[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
PIERCING BURMA'S VEIL OF SECRECY: THE TRUTH
BEHIND THE SHAM ELECTION AND THE DIFFICULT ROAD AHEAD
=======================================================================
Minus 20 pts for each extra line of title deg.HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
June 22, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-50
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-050 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
VACANT
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman
RON PAUL, Texas ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio Samoa
DAN BURTON, Indiana FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina DENNIS CARDOZA, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Aung Din, executive director and co-founder, U.S. Campaign
for Burma...................................................... 7
Chris Beyrer, M.D., director, Johns Hopkins Center for Public
Health and Human Rights........................................ 25
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois, and chairman, Subcommittee on Asia
and the Pacific: Prepared statement............................ 3
Mr. Aung Din: Prepared statement................................. 9
Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, General Secretary, National League for
Democracy, Rangoon, Burma:
Prerecorded video message...................................... 20
Transcript of video message.................................... 23
Chris Beyrer, M.D.: Prepared statement........................... 28
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 48
Hearing minutes.................................................. 49
Mr. Aung Din: Material submitted for the record.................. 50
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress
from American Samoa: Article submitted for the record.......... 55
PIERCING BURMA'S VEIL OF SECRECY: THE TRUTH BEHIND THE SHAM ELECTION
AND THE DIFFICULT ROAD AHEAD
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:30 p.m., in
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald A.
Manzullo (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Manzullo. The Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific will
now come to order. I am sorry I am late. We had a pretty tight
vote on the floor involving patent reform.
I recognize myself for a brief opening statement. On
November 7th of 2010, the military junta that ruled the country
of Burma held an election that was universally labeled as a
sham due to widespread irregularity and lack of participation
by opposition parties. This exercise was nothing more than a
well-choreographed maneuver by the ruling elites to transform
themselves into a more internationally acceptable civilian
dictatorship.
Despite this attempt at political gymnastics, the
repression in Burma continues and thousands of political
prisoners remain locked in jail. The only ray of hope to emerge
from this engineered process was the release of Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi, daughter of Burma's revolutionary hero Aung Sun, and
Nobel Peace Prize winner. But even this concession can be
revoked at a moment's notice by the regime.
Today we have the extraordinary opportunity to hear
directly from the woman at the center of the decades-long
struggle to bring freedom to her beloved homeland. This is the
first time she has addressed the U.S. Congress in an official
capacity, and I am extremely honored to be able to present it
at this hearing.
I cannot disclose how we received this video, and I would
instruct the press not to ask me that question if they are so
inclined. We are certainly delighted to have this unprecedented
opportunity.
The purpose of today's hearing is to peer behind Burma's
veil of secrecy to fully comprehend the changes, if any, that
are going on in that country. Since the election, we have
witnessed a distinct point of view emerging from some Burma
experts arguing that, no matter how fraudulent, the elections
represent an important shift in domestic Burmese politics.
As the argument goes, this shift might lead to real changes
in the future, even if nothing significant occurs immediately.
Furthermore, the existing opposition party, the National League
of Democracy, is incapable of grasping this opportunity because
the group and its leader, Ms. Suu Kyi, have an all or nothing
approach. This is what is characterized as the pragmatic
engagement theory.
Since the Obama administration began its policy of
pragmatic engagement in 2009, U.S. relations with Burma have
not changed. Let us not forget that there are still 2,200
political prisoners languishing in Burmese gulags, including
peaceful monks and citizens that took part in the Saffron
Revolution 4 years ago.
The Burmese Government, as an effort of goodwill prior to a
visit by U.S. officials in May, announced a despicably
disappointing 1-year blanket reduction of jail sentences for
all criminals, but it is not clear whether this includes
political prisoners. The recent news of clashes in Burma's
Kachin province between government troops and ethnic
minorities, which has been the heaviest fighting in 17 years,
adds further evidence to the argument that the situation in
Burma has not changed.
If proponents of pragmatic engagement are correct, then
Burmese leaders should recognize this unprecedented opportunity
being offered by the Obama administration and seek to improve
relations with the U.S. by demonstrating tangible change.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. The State Department's
visit to Burma in May is further proof that change in Burma is
extremely difficult to achieve.
At a time when it seems Western influence is dwindling,
Burma is actively engaging with its neighboring countries,
constructing gas pipelines to Thailand and China, and accepting
investments from China, its largest trading partner. Burma is a
country that spends 1.8 percent of its GDP on health care, the
second lowest in the world, while it spends 40 percent of its
GDP on the military.
As the lead Republican sponsor of legislation to award Ms.
Suu Kyi the Congressional Gold Medal in 2008, it is my sincere
hope that we will have the opportunity to present her with this
award in person. Ms. Suu Kyi and her countrymen have lived
under the yoke of oppression for far too long. It is time that
free nations stand together to help Burma finally realize the
same freedoms that we all enjoy.
I now recognize Ranking Member Faleomavaega for his opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Manzullo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing. I think it is not only timely, but very important, and
is part of the responsibilities of our subcommittee.
It is very unfortunate that no one from the administration
is here to testify concerning the situation in Myanmar. I know
that at the initiation taken by the Obama administration,
supposedly to carry on some kind of an engagement process with
Myanmar, but, unfortunately, this has not taken place.
Secretary Campbell and Secretary Joseph Yun have both visited
Myanmar, but apparently with no results. But, still, it would
have been nice if someone from the administration should have
been here to tell us exactly what the latest development in
this dialogue or this process.
