The Kyoto Fire department confirmed that one person has died and 12 people were found with "no vital signs" inside the building, which belonged to the Kyoto Animation Co. In Japan, deaths must be confirmed by a doctor before being officially announced.
Kyoto police said that a man poured what appeared to be gasoline around the studio and set it on fire. The 41-year-old suspect was taken into police custody.
Fire department officials said an additional 38 people were injured, with ten believed to be in a serious condition.
The fire broke out at about 10:30 a.m local time on Thursday (9:30 p.m.ET) and police said a resident reported hearing a sound like an explosion coming from the studio.
About 48 fire engines have been dispatched to the area and are currently trying to get the fire under control.
Footage from the scene shows thick smoke billowing out of the four-story building, which is located in a residential area several kilometers south of Kyoto Station, as firefighters worked to douse the flames.
Founded in 1981, Kyoto Animation -- known as KyoAni -- is based in southern Kyoto prefecture's Uji and produces animations and publishes anime novels, comics and books, according to its website. Among the studio's most famous works are "Free!", manga series "K-On!", the anime TV adaptation of "Haruhi Suzumiya" and "Violet Evergarden" which Netflix picked up in 2018.
The company's philosophy as posted on its website includes keeping a "humanitarian" corporate culture and believes that "promoting the growth of people is equal to creating the brightness of works."
There was an outpouring of grief on Twitter Thursday with fans of the studio offering their condolences.
The Kyoto Fire department confirmed that one person has died and 12 people were found with "no vital signs" inside the building, which belonged to Kyoto Animation Co. In Japan, deaths must be confirmed by a doctor before being officially announced.
Kyoto police said that a man poured what appeared to be gasoline around the Kyoto Animation studio and set it on fire. The suspect, described by police as being in his 40s, has been taken into custody.
Fire department officials said an additional 38 people were injured, with ten believed to be in a serious condition.
The fire broke out at about 10:30 a.m local time on Thursday (9:30 p.m.ET) and police said a resident reported hearing a sound like an explosion coming from the studio.
About 48 fire engines have been dispatched to the area and are currently trying to get the fire under control.
Footage from the scene shows thick smoke billowing out of the four-story building as firefighters work to douse the flames.
Founded in 1981, Kyoto Animation is based in southern Kyoto prefecture's Uji and produces animations and publishes anime novels, comics and books, according to its website. Among the studio's most famous works are manga series "K-On!" and the anime TV adaptation of "Haruhi Suzumiya."
The building is located in a residential area several kilometers south of Kyoto Station.
Tensions with Iran remained high on Wednesday as mystery swirled around the whereabouts and status of an oil tanker in the Persian Gulf. CBS News senior national security correspondent David Martin says U.S. officials believe Iran has seized the small coastal tanker along with its crew of 25 people.
Iran has said it responded to a distress call from the Panamanian-flagged tanker MT Riah, based in the United Arab Emirates, and came to its rescue. But no other nation has reported receiving a distress call from the Riah, which was seen being escorted by Iranian naval vessels after the transponder that automatically reports its location was switched off on Saturday. At last report, the ship was anchored off Iran's Qeshm island, which hosts a number of bases belonging to the Islamic Republic's elite Revolutionary Guard force.
On Wednesday, Gen. Frank McKenzie visited the Maritime Security Center in the country of Oman, just outside the Persian Gulf. The center, run jointly by the U.S. and Oman, opened just last year. From the facility, the U.S. and its partners keep track of the more than 100 ships that traverse the Persian Gulf every day.
"I think this is a great example of partners in the region that are doing what they can to provide for freedom of navigation in the area," McKenzie told CBS News. "I think this is an excellent example of Oman doing the best they can with the capabilities they've got. We help them, they help us. It's an international effort and I think it's a great statement of what we need to be doing here in the region."
McKenzie is trying to set up an international flotilla of ships that would keep the vital maritime traffic in the Gulf safe from Iranian interference.
U.S. fears Iran seized UAE-based tanker in Strait of Hormuz
"It's really an international problem," the U.S. Marine Corps general told Martin. "It's not a United States problem -- although certainly the nations that immediately abut the Strait of Hormuz have a special responsibility to ensure freedom of navigation, of commerce that flows through for the world."
