to prepare files to facilitate and expedite fair and
independent criminal proceedings in national, regional or international courts or tribunals.” It also
stated the mechanism “could resemble the ‘International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism
[IIIM] to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious
Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011,’
created by United Nations General Assembly resolution 71/248,” which was adopted in
December 2016. Various human rights organizations have also expressed support for the creation
of such a mechanism. In December 2018, the U.N. General Assembly approved $26.7 million to
fund the “independent, impartial mechanism.”23
The Trump Administration has not indicated its position on the establishment of an “independent,
impartial mechanism” for Rakhine State, but it has demonstrated its support for the IIIM. In
February 2018, Ambassador Haley stated the following:
The United States has also announced that we will contribute to the International, Impartial,
and Independent Mechanism on international crimes committed in Syria—the IIIM. The
United States strongly supports the IIIM as a valuable tool to hold the Assad regime
accountable for its atrocities, including its repeated and ongoing use of chemical
weapons.24
In FY2018, the United States provided nearly $350,000 in support of the IIIM.
22 U.N. Human Rights Council, Situation of Human Rights of Rohingya Muslims and Other Minorities in Myanmar,
A/HRC/39/Ll.22, September 28, 2018.
23 On December 22, 2018, the U.N. General Assembly approved the budget proposals contained in United Nations
General Assembly, Revised Estimates Resulting From Resolutions and Decisions Adopted by the Human Rights
Council at Its Thirty-Seventh, Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-Ninth Sessions and Twenty-Eighth Special Session, A/73/477,
November 2, 2018.
24 United States Mission to the United Nations, “Remarks at a U.N. Security Council Briefing on the Situation in
Syria,” February 5, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
23
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
The 116th Congress appropriated funds in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6)
for investigation and documentation of alleged human rights violations in Burma, but not
explicitly for an “independent, impartial mechanism.” Section 7043(a) included the following
provisions:
(1) Bilateral Economic Assistance.—…
(B) USES.—Funds appropriated under title III of this Act for assistance for Burma—
…
(vi) shall be made available for programs to investigate and document allegations
of ethnic cleansing and other gross violations of human rights committed against
the Rohingya people in Rakhine state: Provided, That such funds shall be in
addition to funds otherwise made available for such purposes;
(vii) shall be made available for programs to investigate and document allegations
of gross violations of human rights committed in Burma, particularly in areas of
conflict.
The House committee report that accompanied the act (H.Rept. 116-9) allocated $3.0 million out
of the $82.7 million Economic Support Fund for Burma for “Documentation of human rights
violations against Rohingya,” and $0.75 million for “Documentation of human rights violations in
Burma.” The report further stipulated that
funds made available for programs to investigate and document allegations of ethnic
cleansing and other gross violations of human rights committed against the Rohingya
people in Rakhine state shall be made available for civil society organizations in
Bangladesh and Burma. Prior to the obligation of any such funds, the Assistant Secretary
for DRL shall ensure the establishment of a standard documentation format and
documentation procedures for use by such organizations, and shall identify an appropriate
repository for such information.
It also specified that
funds made available for programs to investigate and document allegations of gross
violations of human rights committed in Burma shall be made available for civil society
and international organizations, including those in countries bordering Burma.
U.N. Sanctions
The UNFFM and various human rights organizations have recommended that the UNSC impose
sanctions on Burma independent of any ICC or ad hoc international tribunal prosecution. Among
the possible U.N. sanctions proposed are a global arms embargo; travel bans and the freezing of
assets of senior Burmese government and military officials; and a prohibition of trade and/or
investment with businesses owned or controlled by the Burmese military, its senior officers, or
their families.
The UNSC has imposed sanctions in response to human rights violations, among other factors, in
other countries, including the Central African Republic, Haiti, Rwanda, South Africa, South
Sudan, Sudan, and the former Yugoslavia. The UNSC sanctions have included, in some cases,
arms embargoes, travel bans, and the freezing of assets.
Bilateral Sanctions on Burma
Another accountability option that has been suggested is for individual nations to impose
appropriate sanctions on Burma. The United States currently has some restrictions on relations
with Burma, and the Trump Administration has announced some additional restrictions in
Congressional Research Service
24
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
response to the alleged human rights abuses in Rakhine State, including the imposition of visa
and economic restrictions on five Burmese military officers and two military units under the
authority of the Global Magnitsky Act (see above). The Trump Administration could potentially
sanction additional individuals and units it determines are responsible for serious human rights
violations under the authority of the Global Magnitsky Act.