I do want to welcome today's testimony, Mr. Din and Dr.
Beyrer and especially Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize
Laureate and Myanmar's pro-democracy leader. In 2008, she was
also the recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the
highest civilian award in the United States.
Aung San Suu Kyi was born on Myanmar. Her father, General
Aung Sun, was the national leader of Myanmar until he was
assassinated in 1947, when Aung San Suu Kyi was only 2 years
old. Her mother was Myanmar's Ambassador to India.
Raised in Myanmar, India, and the United Kingdom, Aung San
Suu Kyi returned to Myanmar in 1988 and joined the National
League for Democracy, or the NLD. She became the General
Secretary and used her platform on the military regime to hold
free and fair elections.
In November last year, Aung San Suu Kyi was finally
released, but, despite her efforts and sacrifices, Myanmar's
military regime has not held an election that has been
considered fair or free. In November last year, the State Peace
and Development Council held the first election since 1990. And
the results, which gave the military party a super majority in
all houses of Parliament, were marred in controversy.
While many nations, including the United States, continued
to impose sanctions on Myanmar's military leaders in an effort
to bring about democracy reforms, apparently the strategy is
not working. I believe this is, in part, because we do have a
double standard when it comes to sanctions. When it is
convenient for us, we apply section 508 sanctions law against
Thailand, Myanmar, Fiji, for example; but in 1999, when General
Pervez Musharraf overthrew the democratically elected
government of then Prime Minister Sharif, the U.S. waived
section 508 sanction law, despite the fact that for nearly 10
years, General Musharraf never made good on his promise to
resign his military commission and hold free, fair, and
transparent elections in Pakistan.
From my perspective, Mr. Chairman, I believe we should find
new ways to approach Myanmar, including high-level engagement
with the new regime. And I hope today's testimony will help us
advance the relations between our people and the people in the
Government of Myanmar.
I do ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that--part of the
article that I have here was written by Professor Michael Aung-
Thwin, who is with the Political Science Department of the
University of Hawai'i, in February. That was written February
of this year, interesting observations in terms of the
elections that took place in November least year.
Unfortunately, too, even CRF was not comprehensive enough.
What British colonial rule was like in Myanmar, if it was as
brutal as the French colonial rule over Vietnam, Cambodia, and
Laos, I would be very interested to know more about it.
Myanmar was in a state of civil war for decades. The seven
city states constantly were fighting amongst themselves. And it
seems that the only organization that was finally trying to put
some sense of order in Myanmar, it was the military. But I do
look forward to hearing from our witnesses and especially from
Ms. San Suu Kyi.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Manzullo. The document will be admitted into the record
without objection.
Congressman Cardoza, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
both my friends, Chairman Manzullo and my friend Ranking Member
Faleomavaega, for organizing today's hearing.
Burma held its first election in 20 years last November.
This sham of an election was rightly condemned around the
world. Looking at the long history of brutal oppression in
Burma, the road ahead for the citizens who are suffering does
not seem to hold a lot of promise.
But I believe that the Arab spring of this year is a
reminder that we should never discount about how quickly the
spark of freedom can turn into a wildfire. The uprisings across
the Middle East are serving as a reminder to dictators around
the world that tyranny will not be tolerated.
The people of Burma do not need to look to the Middle East,
however, to see what the pursuit of freedom looks like.
Instead, they need only look at the work of leaders like Nobel
Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi or Aung Din, who both represent the
true spirit of democracy in their country.
I am looking forward to hearing from all of our
distinguished witnesses today. And I thank them for joining us.
And I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Manzullo. Without objection, all witnesses' statements
will be entered into the record.
Our first witness today is Aung Din, executive director and
co-founder of the U.S. Campaign for Burma. He served over 4
years behind bars as a political prisoner in Burma after
organizing the country's nationwide pro-democracy uprising in
1988 as vice chair of the All Burma Federation of Student
Unions, the largest national student organization in Burma and
outlawed by the regime.
He also served as vice chair of Burma's Youth Liberation
Front and Cabinet Secretary of the Parallel Government founded
by Prime Minister U Nu during the peak of the 1988 pro-
democracy uprising in September.
Amnesty International adopted him as a prisoner of
conscience in 1989, as chapters worldwide campaigned for his
release. He is also country representative of Thai-Burma
border-based ``Assistance Association for Political Prisoners--
Burma.''
He has been quoted in hundreds of articles. He is an
authority on the subject who knows more than anyone about being
a prisoner for the purpose of freedom.
Mr. Aung Din, we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. AUNG DIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CO-FOUNDER,
U.S. CAMPAIGN FOR BURMA
Mr. Din. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Faleomavaega, and
Congressman Cardoza, thank you very much for holding this
hearing today.
Mr. Manzullo. Could you bring that microphone real close?
You have a very soft voice.
Mr. Din. Thank you very much for holding this hearing
today. I have submitted my prepared testimony for the record.
And I also would like to submit the resolution on Burma
adopted by the U.N. Human Rights Council in April 2011, which
Aung San Suu Kyi made reference to in her message, for the
record.
And my testimony is too long. And it is not possible for me
to summarize it in 5 minutes. So, therefore, I would like to
raise only one important issue that is bothering me too much.
For many years, the international community has tried to
stop human rights violations in Burma. The United States,
European Union, Australia, and Canada have employed economic
sanctions on the regime as forms of pressure for positive
change. Many years have passed. And then they began to doubt
that imposing sanctions alone is not enough. And, therefore,
they started to engage with the regime directly.