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow passage that serves as the gateway to the Persian Gulf. A third of the world's shipped oil supply passes through the strait every year, and any threat to that traffic can have a rapid and significant impact on global oil prices.
In the past two weeks, Iran has attempted to seize a British tanker, and apparently hijacked the smaller Riah -- although the Iranians claim they were merely helping a vessel in distress.
U.S. flexes military muscle near Iran after tanker attacks
The U.S. has overwhelming firepower in the area, including the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which is operating just outside the Persian Gulf. But the U.S. does not want to get into the business of escorting ships into and out of the Gulf.
President Trump has approved an operation in which U.S. warships would act as sentinels at the entrance to the Gulf -- as long as other countries that are more dependent on Middle East oi, agree to pick up 80 to 90 percent of the cost.
Trump has repeatedly urged Iran to negotiate, saying that Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are his chief concern, talking points that experts say echo the 2015 deal.
Donald Trump has long trashed the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement as “the worst deal ever,” a “disaster” that didn’t cover nearly enough of the Islamist-led country’s nefarious behavior.
In recent weeks, however, the president has indicated that the Barack Obama-era deal might not be so bad after all.
Story Continued Below
Trump has repeatedly urged Iran to engage in negotiations with him, while saying that Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are his chief concern — “A lot of progress has been made. And they'd like to talk,” Trump asserted Tuesday at the White House. His aides and allies, meanwhile, have recently suggested that Iran and other countries should follow the guidelines of a deal they themselves have shunned as worthless.
At times, analysts and former officials say, it sounds like Trump wants to strike a deal that essentially mirrors the agreement that his White House predecessor inked — even if he’d never be willing to admit it. Iranian officials seem willing to egg him on, saying they’ll talk so long as Trump lifts the sanctions he’s imposed on them and returns to the 2015 Iran deal. And as European ministers warn that the existing deal is nearly extinct, Trump may feel like he is backed into a corner and running out of options.
“Trump got rid of the Iran nuclear deal because it was Barack Obama’s agreement,” said Jarrett Blanc, a former State Department official who helped oversee the 2015 deal’s implementation. “If you were to present to Trump the same deal and call it Trump’s deal, he’d be thrilled.”
The administration’s confusing messaging is a result of warring between two major factions, U.S. officials say, with Trump in his own separate lane. The infighting has been deeply frustrating to those involved in the debate. “In the past, even when I personally disagreed with a policy, I could explain its logic,” a U.S. official said. “Now I can’t even do that.”
Trump quit the nuclear deal in May 2018, reimposing sanctions the U.S. had lifted on Iran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program. He said the deal should have tackled Iran’s non-nuclear activities, such as its sponsorship of terrorist groups, and blasted the expiration dates on some of its clauses.
For a year afterward, Iran continued to abide by the deal’s terms, hoping that the other countries involved — Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia — could offer Tehran the economic relief Trump had taken away. But as that relief has failed to materialize, Iran has begun backing away from its commitments.
Tehran recently breached limits on its enrichment and stockpiling of uranium and has promised more infractions in the coming months. The U.S. has also accused Iran of attacking several international oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, and the Pentagon has sent warships and more troops to the region in response.
As tensions have spiked, one voice pushing for a deal has been Trump.
He’s said he’s “not looking for war,” wants to talk to Iran without preconditions and isn’t interested in regime change. He called off a military strike on Iran over its downing of an unmanned U.S. drone, overriding the advice of several top aides. His main public demand is that Iran not build nuclear weapons. In return, Trump has offered to help revive Iran’s sanctions-battered economy.
To observers, that sounds suspiciously like the 2015 deal.
“They can't have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said Tuesday. “We want to help them. We will be good to them. We will work with them. We will help them in any way we can. But they can't have a nuclear weapon."
Trump occasionally nods to other disputes with Iran, such as its funding of militia groups, ballistic missile testing and Tehran’s support of rebel forces in Yemen, but nuclear weapons dominate his rhetoric.
In June, Jackie Wolcott, the U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency — the body that inspects Iran’s nuclear program under the 2015 agreement — called on Iran to stick to the deal after an IAEA inspection report detailed a disputed potential violation.
“Iran has claimed that it continues to comply with the JCPOA, but it is now reported to be in clear violation of the deal,” Wolcott said, referring to the agreement’s official name, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. “This should be of great concern to all of us. The United States calls on Iran to return to compliance without delay.”