If the Trump Administration were to determine that the alleged human rights abuses that occurred
in Rakhine State or elsewhere in Burma constituted genocide, then the United States has the
authority to prosecute alleged offenders under the provisions of the Human Rights Enforcement
Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-122; 18 U.S.C. 1091). The act criminalizes the act of genocide and subjects
the offender to a possible death sentence, life in prison, and a fine of “not more than $1,000,000.”
The act grants U.S. jurisdiction to the case under certain conditions, including if “the alleged
offender is present in the United States,” regardless of where the offense was committed.
The United States is a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide.25 Article V of the convention states the following:
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective
Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present
Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide
or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.
Article VII requires that “(t)he Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant
extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.” Bangladesh, Burma, and the
United States are parties to the Convention.
Prior to the events in Rakhine State, the United States had maintained several types of restrictions
on relations with Burma, including
restrictions on the issuance of visas to Burmese government and military
officials;
limits on bilateral and multilateral economic assistance; and
prohibition on the sale of U.S. military equipment.26
In addition, Section 7043(a)(1)(C) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6)
stated that FY2019 bilateral economic assistance
(i) may not be made available to any individual or organization if the Secretary of State has
credible information that such individual or organization has committed a gross violation
of human rights, including against Rohingya and other minority groups, or that advocates
violence against ethnic or religious groups or individuals in Burma; and
(ii) may not be made available to any organization or entity controlled by the armed forces
of Burma.
Other restrictions on relations are currently being waived under the authority of presidential
executive orders or presidential determinations. These include
a general ban on the import of goods from Burma;
a ban on the import of Burmese jadeite and rubies, and products containing
Burmese jadeite and rubies;
25 The “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” was passed on December 9, 1948.
The United States ratified the convention on November 4, 1988.
26 For more details about the restrictions on U.S. relations with Burma, see CRS Report R44570, U.S. Restrictions on
Relations with Burma, by Michael F. Martin.
Congressional Research Service
25
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
a ban on the import of goods from certain Burmese companies;
the “freezing” of the assets of certain Burmese nationals;
a prohibition on providing financial services to certain Burmese nationals;
restrictions on U.S. investments in Burma;
restrictions on bilateral assistance to Burma; and
restrictions on U.S. support for multilateral assistance to Burma.27
In addition, former President George H.W. Bush suspended Burma’s benefits under the U.S.
Generalized Systems of Preferences (GSP) program on April 13, 1989, as part of Presidential
Proclamation 5955.28 Former President Obama restored Burma’s GSP benefits on September 14,
2016, via Presidential Proclamation 9492.29 Any of these waived past restrictions, including the
suspension of GSP benefits, could be reinstated by President Trump without the involvement of
Congress.
Options for Congress
Congress has various options on how it may respond to the alleged human rights violations in
Burma. Legislation has been introduced to modify U.S. policy in Burma, in part to address the
alleged human rights abuses. Resolutions have also been introduced expressing congressional
views on events in Burma, and calling for changes in U.S. policy. Over the last few years,
Congress has also included Burma-related provisions in pending appropriation legislation to
shape U.S. policy in Burma. Congress has also demonstrated its ongoing interest in Burma, and
the importance of U.S. policy in Burma, by holding several hearings to learn more about
developments in Burma and discuss policy options. Several congressional delegations have
traveled to Bangladesh and Burma to directly investigate the situation and express to Burma’s
leaders the importance of the human rights violations allegations to Congress.
Whatever additional actions or measures, if any, Congress takes to address the alleged human
rights violations in Burma will likely be influenced by other elements of bilateral relations, as
well as regional concerns such as China’s growing influence in Southeast Asia. Some Members
of Congress and the Trump Administration view Burma as undergoing a fragile and difficult
transition from an oppressive military dictatorship to a potentially democratic, civilian-run
federated state, and are concerned that imposing additional restrictions on relations with Burma
could undermine that transition. Other Members of Congress and Administration officials see the
human rights abuses in Kachin, Karen, Rakhine, and Shan States as proof that the Tatmadaw’s
leaders have no intention of permitting such a transition to occur.
Legislation
In the 115th Congress, two bills were introduced pertaining to U.S. policy in Burma with
provisions related to the alleged human rights violations—the Burma Unified through Rigorous
27 Many of these restrictions are currently waived by Executive Order 13742, issued by former President Obama on
October 7, 2016. The ban on investment in Burma was lifted on July 11, 2012, pursuant to Section 570(e) of the
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1997 (P.L. 104-208).
