[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF U.S. POLICY TOWARD BURMA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 25, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-140
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-001 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
______
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 deceased 3/6/12 deg.
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
RON PAUL, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
JOE WILSON, South Carolina RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
CONNIE MACK, Florida ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
DAVID RIVERA, Florida CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
ROBERT TURNER, New York
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
The Honorable Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East
Asian and Pacific Affairs, Department of State................. 12
The Honorable Nisha Biswal, Assistant Administrator for Asia,
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)..... 25
The Honorable Tom Andrews, president and CEO, United to End
Genocide (former Member of Congress, D-ME)..................... 39
Mr. Aung Din, executive director and co-founder, U.S. Campaign
for Burma...................................................... 48
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
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress
from American Samoa: Prepared statement........................ 6
The Honorable Kurt Campbell: Prepared statement.................. 15
The Honorable Nisha Biswal: Prepared statement................... 27
The Honorable Tom Andrews: Prepared statement.................... 43
Mr. Aung Din: Prepared statement................................. 51
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 64
Hearing minutes.................................................. 65
OVERSIGHT OF U.S. POLICY TOWARD BURMA
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 2200 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. The story of Burma is a heartbreaking tale
of needless suffering and unnecessary sorrow. It is a story of
a people forced to survive in abject poverty at the hands of
dictators despite living in a country abundant in natural
resources. Indeed, for more than a century, the story of Burma
has been divided into two main chapters; the first takes place
in the era of colonialism, and the second spans the painful
evolution of a brutal military dictatorship. Of course, the era
of independent rule in Burma has been only a footnote in its
history, a mere blink of an eye--spanning only 14 years--before
she was again robbed of her freedom.
The reason I open today's hearing with a look back into
Burma's history is to remind us all that we must never forget a
people who, at no fault of their own, have been deprived of so
much. This includes the ethnic minorities who live in constant
fear, and of course, the political prisoners who languish
behind bars to this day.
This is the real story of Burma, and these are the reasons
why Members of Congress are dedicated to promoting true reform
in that country. To date, we know far too little about what is
actually going on in Burma. Beyond the news stories,
information is far too scarce and from what we do know, very
little can be inferred.
On April 1, 2012, the Burmese regime held parliamentary by-
elections in which Burma's legendary leader, Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi, and the National League of Democracy, the NLD, won 43 out
of 45 open seats. Regardless of whether we view an election of
7 percent of Burma's legislative body as real reform, the
elections nevertheless cap an impressive year of progress made
by the secretive military regime.
The question that we face today is whether these activities
of the past year represent real reform or modest window
dressing. If this is real reform, what steps are needed to
protect progress made and promote additional steps? Have our
European and Asian allies gone too far by rushing headlong into
suspending all sanctions and immediately boosting assistance?
At the same time, the list of problems that Burma continues
to face is extensive. Approximately 600 political prisoners
remain behind bars, and in spite of news reports to the
contrary, there is evidence that a civil war continues to rage
in the ethnic areas. In the Kachin state, anecdotal evidence
from refugees and outside visitors point to serious human
rights abuses being carried out by the military. This has led
to a serious humanitarian crisis and has forced tens of
thousands of people to flee their homes and villages.
Rule of law in Burma continues to be nonexistent, with
cronyism and bribery ruling the day. If the example of other
resource-rich countries is applied to Burma, the military
establishment and corrupt officials stand to reap an enormous
windfall from the revenue that Burma's rich natural resources
promise to generate. The people of Burma will see next to
nothing and remain locked in a repeating cycle of poverty. If
the U.S. inadvertently contributes to this cycle of corruption
by recklessly removing sanctions, then a generation's worth of
efforts by human rights champions will be wasted. We must not
let this happen.
America's policy on Burma has long been guided by policy
makers on both sides of the aisle. I joined my good friend and
colleague, Congressman Joe Crowley from New York, to pass the
Congressional Gold Medal Act for Aung San Suu Kyi in 2008, and
was also the lead Republican in renewing congressional
sanctions against Burma. I spoke out forcefully against the
brutal crackdown of the Saffron Revolution and its aftermath.
Last year, Aung San Suu Kyi delivered recorded testimony before
the subcommittee on conditions in Burma and urged Congress to
continue supporting her beloved country. I championed the cause
of freedom in Burma not because it was politically
advantageous, but because it was the right thing to do.