Afterward, State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus faced questions about why the U.S. wants Iran to adhere to a deal that it has claimed doesn’t truly constrain its nuclear ambitions.
“I don’t think it’s contradictory in the fact that we have stated very loudly since the beginning of this administration that we do not want the Iranian regime to get a nuclear weapon,” Ortagus said. “We think it would be disastrous for the Middle East. I — we haven’t changed our position.”
In a statement to POLITICO, a State Department official called the JCPOA “a flawed deal because it did not permanently address our concerns with respect to Iran’s nuclear program and destabilizing conduct. The U.S. is seeking a deal with Iran that comprehensively addresses the regime’s destabilizing behavior — not just their nuclear program, but also their missile program, support to terrorism, and malign regional behavior.”
Several European officials express astonishment at the audacity of the Trump administration demanding that Iran adhere to the deal when the U.S. the one who breached the agreement in the first place. Some said they were not surprised that Iran may have taken actions in the Persian Gulf as payback for the U.S. abandonment of the deal.
Europeans “know that the original sin causing the current escalation in the Gulf is the U.S. violation of the Iran nuclear deal,” said Nathalie Tocci, an adviser to European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. “At the same time, they are terribly concerned about the escalation and the threat it poses to the Middle East and to Europe itself.”
U.S. officials and outside observers say there appear to be two main competing factions inside the Trump administration when it comes to Iran policy.
Both camps are convinced that Iran’s Islamist regime is a bad actor in the Middle East. Neither particularly cares for the nuclear deal, either, viewing it as too weak a document.
But one group, led by national security adviser John Bolton, is simply more hardline than the other.
Bolton, who has previously called for regime change in Iran, and his supporters appear determined to kill the deal and heap on sanctions, erasing Iran’s ability to trade beyond its borders. Their version of what the administration calls a “maximum pressure campaign” seems to aim for a major reckoning in Iran, though they demure on whether that could involve a U.S.-led ouster of the regime or would simply set the stage for ordinary Iranians to revolt.
The other group appears to not have a visible leader, but it seems willing to allow the nuclear deal to tenuously remain intact, while ramping up economic sanctions that starve the regime of resources. This group, for instance, is hoping for the success of a European financial mechanism built to help Iran more easily obtain non-sanctioned goods, thus possibly helping sustaining the deal in hobbled form. That way, the group argues, Iran can’t race toward a nuclear weapon, but it also will be unable to spend as much funding militias and terrorist groups in the region.
A second U.S. official said one main difference between the two groups is that Bolton-led crew has no desire to make any sort of deal with Iran, while the other side believes that under enough pressure, Iran would be willing to negotiate a new, better agreement than the one in 2015.
"Bolton thinks he’s playing the longer game. That he can’t leave this administration having given an inch on Iran," the official said.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is generally believed to be in the camp that wants a deal, but he’s also laid out a set of 12 conditions on Iran that are so broad they may be damaging the odds of talks. A third U.S. official who confirmed the outlines of the internal debate said Pompeo may be worried about his future in the Republican Party and whether engaging in any sort of negotiation with Iran could damage it.
The result is a cacophony of voices speaking for the administration, including some out of sync with Trump.
“We’ve got very different messages because they don’t seem to have the same end goals,” the first U.S. official said of the various Trump aides involved. "We're studiously ignoring 'the deal that shall not be named' in our official talking points, but in the same breath demanding that Iran adhere to conditions that were part of the deal."
Blanc, the Obama administration official, said what Trump seems to want is a grand show, the type that he’s gotten in his one-on-one meetings with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. But there are serious political risks for Iran’s leaders in meeting Trump, especially after the president walked away from a deal that was hard to sell to all of Iran’s competing political factions in the first place.
Trump, Blanc said, “has an instinctive understanding that he’s not going to get that pageant if Iran thinks he’s pursuing a regime change policy.”
Perhaps sensing this, Trump on Tuesday went out of his way to note that he didn’t want to oust the government in Tehran. “We're not looking, by the way, for regime change because some people say [we are] looking for regime change,” he said. “We're not looking for regime change.”