I supported the United States' policy of engaging with the
regime while making the sanctions, but as I have reminded from
the beginning, engagement should have a time frame, clear
benchmarks, and it should involve an appropriate measure to
respond for any kind of development.
However, as of today the existing sanctions are still not
fully implemented yet. And the engagement remains open-ended.
And I don't see any effort by the U.S. Government to exercise
the pressure in a more effective and well-coordinated way.
But the regime knows very well how to manipulate the
current form of engagement. From the beginning the regime took
the upper hand by withholding the issuance of visas. They were
not reject applications for visa, flatly. They will make some
excuses, such as ``their leaders are now very busy and they
will not be able to host you appropriately. Please try again
later.''
And those diplomats who are eager to visit Burma have no
choice but to wait for an indefinite period or find someone who
is close to the regime for help. While waiting for their visa,
they will try to refrain from criticizing the regime publicly.
This can be called ``visa blackmail.''
After delaying weeks or months, the regime issues visas for
the diplomats. Then the regime will try to control their
schedule. The visas will only allow for a 2- or 3-day stay in
the country. And the regime will make them to spend most of
their time at the capital, Naypyidaw, for meetings with the
regime officials. The diplomats will not have much time left to
see the opposition leaders. This can be called ``schedule
control.''
The next steps of the regime are making hollow promises and
selling a story of ``the reformers versus hardliners.'' In most
of the meetings with the regional leaders, the diplomats will
not have much chance to raise their concerns.
At the end of the meeting, the regime will make some
promises, such as, ``Oh, we are planning to release some
prisoners,'' or, ``We are considering to allow ACRC to visit
prisons,'' et cetera.
And then diplomats will meet some officials, who will
actually listen to them. The diplomats will be amazed by good
command of the English language these official process. And
then they will be amazed more as the regime officials hardly
argue or deny the complaints they made about the human rights
situation. And they will be told by the officials, ``We know
there is something wrong in our country. We want to fix it. And
we want to make changes, too, but there are hardliners within
and above our ranks.'' Then they will tell the diplomats to
give them time.
It might sound like this: ``Oh. You need to understand us
and give us some time. Don't put so much pressure on us. If you
continue to do so, we cannot convince the hardliners to make
the change. And don't forget. Aung San Suu Kyi is also very
stubborn.''
So many diplomats have bought such a story right away. They
heard from the regime leaders who made some promise. And they
found some reform-minded persons within the murderous regime.
They were very much encouraged.
That is why when they came back from Burma and reported to
the respective government and organization, their message is,
``Oh, we need to give them some time to implement what they
have promised and for the reformer to be able to convince the
hardliners to do the positive things.'' And they will also
claim that this is not the right time to impose more pressure.
So these four steps, visa blackmail, schedule control,
making hollow promises, and selling a story of reformers versus
hardliners, have worked very well for the regime over the
years. And they have been successful in diluting and confusing
the international diplomats by responding to their engagement
with such a tactic.
Unfortunately, and unintentionally, the international
community has made the regime stronger and the democratic
opposition weaker by legitimizing the regime, patiently waiting
for hollow promises, and doing nothing while waiting. And now
expectations are high again among diplomats that some elements
in the so-called new government are reform-minded and that they
deserve to be given more time and that putting more pressure on
the regime now is not a good idea. For these diplomats, there
will never be a right time to impose more pressure on the
regime.
Mr. Chairman, please help us to end the ``open-ended
engagement policy and this is not a right time attitude'' of
the U.S. Government. The world has given the regime plenty of
time, and so many opportunities to survive to this day. Now is
the time to support and strengthen the democracy movement by
weakening the regime stronger and harsher.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Din follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
Our next witness is coming to us through a prerecorded
videotape. Aung San Suu Kyi was born on June 19, 1945, in
Rangoon. Her father, General Aung San, was the national leader
of Burma until his assassination on July 17, 1947. She was only
2 years old at the time of her father's assassination. His
death would be one of the main contributors to her fight for
peace and independence for Burma.
An extremely popular figure, the military junta targeted
her, eventually placing her under house arrest on July 20,
1989. She spent over 15 of the last 21 years under house
arrest, forbidden to meet her family in England.
One of the world's most renowned leaders, Aung San Suu Kyi
is a symbol of hope, defiance, and moral strength for the 55
million people of Burma who call her ``Mother,'' indicative of
an important and endearing note that she plays in her country.
She has won numerous international awards. In 1991, she was
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for being one of the
extraordinary examples of civil courage in Asia in recent
decades. In 2008, the Senate honored her with a Congressional
Gold Medal award, the highest civilian award in the continental
United States. Her other awards include the Sakharov Prize from
the European Parliament, the U.S. Presidential Medal of
Freedom, and the Jawaharlal Nehru Award from India.
Now we will play the prerecorded video from Aung San Suu
Kyi.
Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi [via video]. Any statement made before
a committee of the United States Congress must start with a few
words, however brief, of appreciation for all that you and your
colleagues have done for the cause of democracy in Burma over
the last two decades. We are very appreciative, and we believe
that you will continue to do whatever you can to help us in the
future as well.
I understand that the purpose of this committee is to find
out what has really been happening in Burma since the elections
of November 2010. To, as I understand it, pierce the veil of
secrecy and to find out the truth of the situation in Burma.