28 Office of the President, “Proclamation 5955—Amending the Generalized System of Preferences,” April 13, 1989.
29 Office of the President, “Proclamation 9492—To Modify Duty-Free Treatment Under the Generalized System of
Preferences,” September 14, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
26
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
Military Accountability (BURMA) Act of 2018 (H.R. 5819) and the Burma Human Rights and
Freedom Act of 2018 (S. 2060).30 Both bills would have imposed a visa ban on senior military
officers involved in human rights abuses in Burma, placed new restrictions on security assistance
and military cooperation, and required U.S. opposition to international financial institution (IFI)
loans to Burma if the project involves an enterprise owned or directly or indirectly controlled by
the military of Burma. S. 2060 also would have required the President to review Burma’s
eligibility for the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program.
The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, on May 17, 2018, ordered H.R. 5819 to be reported
favorably out of committee, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and agreed to seek
consideration under suspension of the rules. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations reported
S. 2060 favorably out of committee on February 12, 2018, with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, but the bill never received floor action by the Senate.
Resolutions
Ten separate resolutions in the House or Senate pertaining to Burma were introduced during the
115th Congress; one passed.31 In the 116th Congress, one Burma-related resolution has been
introduced, S.Res. 34, that resolves that the Senate (among other things):
condemns the violence and displacement inflicted on Burma’s Rohingya and
other ethnic minorities; and
urges the Secretary of State to make a determination whether the actions by the
Myanmar military constitute crimes against humanity or genocide and to work
with interagency partners to impose targeted sanctions on Myanmar military
officials, to include Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, responsible for these
heinous acts through existing authorities.
Appropriations Provisions
As previously described, the 116th Congress included provisions in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6) placing restrictions on the provision of bilateral economic
assistance, international security assistance, and multilateral assistance to Burma. Similar
provisions could be included in the appropriations legislation for the Department of Defense and
the Department of State for FY2020.
Hearings
Since September 2017, Congress has held several hearings on Burma, including the following:
A House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing on September 26, 2018, entitled,
“Genocide Against the Burmese Rohingya.”32
30 A third bill, the BURMA Act of 2017 (H.R. 4223) was effectively superseded by H.R. 5819.
31 H.Res. 311, to commemorate 40 years of relations between the United States and the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN), was approved by the House of Representatives on September 27, 2017.
32 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Genocide Against the Burmese Rohingya, 115th Cong., 2nd
sess., September 26, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
27
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
A House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing on October 4, 2017, entitled,
“The Rohingya Crisis: U.S. Response to the Tragedy in Burma.”33
A House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
hearing on September 27, 2017, entitled, “Burma’s Brutal Campaign Against the
Rohingya.”34
A Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing on October 24, 2017, entitled,
“Assessing U.S. Policy Towards Burma: Geopolitical, Economic, and
Humanitarian Considerations.”35
A Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing on July 25, 2018, entitled,
“Victims’ Rights in Burma.”36
At all of these hearings, most of the Members of Congress present indicated that they view the
acts of Burma’s security forces in Rakhine State and elsewhere in Burma as either genocide or
crimes against humanity. Many also stated that the Trump Administration’s response to date has
been inadequate given the severity of the human rights abuses.
Congressional Delegations
Congress may also consider sending congressional delegations and staff delegations to
Bangladesh and Burma to investigate the alleged human rights violations and ascertain the views
of the alleged victims on what forms of accountability should be pursued. These delegations
could also meet with Burmese government officials and Burmese military leaders to hear their
perspectives of the human rights allegations, and to express the delegation’s opinion on what
measures the Burmese government and military should make to investigate and possibly
prosecute those individuals, military units, and organizations that have been accused of
committing genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Burma.
33 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, The Rohingya Crisis: U.S. Response to the Tragedy in Burma,
115th Cong., 1st sess., October 5, 2017.
34 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Burma’s Brutal
Campaign Against the Rohingya, 115th Cong., 1st sess., September 27, 2017.
35 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Assessing U.S. Policy Towards Burma: Geopolitical,
Economic, and Humanitarian Considerations, 115th Cong., 1st sess., October 24, 2017.
36 U.S. Congress, Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, Victims’ Rights in Burma, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., July 25,
2018.
Congressional Research Service
28
Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses
Appendix. Map of Burma
Figure A-1. Map of Burma (Myanmar)
Source: CRS.
Author Contact Information
Michael F. Martin
Specialist in Asian Affairs
r[ edacted]@crs.loc.gov , 7-....
Congressional Research Service
R45388 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED
29
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted phone numbers and email addresses of analysts who
produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made any
other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.