In the meantime, Iran appears determined to exploit the divisions within the Trump administration, as well as the fissures between the U.S. and Europe over the Iran deal.
Iran’s recent calculated breaches of its nuclear pledges are meant to increase pressure on the Europeans to find ways around U.S. sanctions. And Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif even uses Twitter to taunt the Trump team over these disagreements, lambasting the president’s top aides as the “B-Team.”
“As it becomes increasingly clear that there won’t be a better deal, they’re bizarrely urging Iran’s full compliance," Zarif tweeted on July 8. "There’s a way out, but not with #B_Team in charge.”
The way out Zarif mentions? Presumably a U.S. return to the 2015 nuclear deal.
Japan and South Korea, two of the US’s closest allies in Asia, are locked in a trade dispute that threatens both crown jewel Samsung Electronics and the global smartphone supply chain.
On July 1, citing national security concerns, Japan placed restrictions on exports to South Korea of three chemical materials crucial for the manufacture of semiconductors and screens used in smartphones and televisions. That poses a huge headache for companies like Samsung, SK Hynix and LG Display, which rely heavily on Japan, the most important source for the chemicals globally. Tokyo’s official statement said that some South Korean companies weren’t properly managing the chemicals, while a Japanese report said some supplies may have ended up with North Korea. Seoul disputes that, and says it has enforced trade restrictions on sensitive materials and on North Korea.
The dispute could escalate next week, when Japan is due to make an announcement on whether it’s removing South Korea from a list of the country’s preferred trading partners, which would require Japanese firms to obtain additional export verifications on hundreds of products before selling them to Korean companies. The US has said it has no plans to mediate between its two allies, vital to its aims of balancing China and addressing the threat from North Korea, and called for them to “sit down and talk.” But bilateral talks have failed to yield progress and yesterday (July 16) Seoul rejected Tokyo’s proposal of third-party arbitration.
In the short term, Japan’s move hasn’t hurt the companies’ share prices—in fact investors are hopeful the spat could reduce the oversupply of chips (paywall) that has been driving down chip prices and earnings for Samsung and others. Since the companies have some inventory of the materials on hand, it could take a few months for the impact on customers of South Korean chips and screens, such as Apple and Huawei, to become clearer.
Japan’s actions parallel US moves to restrict Huawei’s access to its supply chain, by blocking American companies from doing business with the Chinese smartphone and telecom equipment maker in May, also citing national security concerns. That move was relaxed (paywall) after presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping met on the sidelines of the G20 summit hosted by Japan, and agreed to restart trade talks to address their tensions.
The roots of this spat, though, are far older than the US-China economic rivalry or security concerns, and the relationship between Korea and Japan is a complex one, weighed down by their 20th century history. South Korea’s rancor relating to the occupation by Japan from 1910-1945, and wartime oppression that included forcing Koreans into prostitution and to work in factories in Japan, remains deep, and many feel Japan hasn’t atoned enough for the past. Those wounds fester in spite of contemporary ties that have seen Korean TV shows, pop stars, and beauty trends become hugely popular in Japan, while Korea sends the most tourists to Japan, after China.
Relations have spiraled downward since a South Korean Supreme Court ruling last year ordering Nippon Steel, Japan’s largest steelmaker, to pay nearly $90,000 to a surviving worker, and to the families of three other Koreans forced into labor during World War II. Other judgments against Japanese companies for forced labor claims have followed, and more cases are in South Korean courts. Tokyo’s stance is that the issue of compensation was addressed with a 1965 treaty that normalized the relationship between the two countries, and saw Japan give hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and loans.
A notice at a Seoul store urges shoppers to boycott Japanese products.
Then, Japan Times, the oldest English-language newspaper in the country, sparked outrage late last year when it announced it would replace the term of “forced labour” with “wartime laborers,” a move that critics say aligns the paper with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe’s agenda of reshaping wartime history.
South Korean president Moon Jae-in has described the situation as “an unprecedented emergency,” and though South Korean companies say they are looking for alternate supplies, the two countries’ technology sectors are closely intertwined.
“I am unsure how Korea will be able to replace Japan’s inputs for their finished products,” said Bryan Mercurio, an expert on international trade law at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. “Likewise, I can’t see an easy export replacement for Japanese products, and do not believe domestic companies will be able to absorb all the components.”