I am sure you will be receiving a lot of information from
very many different sources that will enable you to assess the
situation correctly. What I would like to urge is that you look
at what is happening in Burma in the light of the United
Nations Human Rights Council Resolution, the recent one, which
came out in March. This resolution covers all the needs of
Burma today, all the political needs, let me say, of Burma
today. The requests, the urgings, the demands of this
resolution are very much in line with what we in Burma think is
needed to start Burma along the genuine process of
democratization.
So, if you were to consider this resolution very, very
closely and then if you were to look at the present situation
in Burma, you would have a very good idea of how far we are
along the path to democracy, if we have started on that path at
all.
The resolution includes such very important issues as
political prisoners, freedom of association and information,
independence of the judiciary, and the right of Professor
Quintana, the United Nations Human Rights Rapporteur, to visit
Burma whenever he thinks it is necessary. It also includes the
need for an inclusive political process in Burma, that we may
have the kind of situation where there can be a negotiated
settlement leading to national reconciliation. All these that
the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution has called
for are essential if Burma is to enjoy constitutional
liberalism and democratic institutions.
It is going to be a long road. It has already been a long
road and a difficult one, and no doubt the road ahead will have
its difficulties as well. But, we are confident that with the
help and support of those who share our values, those like you
who are true friends because true friends are those who share
your values and understand why you hold onto these values in
spite of all the difficulties that you have to face. With the
help and support of true friends, I am sure we will be able to
tread the path of democracy, not easily and perhaps not as
quickly as we would like, but surely and steadily.
This is why I would like to request you to do whatever you
can to ensure that the requests and demands of the United
Nations Human Rights Council Resolution are met as broadly, as
sincerely, and as quickly as possible by the present Government
of Burma.
The resolution, among other things, calls for the
independence of the judiciary. I mentioned this earlier. This
is one of the most important needs in our country today because
without an independent judiciary we cannot have the rule of
law; without the rule of law none of our people can be secure
and there can be no true progress toward democracy.
Then, the case of political prisoners. Why are they still
in prison if this government is really intent on making good
progress toward democracy? If it is sincere in its claims that
it wishes to bring democracy to Burma, there is no need for any
prisoners of conscience to exist in this country.
Surely, democracy means that we all have the right to our
own beliefs, that we all have the right to try to live in
accordance with our conscience. Because of that, the case of
prisoners of conscience is crucial in deciding whether or not
the present government is sincere about its democratic
aspirations.
Professor Quintana has spoken of the need for a commission
of inquiry into human rights violations in Burma. I support his
call for such a commission, making it quite clear that a
commission of inquiry is not a tribunal. It is simply a
commission of inquiry to find out what human rights violations
have taken place and what we can do to ensure that such
violations do not take place in the future.
I would appreciate everything that is done to help
Professor Quintana in his work because unless we respect the
work of the Human Rights Rapporteur, I do not think we will be
able to make much progress toward the implementation of the
resolution of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
I have never made a statement before a committee of the
United States Congress, so I am not quite sure how to go about
it. I would simply like to use this occasion to request that
you do whatever you can to help us implement the United Nations
Human Rights Council Resolution because that will open up the
real road to democracy for all of us.
I would also like to take the opportunity to repeat once
again how much we appreciate all that you have done and that
what you have done for us has meant a great deal. I know that
you will continue to study the situation and to review what has
been done in the past and to inquire into what should be done
in the future.
Sometimes we all have to guess at what is necessary because
Burma is not an open society. But, I think because we truly
believe in democratic values and we are all sincere in our
respect for human rights and constitutional liberalism, our
guesses will not be far wrong.
So, I would like to ask you to continue with your work with
confidence in what you are doing and with confidence in the
fact that your work is much appreciated. Thank you.
[The transcript of the video message follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Manzullo. Well, that was extraordinary.
Dr. Beyrer, this is a tough act to follow, isn't it? We
appreciate you coming here.
Doctor Beyrer serves as professor of Epidemiology,
International Health, and Health Behavior and Society at the
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore,
Maryland.
He directs the Fogarty AIDS International Training and
Research Program, which provides research training in HIV/AIDS
for providers from Africa, Asia, and the CIS. He is the founder
and director of the Center for Public Health and Human Rights
at Hopkins, which is engaged in research, teaching, and policy
work on public health and human rights issues.
He has been engaged in public health research in Burma
since 1993. He completed his M.D. at State University of New
York, Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, and did
his public health and infectious disease training at Johns
Hopkins. In 2008, he was elected to the Governing Council of
the International AIDS Society as a representative for North
America.
He currently has research and/or training activities
underway in Thailand, Burma, China, India, Vietnam, Russia,
Kazakhstan, Uganda, Ethiopia, Malawi, and South Africa. In
2010, he was appointed to the Scientific Advisory Board of the
U.S. PEPFAR program.
We look forward to your testimony, Dr. Beyrer.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS BEYRER, M.D., DIRECTOR, JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER
FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Dr. Beyrer. Well, thank you very much. Chairman Manzullo,
Ranking Member Faleomavaega, members, first of all, I want to
thank you for the extraordinary opportunity to appear with my
colleague and friend Aung Din and with Aung San Suu Kyi.
She is, of course, not only beloved by the people of Burma
but I think has really emerged as a leading voice for
nonviolence, democracy, and human rights worldwide. And we all
look forward to the day when she can address this body in
person.