I commend the administration for returning an ambassador to
Burma and for USAID's reopening of its mission there. More than
anything, we need Americans on the ground assessing what is
actually happening. But now, we face the next step in this
journey. It is my sincere hope that these actions in Burma are
the beginning of real, meaningful political reconciliation.
However, let us not lose sight of the reality that Burma has
endured 50 years of military dictatorship, and those in power
will not give up this power overnight.
I now recognize the ranking member for his opening
statement.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
[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. Mr. Chairman,
thank you for holding this hearing on U.S. policy toward
Myanmar. I applaud your leadership and want you to know I am
honored to serve with you. This subcommittee, the House of
Representatives and your constituents have all been well
represented by you. At home and abroad you will be missed.
Last year, Myanmar has demonstrated that it is on the path
toward democratic reform and I am pleased by these
developments. I am especially pleased that President Obama sent
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Myanmar in December of
last year. Secretary Clinton was the first high-ranking member
of any American administration to visit Myanmar since World War
II.
And Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased and honored that we
have with us as our witness, a gentleman whom I have had the
privilege of working with also is our Assistant Secretary of
State of East Asian Pacific Affairs, my good friend, Kurt
Campbell, who has also been doing a fantastic job as part of
the administration's engagement policy from the very beginning
in terms of what they have done in the past 3 years in dealing
with the leaders of Myanmar. And Mr. Campbell certainly is
attributed for doing all the tremendous work, leg work in
bringing to pass these developments, and especially having
Secretary Clinton visit at the leaders of that country and
especially Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi.
During her visit, Secretary Clinton praised President Thein
Sein's leadership and courage, and so do I. President Thein has
authorized four separate amnesties for groups of prisoners
since May of last year. For the first time in 22 years, Aung
San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy participated
in the April 1st, 2012, by-elections and won 44 out of the 45
seats up for election.
Under our new policy of engagement the United States will
name an ambassador to Myanmar and establish USAID presence. We
will ease sanctions on agriculture, tourism, telecommunications
and banking. Furthermore, international response to U.S.
leadership has been positive, Australia announced that it would
lift sanctions. Japan decided it would waive Myanmar's debt,
and the EU announced its decision to suspend trade, economic
and individual sanctions against Myanmar for 1 year.
These are welcome new developments and I commend President
Obama, Secretary Clinton and Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell
for moving full speed ahead in the policy of pragmatic
engagement. This is the course of direction the U.S. should be
taking.
I look forward, Mr. Chairman, in hearing from our
witnesses, Secretary Campbell and Ms. Biswal, and I want to
note for the record that my dear friend and colleague,
Congressman Joe Crowley of New York, who has been a strong
advocate for reform in Myanmar, at his request our democratic
witness is the Honorable Tom Andrews, former Member of Congress
and president and CEO of the United to End Genocide.
On behalf of Representative Crowley I welcome you, and once
more I commend Chairman Manzullo, gentlemen, for holding this
important hearing. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]
[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. Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over the past year,
Burma has seemingly opened itself up to change. Persons of
conscience as you know have been released there now. Aung San
Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy party was allowed to
participate in the elections. Governments around the world are
of course quite optimistic. The EU is suspending sanctions,
Australia has pledged to lift its sanctions, we have a
situation where Japan has waived the $3.7 billion of Burmese
debt. But at the end of the day I think we can say that Burma's
motives are somewhat unclear in this.
Some of the speculation has been that the regime no longer
wanted to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beijing and that that
drove some of it. I will be interested in hearing the
witnesses' observations and what the administration believe is
driving this.
The administration has also struck a similarly optimistic
tone with the rest of the international community on this, and
we are moving quickly toward pragmatic engagement there with
the Burmese Government, laying out plans for a fully accredited
ambassador now in Rangoon and plans for presence of USAID,
which is appropriate. However, I think that we would be wise to
remain cautious. Progress this is but progress can be quickly
reversed. And although we enjoyed watching that election and 44
seats out of 45 going to the National League for Democracy
party, at the end of the day that is still a small, small
percentage, a sliver of that 664 seats that are in the
Parliament there.
Our increased engagement with the Burmese Government must
be accompanied by a push for engagement with civil society
which can be empowering for a civil society there. What should
be at the center of this relationship is not only a long-term
view about engaging civil society, but the Burmese people. If
we keep that in mind, making that the center of the
relationship, that is where we are going to do the most good.