HANOI (Reuters) - Vietnamese and Chinese ships have been embroiled in a weeks-long standoff near an offshore oil block in disputed waters of the South China Sea, which fall within Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone, two Washington-based think-tanks said on Wednesday.
FILE PHOTO: Vietnam's Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc (2nd L, front) and Deputy Prime Minister Truong Hoa Binh (2nd R, front) speaks with sailors of Coast Guard Force on field via video call during their visit to Coast Guard Command in Hanoi, Vietnam July 11, 2019. Thong Nhat/VNA via REUTERS.
China’s U-shaped “nine-dash line” marks a vast expanse of the South China Sea that it claims, including large swathes of Vietnam’s continental shelf where it has awarded oil concessions.
The Haiyang Dizhi 8, a ship operated by the China Geological Survey, on Monday completed a 12-day survey of waters near the disputed Spratly Islands, according to separate reports by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Center for Advanced Defense Studies (C4ADS)
One of the oil blocks it surveyed is licensed by Vietnam to Spanish energy firm Repsol (REP.MC), which was forced last year and in 2017 to cease operations in Vietnamese waters because of pressure from China.
As the Haiyang Dizhi 8 conducted its survey, nine Vietnamese vessels closely followed it. The Chinese ship was escorted by three China Coast Guard vessels, according to data from Winward Maritime, compiled by C4ADS.
In a separate incident days earlier, the China Coast Guard ship Haijing 35111 maneuvered in what CSIS described as a “threatening manner” toward Vietnamese vessels servicing a Japanese-owned oil rig, the Hakuryu-5, leased by Russian state oil firm Rosneft (ROSN.MM) in Vietnam’s Block 06.1, 370 km (230 miles) southeast of Vietnam.
That block is within the area outlined by China’s “nine-dash line”. A series of dashes on Chinese maps, the line is not continuous, making China’s claims often ambiguous.
Last year, Reuters exclusively reported that Rosneft Vietnam BV, a unit of Rosneft, was concerned that its drilling in Block 06.1 would upset China.
“On July 2 the vessels were leaving the Hakuryu-5 when the 35111 maneuvered between them at high speed, passing within 100 meters of each ship and less than half a nautical mile from the rig,” CSIS said in its report.
It was not clear on Wednesday if any Chinese ships were still challenging the Rosneft rig.
In 2014, tension between Vietnam and China rose to its highest levels in decades when a Chinese oil rig started drilling in Vietnamese waters. The incident triggered boat rammings by both sides and anti-China riots in Vietnam.
‘READY TO FIGHT’
In response to reports of this month’s standoff, which first emerged on social media, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said on July 12 that China’s position on the South China Sea was “clear and consistent”.
“China resolutely safeguards its sovereignty in the South China Sea and maritime rights, and at the same time upholds controlling disputes with relevant countries via negotiations and consultations,” Geng said, without elaborating.
On Tuesday, Vietnam’s foreign ministry released a statement in response to unspecified “recent developments” in the South China Sea.
“Without Vietnam’s permission, all actions undertaken by foreign parties in Vietnamese waters have no legal effect, and constitute encroachments in Vietnamese waters, and violations of international law,” foreign ministry spokeswoman Le Thi Thu Hang said.
Neither statements confirmed or elaborated on the standoff.
Neither Rosneft nor Repsol immediately responded to an emailed request from Reuters for comment.
In a new statement on Wednesday, China’s foreign ministry spokesman Geng acknowledged that there had been an incident with Vietnam.
“We hope the Vietnam side can earnestly respect China’s sovereignty, rights, and jurisdiction over the relevant waters, and not take any actions that could complicate the situation,” Geng told a regular news conference.
On July 11, as China was conducting its survey of the blocks, Vietnam’s prime minister, Nguyen Xuan Phuc, visited the headquarters of the Vietnam Coast Guard in Hanoi.
State media did not mention the incident, but showed Phuc speaking to sailors on board vessels via a video link.
Phuc told the sailors to “stay vigilant and ready to fight” and to be aware of “unpredictable developments”, the Vietnam Coast Guard said in a statement on its website.
On the same day, Vietnam’s national assembly chairwoman, Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan, met her Chinese counterpart, Li Zhanshu, in Beijing, China’s Xinhua news agency reported.