I currently serve as a professor of epidemiology at Johns
Hopkins. I have been involved in Burma since 1993. And this
year we published a report with Physicians for Human Rights on
the health and human rights situation in Chin State in western
Burma, ``Life Under the Junta: Evidence of Crimes Against
Humanity in Chin State.''
What I thought I would talk to you about today is the
evidence we have from some of the ethnic areas and from some of
the health and human rights domains that really suggest where
we are in the post-election Burma and, unfortunately, how far
this country has to go.
From the perspective of basic freedom and the rights of the
Burmese people, particularly of the ethnic nationalities and
their hopes for real national reconciliation, it is clear that
very little, too little, has changed since the elections.
And many would argue that that goes back to the nature of
the election itself. As President Obama said in New Delhi,
``The November 7th elections in Burma were neither free nor
fair, failed to meet any of the internationally accepted
standards associated with legitimate elections, based on a
fundamentally flawed process, and demonstrated the regime's
continued preference for repression and restriction over
inclusion and transparency.'' And I think that he really got
that right.
U.N. Special Rapporteur that Aung San Suu Kyi referred to,
Tom s Quintana, last month listed several areas in particular
in which this new government has failed to make any progress.
These included land confiscation, forced labor, internal
displacement of civilians, extrajudicial exit killings, and
sexual violence against women. And I want to highlight some of
the recent information about several of these domains.
First of all, as many know, after 17 years of cease-fire,
fighting has broken out in Burma's Kachin State. That fighting
started on June 9th. Some 10,000 civilians are reported to have
fled. And, again, Burmese military forces are reported to be
using rape as a weapon of war.
The Kachin Women's Association in Thailand has reported at
least 18 Kachin women and girls have been raped by soldiers
since June 9th. Four were killed after being raped.
Our Chin-based survey, as another example, found that 91
percent of households had had at least one family member forced
to labor for the military in the past 12 months. Religious
persecution was reported by 14 percent of households, a
disappearance by 4.8 percent, and rape by 2.8 percent. And we
were able to look at who actually committed these abuses. And
government soldiers committed 98.3 percent of those abuses.
The highest levels occurred in southern Chin State in areas
under the control of a man named Colonel Zaw Min Oo, who was
then head of the Tactical Operations Command in Matupi
Township.
Now, of course, all of those occurred before the election.
So you ask yourself how relevant are they to the Burma that we
now are looking at? Well, Colonel Zaw Min Oo was one of the
junta's appointments to the new Parliament. And he is not the
Border Area and Security Affairs Minister of Chin State. So
that has now changed. That is impunity for human rights abuses.
And in Shan State, again after the elections, we have had
reports of a 16-year-old girl who was raped by soldiers after
having been forced to watch while the military shot and killed
her parents. Fighting there has recently broken out and has
affected 100,000 civilians with at least 3,000 people being
forced to flea into jungle areas or into Thailand.
These are not isolated incidents. Secretary of State
Clinton noted in her remarks in April at the Vital Voices event
here in Washington which honored Aung San Suu Kyi, Secretary
said, ``We hold up the ethnic women of Burma who are fighting
against the systematic use of rape by the Burmese military.''
In the area of humanitarian assistance and public health,
the need for expanded health and humanitarian resources and
assistance is agreed upon by all parties. But access,
transparency, and accountability of assistance continue to be
challenges.
As an example, many were heartened by the return of the
Global Fund to fights AIDS, malaria, and TB, which recently
returned to Burma as a donor. Now, malaria is the leading cause
of death in eastern Burma's Karen State, but much of that state
is explicitly excluded from the Global Fund agreement. And the
reason for that is--and I quote directly--``to avoid further
accusations of lack-of-access problems.''
The latest government budget, approved without the new
Parliament, allocates less than two dollars per person per year
for health. And that continues, really, the gross underfunding
that has long been the biggest problem in health allocations in
this country.
You have already heard from Aung Din about political
prisoners. That was in his written testimony. As a physician, I
feel a particular connection to one political prisoner I would
like to name in person. That is U Indaka, the abbot of Maggin
Monastery.
The Maggin Monastery was a hospice and treatment center for
AIDS patients in Rangoon. And during the Saffron Revolution of
2008, Maggin Monastery, a number of the monks from there, from
the hospice, were involved in the Saffron Revolution.
The monastery was raided. AIDS patients were driven onto
the streets. And U Indaka, also NLD member, was sentenced to 20
years in prison. He is still in prison. And he is precisely the
kind of provider that if the U.S. were going to increase its
assistance to, that we would really want to be working with
were he free.
So what can the U.S. do to support democracy, freedom, and
development in Burma in this post-election scenario? I think
there are three things certainly that we could suggest. One is
to echo Aung San Suu Kyi's call for the commission of inquiry.
The U.N. Special Rapporteur Quintana has called for that. So
has the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission,
Eileen Donahoe. And so has Secretary of State Clinton.
But the U.S. really needs to exercise vigorous leadership
on this effort. And State Department I think really needs to
carry the water on this. And this effort could be led by
recently appointed Special Representative and Policy
Coordinator for Burma, Derek Mitchell. And we really look
forward to his confirmation and leadership in this effort.
I would just add that the treatment of political prisoners
in detention in Burma should be part of this commission of
inquiry for that, too, may represent crimes against humanity.
Secondly, full implementation of targeted sanctions
legislation already in place for the junta and some of their
cronies could continue to put pressure on this new regime. As
everybody here knows, many of the people who previously were in
the military leadership are now in the civilian leadership.
