Myanmar, Sanctions, and Human Rights Questions and Answers

Myanmar, Sanctions, and Human Rights Questions and Answers February 2021 This questions-and-answers document provides detailed information about sanctions and other legal and diplomatic measures that have been or can be imposed on the Myanmar military and its leaders in response to the coup on February 1, 2021, as well as Human Rights Watch’s general position on sanctions. It explains how current or future sanctions on Myanmar could effectively be used, why they should be imposed, and how they might be relaxed, lifted, or tightened in the future. The document also offers other recommendations for addressing the Myanmar government’s human rights record. What is Human Rights Watch’s position on sanctions? Does Human Rights Watch ever support broader economic measures? How can governments ensure sanctions don’t hurt ordinary people? What sanctions are Human Rights Watch seeking in Myanmar? What should the UN Security Council do with respect to sanctions on Myanmar? What actions would the Myanmar military need to take to have sanctions eased? What tools besides targeted sanctions could be used? What sanctions have the United States already imposed on Myanmar? What sanctions have other countries imposed? Can sanctions be effective? Does Myanmar’s military even have assets abroad? Sanctions on Myanmar have been tried before. Why will they work now? 1 What is Human Rights Watch’s position on sanctions? Human Rights Watch supports the use of certain types of sanctions—including targeted sanctions and travel bans, and restrictions on military, trade, financial, economic, and other relations—as a means to condemn situations involving grave or widespread human rights abuses or humanitarian law violations, to assert pressure to end those abuses, to hold those responsible to account, and as a means to deter other parties from becoming complicit in abuses. The aim is to affect the actions of policymakers and perpetrators of abuses while minimizing negative effects on the general population. As a general matter, Human Rights Watch believes that sanctions and other measures taken against abusive individuals and governments are most effective and legitimate when they are imposed multilaterally by groups of states. In cases where multilateral action is not feasible or not the most effective option, Human Rights Watch supports unilateral targeted sanctions. Human Rights Watch supports arms embargoes and bans on security assistance to militaries or security forces implicated in serious human rights abuses or violations of the laws of war. We support the use of targeted sanctions (also known as “smart sanctions”), which emphasize the need for individual accountability by focusing on and singling out those considered most responsible for committing serious human rights abuses, while minimizing negative impacts on a country’s population. Targeted sanctions may also deter other governments, foreign actors, companies, and others from committing or becoming complicit in the abuses being committed by the leadership of the sanctioned government. We support targeted sanctions against persons or entities implicated in serious human rights violations, including the denial of the right to life; the right to security of the person, including freedom from torture, sexual violence, and arbitrary detention; the right to fundamental liberties, including free expression, association, and peaceful assembly; and the right to freely elect one’s government. We also support targeted sanctions against individuals responsible for war crimes and other grave international crimes. Typically, targeted sanctions entail freezing of assets, restrictions on travel, and prohibitions on other parties that stop them from conducting business with sanctioned persons, for instance, sending them assets or revenue, or providing goods or services, including credit or financial services. 2 In some instances, Human Rights Watch will support targeted sanctions on individuals, companies, banks, or other entities that deliberately violate or break multilaterally imposed sanctions, for instance, by providing significant revenues or financing to sanctioned actors or providing them with financial services on an ongoing basis (e.g., banks holding assets of sanctioned persons or entities). Separate and independent of sanctions, Human Rights Watch supports governments enforcing anti-money laundering and anti-corruption measures. This is especially important in countries in which targeted sanctions are being imposed. Robust enforcement of such measures may include freezes of state assets (e.g., a county’s foreign currency reserves), where transactions or patterns of transactions indicate that funds are at risk of being looted or being withdrawn by sanctioned persons or entities. Does Human Rights Watch ever support broader economic measures? Human Rights Watch in certain instances supports broader measures on systematically abusive governments focusing on trade, finance, and direct foreign investment. When supporting such restrictions, Human Rights Watch will seek action that will have the greatest impact on an abusive leadership, such as sanctions against an industry that is dominated by an abusive government or military from which substantial benefits are derived. Suspensions of some trade privileges should not be considered sanctions. For instance, parts of Generalized System of Preferences regimes or the EU’s Everything But Arms program are conditioned on export countries’ human rights records. Accordingly, withdrawing those privileges for violations of human rights conditions amounts to the conditioning of a privilege, not a sanction. How can governments ensure sanctions don’t hurt ordinary people? Whenever measures are imposed, governments should ensure that they are compatible with international human rights law and tailored to have minimal negative humanitarian impact. In considering the imposition of sanctions, governments should assess their impact on the human rights of the affected population, especially vulnerable or marginalized groups. Of particular concern is their continued access to food, shelter, clothing, water, sanitation, and medical care. 3 Having timely and accurate information about a particular country situation is critical to gauging the effectiveness and appropriateness of sanctions. Sanctions should be tied to clear benchmarks and have clearly defined goals rooted in international human rights norms and standards which, if achieved, would trigger a lifting of sanctions. Open-ended and overly broad sanctions are more likely to have negative impacts on the humanitarian needs and enjoyment of human rights of the general population. What sanctions are Human Rights Watch seeking in Myanmar? At the outset, Human Rights Watch is urging countries to immediately impose targeted economic sanctions, global travel bans, and asset freezes on: 1. The leadership of the Myanmar military; 2. All members of the cabinet and State Administrative Council (SAC) who are current or former officers in the Myanmar military; 3. The military business conglomerates Myanmar Economic Holding Corporation (MEHL), Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC), and these entities’ subsidiaries; and 4. All directors and officers of these conglomerates and these entities’ subsidiaries who are former or current military officers. Countries should also consider sanctions directed at the revenues from Myanmar’s oil and gas sector when it can be determined that payments are being transferred directly to the military or the persons or entities above. We are calling on the United Nations Security Council to impose a global arms embargo. (See below.) Until this happens, individual countries should impose new bans and tighten existing arms embargoes on a bilateral or regional basis. Measures should block the direct and indirect supply, sale, or transfer of all weapons, munitions, and other military-related equipment, including dual-use goods such as vehicles, communications, and surveillance equipment, as well as the provision of training, intelligence, and other military assistance. The arms embargo should be accompanied by robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. Countries with existing arms embargoes on Myanmar should strengthen monitoring and enforcement of prohibitions on arms exports, as well as scrutiny on intermediaries, brokers, shell 4 companies, and potentially illegitimate trans-shipment points that may be involved in diverting, reselling, or transferring items to Myanmar. These countries should call on Russia and China to cut their sales and assistance to Myanmar, as well as Ukraine, Turkey, and Israel. Tougher enforcement should entail governments taking urgent steps to exercise greater oversight over export licensing in general to ensure arms are not illegally transferred. In imposing sanctions, arms embargoes, or enforcing tighter financial controls, governments should work in coordination, targeting the leadership of the Myanmar military and the military- owned entities described above, while focusing on revenues that provide the military with the greatest revenues, such as the extractive sectors and in particular the oil and gas sector. Governments should focus on stopping outside companies and banks from sending revenue directly to military leaders or military-owned companies. These efforts can be accomplished, for instance, by requiring companies to suspend operations in Myanmar or requiring companies and banks to hold revenues in escrow. Measures like these can be taken in accordance with sanctions

Load more