The two officials agreed to “jointly safeguard peace and stability at sea”, Xinhua said.
Reporting by James Pearson and Khanh Vu; Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard and Michael Martina in Beijing; Editing by Robert Birsel
The United States has announced sanctions on Myanmar's military Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing and three other military leaders due to their role in the "ethnic cleansing" of the Rohingya minority.
The State Department said on Tuesday it took action after finding credible evidence they were involved in the violence two years ago that led about 740,000 Rohingya to flee across the border to Bangladesh.
"With this announcement, the United States is the first government to publicly take action with respect to the most senior leadership of the Burmese military," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement.
"We remain concerned that the Burmese government has taken no actions to hold accountable those responsible for human rights violations and abuses, and there are continued reports of the Burmese military committing human rights violations and abuses throughout the country," he added.
A brutal military crackdown forced about 740,000 Rohingya to flee across the border to Bangladesh [Mohammad Ponir Hossain/Reuters]
Also sanctioned were Deputy Commander-in-Chief Soe Win, Brigadier General Than Oo and Brigadier General Aung Aung, as well as the families of all four officers.
Buddhist-majority Myanmar refuses to grant the mostly Muslim Rohingya citizenship or basic rights and refers to them as "Bengalis", inferring that the Rohingya are undocumented immigrants from Bangladesh.
151024190547465
United Nations investigators say the violence warrants the prosecution of top generals for "genocide" and the International Criminal Court has started a preliminary probe.
Pompeo repeated the 2017 finding of his predecessor, Rex Tillerson, that the killings amounted to "ethnic cleansing" - while stopping short of using the term genocide.
Pompeo voiced particular outrage that Myanmar in May ordered the release of seven soldiers convicted of killing Rohingya villagers, serving less time than two Reuters journalists jailed for more than 500 days after exposing the deaths.
He called it an "egregious example of the continued and severe lack of accountability for the military and its senior leadership".
The sanctions notably do not affect Aung San Suu Kyi, the former political prisoner who has risen to become the country's de-facto civilian ruler.
The Nobel laureate has been criticised over her "indifference" to the atrocities committed by the military against the Rohingya, considered "the most prosecuted minority in the world".
The sanctions are the most visible sign of US disappointment with Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, since it launched political reforms in 2011, with the military rulers reconciling with Washington and eventually allowing an elected political leadership.
Aung San Suu Kyi has been criticised over her "indifference" to the atrocities committed by the military against the Rohingya [Soe Zeya Tun/Reuters]
Matthew Smith, the cofounder and chief executive officer at Fortify Rights, welcomed the sanctions but said the US could do more.
"This is good news if this is the first measure the US will take in addressing genocide in Myanmar against the Rohingya people. It's bad news if this is all Secretary Pompeo and the US administration are planning to do. We are hopeful they will do more," Smith told Al Jazeera from Washington, DC.
"The impact [of the sanctions] can be serious. This will flag the responsibility of these individuals for international prosecutors, for example, the International Criminal Court, and it will give pause to business leaders going to Myanmar in doing business with military-owned enterprises."
'Xenophobic and racist attitudes'
Erin Murphy, a former State Department official closely involved in the thaw in US ties with Myanmar, said the ban would affect not so much the generals directly, but their children or grandchildren who want to come to the US as tourists or students.
While saying the travel ban provided a tool to encourage change, she doubted it would change attitudes towards the Rohingya, who are "almost a universally despised population".
"You're talking about changing deeply held xenophobic and racist attitudes and a travel ban alone isn't going to change that," said Murphy, founder and principal of the Inle Advisory Group, which specialises in Myanmar.
You're talking about changing deeply held xenophobic and racist attitudes and a travel ban alone isn't going to change that.
Erin Murphy, a Myanmar expert
The US last year imposed sanctions on more junior Myanmar security officials although the effect was more sweeping, with economic restrictions.
A State Department study released last year described the violence against Rohingya as "extreme, large-scale, widespread and seemingly geared toward both terrorising the population and driving out the Rohingya residents", including widespread rape and the burning of villages.
Doctors Without Borders has estimated that at least 6,700 Rohingya were killed in the first month of the crackdown that was launched in August 2017.
Myanmar's army has denied virtually any wrongdoing and said it was responding to Rohingya armed rebels.