And, finally, support for democracy. Aung San Suu Kyi and
the National League for Democracy, despite being outlawed,
remain critical players in any future democratic transition.
The U.S. should increase engagement in active and sustained
dialogue with the NLD and should continue to consult with her
and her party on all U.S.-funded activities, including
humanitarian assistance programs. Programs which exclude the
NLD, however well-meaning, undermine this transition and won't
I would argue in the long run help alleviate the root cause of
the suffering of Burma's people, which is military misrule,
essentially under a new guise.
The U.S. needs to be on the right side of history in Burma.
And that side will always be the will of the people. And the
will of the people is really best expressed by Aung San Suu Kyi
herself.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement Dr. Beyrer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Manzullo. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Faleomavaega, we decided not to invite any government
witnesses. We have worked very closely with Assistant Secretary
Campbell and the State Department. We decided because of the
very unique testimony of Aung San Suu Kyi, we would just have a
panel from the private sector.
Dr. Beyrer, on your most recent visit to Burma, did you
face any resistance to conducting your studies in HIV/AIDS
training? You were doing it at the National League for
Democracy. Give us an account of your personal experience
during this trip, if you want.
Dr. Beyrer. Surely, sir. Well, I made a number of trips to
Burma in the 1990s and then during that period before Aung San
Suu Kyi's most recent house arrest. And at that time, she was
very concerned that a large number of the NLD youth league had
refused to swear allegiance to military rule. At the time the
military was insisting that all students, university students,
medical, nursing, everybody, sign the allegiance to perpetual
military rule or be expelled. And so a number of them were
expelled.
And as a person who greatly values education, she was very
concerned about this and initiated the idea of something like
an open university, where independent experts would come into
the country and provide training, education, and the
opportunity to really keep intellectual life alive.
So I agreed to do this and did HIV/AIDS training for the
NLD youth. Suu Kyi herself at the time was not allowed to speak
publicly, but she very skillfully suggested that I would need a
translator and that she could translate, even though she
couldn't speak. So I had the extraordinary opportunity. And let
me tell you that when she is acting as your translator, you
kind of speak well. You step up.
And it went very well, I think. We did it at the old NLD
offices. They were completely packed. It was standing room
only. There was a great deal of engagement. We learned a
tremendous amount. People were very forthcoming about their
situations, what was going on in the townships, urban areas
around Rangoon.
When I tried to leave the country after that, I was, my
hotel was basically taken over by military intelligence. All of
the other guests were asked to leave. And, fortunately, the
U.S. Embassy helped me get safely out of the country.
At my departure, all of the materials were taken. And I
said at the time to the security forces, ``Please distribute
these to the young people in your offices because they need
this information on HIV as well. We have nothing to hide.'' We
were doing an HIV training open to the public.
But on my most recent attempt to return to Burma and meet
with Aung San Suu Kyi privately, I was given a visa here in
Washington but then detained on arrival in Rangoon,
interrogated, and then not allowed to enter the country. So I
actually saw Burma from the air and I got very close, but I was
not able to enter. And I look forward to the day that I can.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Din, I was going through your testimony. Very
impressive. Of course, I would be the last person to ever
question your expertise and understanding, appreciation of what
has happened.
I don't know, Mr. Chairman. Should we say Burma or Myanmar?
I think the connotation of Burma is a colonial perspective
because that's what the British called this country, Burma,
during its colonial rule of Burma, which is now known as
Myanmar.
I would like to note that you have made a very good point
here about the fact that Burma is one of the countries with the
oldest and ongoing civil war since 1948, and composed of eight
major ethnic nationalities with several dozens of ethnic
nationalities. In other words, it is not a homogeneous society.
You have eight separate ethnic groupings that are constantly
fighting, or were constantly fighting, among each other where
you could really never really unite as a country. And please
correct me if I am wrong in reading your statement.
Was, in fact, Burma a united country before, during, or
after the British colonial rule?
Mr. Din. Today's Burma is actually made by the British
colonial government that ruled the country. Previously all
nationalities, they all have their own kingdom. They all have
their own civilization. They have their own territory. They
were actually----
Mr. Faleomavaega. There were eight independent city states
or----
Mr. Din. Yes. That is correct, not city states but you also
have the----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Independent.
Mr. Din. Well, the same as the Soviet Union. After the
Second World War, the Soviet Union, many Eastern European
countries became a part of Soviet Union, same thing like that.
So they all have their own territory. They all have their
own civilization. They all have a right to stand by themselves
without joining into the union of Burma, but they believe in
our national leader Aung Sun who promised them that the country
of Burma will be built on the federalism and all of the
nationalities will be standing together for equal opportunity
and the rights. Believing General Aung Sun, they tried to take
the independence together from the British.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I just want to understand a little
more. General Aung Sun, was he a member of the largest ethnic
group among----
Mr. Din. Yes. He is from the Burman majority. He was----
Mr. Faleomavaega. He was assassinated by another?
Mr. Din. Yes. That's correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, I mean, this is how complex. It is
not as simple as we make it to be. I mean, to suggest that we
could make a democracy when the fact that it historically and
all of this, it is a very difficult situation to try to put
eight separate ethnic nationalities into a country, one
country. Am I wrong in seeing this?
Mr. Din. You are right. At the same time the situation is
that all of the other nationalities, they don't want to secede.