Lastly, I think Burma's positive relationship with North
Korea is a vexing and an odd thing that shouldn't be taken
lightly. The extent of the proliferation network between those
two countries is still murky but we know some of the history of
it, and cutting this tie to North Korea should also be a
priority in the relationship.
But I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Manzullo. Congressman Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think
this is a wonderful celebration today of many, many years. I
know for myself I have been engaged in this for about 24 years.
A lot of people understand that right after I was elected to
Congress I disappeared and went to Afghanistan for 2 months and
fought alongside the mujahideen. But what they don't also
understand is on my way to Afghanistan I went to Burma and met
with the Burmese students in the jungle who were at that time
even then in 1988, resisted in fighting the junta that was
repressing their people in Burma.
And I remember walking away from that meeting, pardon me. I
just came back from overseas last night, so I am a little bit
weary here, but I will try to get my words out right. The fact
is, is that when I left those meetings in the jungle in Burma I
was so impressed with these young people. And I remember while
I was impressed certainly yes by the courage in the fighting
which I saw in Afghanistan, but the idealism of those young
people in Burma, I knew that some day if they held true to that
they would triumph. And this is a triumph for the idealism of
the Burmese people, and they did not succumb to the type of
mass bloodshed on their side as many people who are struggling
for freedom have gotten into over the years and not been
successful.
Those note in terms of American policy, so first of all,
this is a great success for the Burmese people, the idealists
among the Burmese people, but it also is a reflection on
American policy. We did not in Burma become engaged. We did not
put forth a policy of engagement. This is coming about now, is
not coming about because the United States Government decided
to treat the Burmese Government as if it wasn't a vicious
dictatorship that was murdering its own people. In fact, we
tried to isolate them and used economic sanctions instead of
trying to make them feel that they could be part of the family
of nations even though they were a corrupt dictatorship. Well,
in the end that policy has worked. The policy of basically
treating a dictatorship like it is different than a democracy,
and not giving them the same trading and economic privileges
that we have with democratic nations. I think now is the time
we should move forward and make sure that we start opening up
those opportunities. As they make their concessions, we should
do step by step make theirs.
And Mr. Chairman, one last point and that is, let us not
forget that there are still tribal groups along the border in
Burma, the ethnic peoples who are still under attack and being
murdered by the central government. They need to be brought
into this process of reconciliation as well. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you. Congressman Crowley?
Mr. Crowley. Thank you, Chairman Manzullo, and thank you
for allowing me to sit in on my former committee here in
Foreign Affairs. And thank you for allowing me to participate
today.
I was fortunate to travel to Burma in January when I was on
a trip to India. And I had the opportunity to meet with both
the military government and the opposition led by Aung San Suu
Kyi. I also met with families of political prisoners and some
members of ethnic minority groups. I am deeply appreciative to
all those at the State Department who helped me on that trip,
in particular, Secretary Clinton. I also appreciate the time
spent on Burma by this administration. It has been an enormous
amount of time, I think, and a good amount of time on this. And
I also want to recognize the work of former First Lady Bush,
and President Bush's attention to this as well. After all, it
was this committee that created many of the sanctions and also
the position of the special envoy on Burma through the Burmese
JADE Act, which was an Act that I was proud to be the sponsor
of.
I walked away from Burma with three distinct impressions,
and those impressions form my view that a lot of the media
coverage around Burma lately has been overheated if not
slightly overstated. First, those who are struggling to end
military rule in Burma are among the bravest heroes in the
world today. They are risking their lives for values that we
share as Americans and sometimes take for granted and they
deserve our respect and our admiration.
Second, human rights abuses in Burma are still going on.
There are still several hundred if not more political prisoners
locked up behind bars in Burma, serious acts of violence
against ethnic nationalities have continued. In fact, many
attacks on ethnic minorities have taken place even after the
April 1st by-election.
Third, the democratic opposition has won only a small
political arena to operate, about 6 percent of the national
Parliament. The opposition holds no real power in this
Parliament other than the power of hopefully persuasion. There
is no real rule of law to constrain government behavior, and
the military still seems to run a lot of the show in Burma.
Now I don't want to be viewed as one who is here to throw
cold water, that is not my intention. But for all these reasons
I believe we must be careful to not lift sanctions too quickly.
We should not hesitate if it is necessary to impose even more.
The steps already taken by the United States have been
substantial and there is no need to rush to judgment. Groups
working in conflict areas report that it may even be more
likely that lifting some of the sanctions could increase
conflict within Burma.