They would rather live within the Federal union. They are not
demanding for secession from the country. They agreed to join
within the country, federalism, if they all would have the
equal opportunities and rights.
Only the military junta will not allow such a situation.
They consider these minorities as secondary; they are
subordinates and not citizens.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Just to demonstrate how spirited these 8
separate ethnic nationalities, they had 37 political parties
that became part of the elections that took place last year in
November.
Mr. Din. Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And part of the constitutional
requirement is that 25 percent had to be from the military?
Mr. Din. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. How is that being considered by the
people of--I say Myanmar because it has a non-colonial
classification to it.
Mr. Din. One thing, they are usually--our leader, Aung San
Suu Kyi, said that Burma-Myanmar is very not important. If
there is a majority of people who want change to Myanmar, we
can call it Myanmar, but it will be decided by the people of
the country. The military leader has no power or no authority
to make the change. They can't name the country with their own
desire.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I know my time is up. I just want to say
that when I was in high school, I never forgot that one of the
great leaders that came out is the Secretary General of the
United Nations, U Thant. But then ever since Mr. U Thant,
things seem to have dissipated in terms of trying to get Burma
or Myanmar to become as a united people.
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. Oh, I'm sorry. Dr.
Beyrer?
Dr. Beyrer. Yes. Just one quick comment is I think it's
true that it is an enormous challenge, the diversity of Burma,
but it is also true that in the 1990 elections, which are the
only elections we have that were free and fair, the NLD, Aung
San Suu Kyi's party, won an overwhelming majority in the
Parliament.
Mr. Faleomavaega. But my understanding, Dr. Beyrer, that
election was really for constituencies. There was not a
national election, my understanding of that election. It was
not a national election to elect a President or Prime Minister.
It was more a regional election.
Dr. Beyrer. Well, that is true, but it is also true that in
terms of the seats in the Parliament, you know the NLD also
affiliated, for example, in Shan State with the Shan
nationality's leap for democracy. And they won overwhelmingly.
So I think the evidence there is that when the Burmese
people had the opportunity to vote for what they thought was
human rights and a democratic way forward, actually, the ethnic
tensions were----
Mr. Faleomavaega. But then one of the problems at the NLD
ended up splitting within its ranks. You have got the uncles
and the nephews. And that was one of the challenges to Suu Kyi
as well, trying to get her NLD part united, because when they
boycotted the election, it left them out of the whole political
process and that those who split from the NLD party went ahead
and participated in the election process.
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. I will wait for
the second round. Thank you, Dr. Beyrer.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
I would like to recognize Joe Crowley from New York.
Congressman Crowley and I were the co-sponsors of the
resolution to give the Congressional Gold Medal to Aung San Suu
Kyi. Mr. Crowley?
Mr. Crowley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we hope to some
day have an opportunity to present the medal to Suu Kyi, who I
believe is one of the world's great heroes, Aung San Suu Kyi.
And I am sorry that I was not here for the presentation of
her video. I hope to see that in the near future. I did have an
opportunity to speak to Aung San Suu Kyi soon after her release
from house arrest. And I know that Secretary Clinton has also
had conversations with her as have other world luminaries and
dignitaries as well. She certainly is a remarkable woman.
I thought it was interesting just in terms of my good
friend Eni Faleomavaega. He and I have traveled the world
together and seen a great deal of it, as have Don Manzullo and
I together.
And you brought up an interesting subject about the naming
of the country. And I think being Irish American, we like to be
subtly defiant and in many respects kind of catching ourselves
every so often. Saying Myanmar-Burma is just kind of a way
maybe for us to demonstrate our defiance of the junta and the
military rule in that country.
But I am so pleased that both of you continue to bring
light and attention on a subject matter that I don't believe we
can see to garner enough sustained attention on. It is an issue
that from time to time heats up and then quiets down again
before it hits a boiling point again that heats up again, and
it kind of dies down.
It is for that reason, you know, that I feel so strongly in
what we as a Congress have done to move this regime to act to
bring more democracy, more freedom to the people of Burma by
using sanctions.
What I would suggest is that the Congress has acted, and I
believe the administration has tools within its shed or arrows
in its quiver to really act on the Burma JADE Act and to ask
and to call upon the administration to use the tools and the
tough sanctions against this oppressive regime. What is the
sense of having these tools if the regime continues to rape and
to murder and to dehumanize the people that they supposedly are
leading? It is something that I think is intolerable and needs
to change.
And just lastly, again, I want to thank both of your
guests. I know it is not often that a nonmember of this
committee--although I served on this committee for 12 years and
I miss it very much, it is my first year not serving on the
Foreign Affairs Committee but that I do appreciate you giving
me the opportunity to speak and to thank our guests for being
here today and for presenting their testimony. I particularly
want to thank Aung San Suu Kyi again for her testimony.
This is too important an issue to just let fade away. And I
think the administration has the tools it needs to really bring
a bit of a hammer to the table when dealing with this junta.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of
follow-up questions in terms of our dialogue and discussion
this afternoon.
I know you mentioned, Mr. Din, you made a very good
question. What should the United States do? And for how many
years have we been dealing with the problem of--I think the
problem, as we have been discussing concerning sanctions, is
that the country really doesn't need to be bothered because as
long as they are able to train with their neighboring
countries, the sanctions don't give that much substance to it.
And that seems to be the problem that we have over the years
dealing with Myanmar.
And you indicated here that you think that if Burma becomes
a democracy, or Myanmar becomes a democracy, then all of these
problems will clear themselves. But the reality of it is that
as long as these countries are able to trade with Burma,
especially in the Southeast Asia, as well as with China
especially, how do you stop this from happening? You can't tell
China not to trade with Burma, no more than China telling us
that we can trade with any other country of the world if we
feel like it.
Mr. Din. Let me argue with you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Please.
Mr. Din. The first is that economic sanctions or engagement
will not make the Burma free from the dictatorship. Burma, who
will have made their country free from the dictatorship?
Now, they are working hard. They have been working for
many, many years to be free from the dictatorship under the
leadership of our leader Aung San Suu Kyi. What are we calling
for? We are not trying to topple the military junta from the
power? We are calling for the political dialogue. We would like
to have the negotiated political settlement. But such can be
realized only when the military junta is weaker and the power
of democracy forces are stronger.
But as we see it, the regime seems to be stronger and our
forces seem to be weaker. So as long as there is no balance of
power between the democratic opposition and the military junta,
we will never see such a political dialogue in our lifetime.
That's why our request is to put so much pressure on the regime
stronger and stronger. And then when the regime became weaker
and weaker, then they will realize there is the only way that
political dialogue with the democratic opposition and the
minorities to solve the problem peacefully.
You know, I understand that sanctions and the trading
relationship with the neighboring countries, but we have the
very effective tools in the United States sanctions system. The
Congress adopted the resolution called the Burma JADE Act,
which included a very powerful----
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just wanted to mention that you
mentioned that if a regime becomes weaker----
Mr. Din. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega [continuing]. In the process, don't you
think it will go back again to the ethnic rivalry that existed
prior to the military taking over the country? That was one of
the biggest problems that you had over the years.
Mr. Din. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. It's a constant civil war, actually,
among the eight biggest nationalities that make up the country.
You are suggesting that if the regime becomes weaker, but are
you going to go back again to the rivalries among the different
major ethnic districts? They're going to fight among themselves
again without the military.
Mr. Din. It is the same excuse made by the military junta
for many, many years. They claim that they are the only one
institution in Burma which can prevent the country from
disintegration, but it is not true. But that is all the
military forces.
Yes, they are fighting for their rights. But they never
ever tried to--they never have willingness to fight against the
opponent in the civil war. They would like to solve the problem
peacefully. So that's why we are talking about. There was a
separation, they are not standard, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has the
capacity that her father belongs. So they are not separatists.
They want to unite the country with the equal opportunity for
all ethnic nationalities.
We have seen the situation of 400,000 soldiers against
millions what could become millions of----
Mr. Faleomavaega. My time is running out, sir. I just want
another question. Myanmar is a full-fledged member of the ASEAN
association. And I think right now it is up for becoming the
chairmanship for the east Asian countries membership. There are
ten of them. What do you think should be Myanmar's position or
membership? Should it continue to be a full-fledged member of
the ASEAN Association?
Mr. Din. I made the suggestion that I am talking about I
supported the policy of engaging in the region plus while
making sanctions, but we want the basic element to make the
sanctions from this government coordinated. At the same time we
need the United States Government to set a clear time frame for
such engagement policy.
Now the regime is calling for the ASEAN chairmanship in the
2014, which is quite a good opportunity for the United States
Government to set up the clear time frame. Within such a time
frame with a clear benchmark, releasing all political
prisoners, allowing all bodies concerned to participate in the
political process freely, and stop the military offensive of
ethnic minorities. We will solve the problem together with
these such benchmarks within a limited time frame.
I think the United States can play a very important role to
make positive change in my country.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Din.
Mr. Manzullo. We thank you for the opportunity to have you
testify. This is the second opportunity I have had to present a
videotape of a witness. The first one was Governor Bush of
Florida testifying on an issue where the U.S. Government wanted
to make the Canadian snowbirds show up at U.S. post every 60
days. The Governor was quite upset with that regulation. We
actually resolved the issue during the course of it. Here today
we had the rare opportunity to be able to have the testimony of
Aung San Suu Kyi, which no less diminishes the testimony of the
two live witnesses that came.
I think the empty chair really symbolizes who this woman
is. She is there in spirit. She very graciously agreed to
testify before Congress in the limited capacity, the only
capacity available to her.
We know that the spirit of people like this, the woman
whose father was literally the George Washington of Burma, as
long as freedom has any hope of piercing the veil of darkness
in the world, we will always think of Aung San Suu Kyi. She
represents that shining example.
It is a real pleasure to have you here, Dr. Beyrer, and
you, Mr. Aung Din. We look forward to your continuous work in
your fields. This hearing is now adjourned.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Manzullo. Oh, I will yield.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am sorry. Yes. I just want to come in
and thank you again for calling this hearing. It is my sincere
hope that maybe in the near future, that both of us will have a
chance to visit Myanmar and also again to congratulate and
commend Ms. Suu Kyi for an excellent presentation before us. It
is historical. It is probably the first testimony ever given
before a congressional subcommittee. So I commend you, Mr.
Chairman, for----
Mr. Manzullo. But then we didn't swear the witnesses.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Let's have another hearing, get the
administration people in here. Find out exactly what the heck
they are doing so we will get a better idea of what we need to
do on our part.
But, again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling----
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\\ts\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\ \
Material submitted for the record by Mr. Aung Din, executive director
and co-founder, U.S. Campaign for Burma
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\aavaa
\
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Eni F.H.
Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from American Samoa
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