It is no secret that the vast majority of extractive
industries in Burma are owned and operated either by members of
the military, former leaders of the military or their cronies.
There is nothing they want more than to sweep into ethnic areas
and steal the plentiful and natural resources within. If we
give up all of our leverage through lifting more sanctions,
what do we have to push for an end to these attacks? So let us
continue some pressure. We can match action with action but we
should be cautious and skeptical so that we don't write simply
a blank check.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I once again thank you, and I
thank our witnesses here today.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you. Our witnesses are, first,
Secretary Kurt Campbell who became the Assistant Secretary of
State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in 2009. Previously,
he was the CEO and co-founder of the Center for New American
Security, and concurrently served as the director of the Aspen
Strategy Group and chairman of the Editorial Board of the
Washington Quarterly. He was the founder of StratAsia, a
strategic advisory firm, and was the senior vice president,
director of the International Security Program, and Henry A.
Kissinger Chair in National Security Policy at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies.
Dr. Campbell has served in several capacities in government
including as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and
the Pacific, a director on the National Security Council staff,
Deputy Special Counselor to the President for NAFTA in the
White House, and White House fellow at the Department of the
Treasury. He received his BA from the University of California
San Diego and his doctorate in international relations from
Brasenose College at Oxford University.
Nisha Biswal was sworn in as USAID's Assistant
Administrator for Asia on September 20, 2010. Prior to her
appointment she served as the majority clerk for the State
Department and Foreign Operations Subcommittee on the Committee
on Appropriations in the U.S. House of Representatives. In this
capacity, she provided staff support to the Appropriations
Committee Chairman David Obey and subcommittee Chairwoman Nita
Lowey in managing the appropriations and oversight of the U.S.
international affairs budget.
She has also served as professional staff on the House
International Relations Committee. That is your most famous
post, right? Ms. Biswal holds a bachelor of arts degree from
the University of Virginia.
Welcome, Secretary Campbell. Welcome, Administrator Biswal.
Let us start first with Secretary Campbell.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KURT CAMPBELL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And just
to save time, I know we have so much interest here, I would
like to ask that my full statement be submitted for the record
and then we can proceed accordingly.
Mr. Manzullo. Without objection, the statements of both
witnesses, of all the witnesses, will be submitted for the
record.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much. And I just want to say
if I may at the outset, a word of thanks to all of you for some
specific issues. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we were both in New
Zealand during the earthquake, and working with you in the
aftermath of that I want to tell you, we were very proud that
the United States has been by far and away the largest
contributor to the rebuilding of the devastated city of
Christchurch, and you played an instrumental role in that. I
want to thank you.
Congressman Faleomavaega has been an ardent supporter of
renewed engagement in the Pacific. Too often when we say Asia
Pacific, P is the small P, and he has been a constant reminder
of our need to do more there, and I want to thank him for that,
for his encouragement and his support.
Congressman Royce, in particular, you have helped us so
much in our relationship with the Philippines. I am proud to
say, on Monday we will be hosting the first ever 2+2 with our
Filipino friends. We must do more with our allies in the
Pacific, and you have been a consistent reminder of that.
Congressman Crowley, you have been our conscience on so
much of what we have done in Asia, and I appreciate your
support and your reminder not to forget about those that are
still struggling mightily in Asia and particularly in Burma.
And Congressman Rohrabacher, you have been our conscience
on security issues often, sometimes reminding us about stuff
that goes on that we must not turn our head away from. So for
all of you, we are grateful for your support in engagement on
the Asian Pacific region. I want to also underscore that there
is scarcely a word said by any of you that we would disagree
with.
So I just want to underscore that again the hallmark of our
policy in Burma has been two essential features. I would say
actually three. The first is that it has been bipartisan. And
we seek and I want to commit to you that we want to maintain
that bipartisan commitment and dialogue going forward.
Secondly, it is part of a partnership between the executive and
legislative branches. The legislative branch has really led the
way, has reminded us of the importance of Burma even when we
were focused on other things, and we have been very grateful
for that.
And then the third dimension is the need to consult and
coordinate closely with international friends. We spend an
enormous amount of time working with our friends in Europe, in
Asia, in Japan, in Australia and New Zealand, to ensure that we
are as well coordinated as possible in terms of our overall
approach. So overall, I think that what we heard just now from
you was balanced and careful.
And I just want to underscore that that is our overall
approach. I think Congressman Crowley did underscore that there
has been some overheated rhetoric. I hope that is not coming
from the administration. In fact, I think we have tried to be
clear from the beginning of an effort of dialogue in 2009, to
acknowledge areas of very deep disappointment. And in fact, for
about 2 years we were probably the first to say that we were
making absolutely no progress.
But in fact, over the course of the last several months we
have seen dramatic developments taking place inside the country
that no one would have imagined. Aung San Suu Kyi has been
elected, in albeit an imperfect election, to Parliament. Just a
few months ago she was under house arrest. We believe that
there is real significant progress underway inside the country,
but I want to quote what Secretary Clinton has said, ``We
believe that it is fragile and reversible. The future in Burma
is neither clear nor certain and therefore we need to carefully
calibrate our approach to encourage continued progress.''
I want to assure you that in every single meeting we have
both with officials in the country, with representatives from
ethnic groups and from civil society and all of our
interlocutors in Asia, in Europe and elsewhere that we do
acknowledge the changes that are taking place. But we also say
very clearly and firmly that much more needs to be done. These
are the first stages of what we hope will be a very long
journey, but much more needs to be done with unconditional
releases of political prisoners, much more work in terms of
advances of civil society, the legislative and legal frameworks
of a well functioning open society.
The relationship that Congressman Royce raised between
Burma and Noth Korea, we are seeking a full discontinuance of
that relationship. On the military side, countries are judged
by the company they keep and we think that is extremely
important going forward. And we are also determined to work
diplomatically in every area that is of continuing concern
between the United States and indeed the international
community and the country itself.
I believe what we have laid out is a very careful,
calibrated, step by step approach that rewards action for
action. And I just want to suggest that any steps that we take,
any easing will be done in very close consultation with
Congress, in close consultation within the U.S. Government
between the White House, the State Department, the Department
of Defense and particularly the Treasury Department, to ensure
that it is done carefully and responsibly, and we recognize
very clearly that there have to be provisions and capabilities
to be able to respond if there is a reversal or a stalling out.
That leverage is an essential component of our strategy, and
pressure will be needed in a number of circumstances going
forward.
So my own personal view is that this is indeed a welcome,
historic opening. I would disagree slightly with my friend,
Congressman Rohrabacher. I think it does have to do with what
the international community has done. I believe the solidarity
of friends in Europe, in the United States, not just in
governments but in groups that have persevered and kept
conscience with people inside the country, have made an
enormous difference and that needs to continue going forward.
And I just want to underscore, anyone who says that this is the
end of the game is not paying attention. We are at the very
beginning stages of a process that will demand intense American
engagement, no gauzy gaze and rose-colored glasses. A true
understanding that the steps that we take must be in the larger
pursuit of systemic reforms and progress for the people not the
cronies.
And I just want to commit to you that as we go forward we
will do everything possible to work with you to make sure that
we do this in consultation. And I also want to thank my friend
and colleague, Nisha Biswal. I cannot imagine a better person
to be working with this effort on. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell 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]
----------
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
Administrator Biswal?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NISHA BISWAL, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR ASIA, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT (USAID)
Ms. Biswal. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Faleomavaega, members of the committee. It is always a
pleasure, an honor and a thrill for me to testify before this
committee since I spent so much time sitting behind the members
in preparing for hearings in the past.
I do want to follow in the steps of my esteemed colleague,
Kurt Campbell, and just touch upon a few key priorities and
next steps on the USAID assistance program so that we may
preserve the balance of the time to answer questions and engage
in discussion.
USAID has a long history with Burma, and indeed the U.S.
relationship predates the establishment of USAID as the
assistance relationship began in 1950. But we have not had a
mission there since 1988 and the fateful events of that year.
In the meantime, we have been stalwart in our support for the
Burmese people through our humanitarian assistance programs
inside and outside of Burma as well as our support for
democracy, human rights, independent media and the like.
Since about 2010 we have maintained a $38 million program
of bilateral assistance through USAID, both along the Thai-
Burma border as well as inside Burma. The opportunity we have
today is an opportunity to, through the establishment of an
USAID mission, more directly engage with the people of Burma,
more directly support the reforms through support for the civil
society, and for reform-minded institutions to support efforts
for reconciliation and to engage more efficiently with other
donors as we move forward. That, first and foremost, is why we
want to establish that mission and that is our operating
procedure moving forward.
We hope to have by the fall of this year, the first U.S.
direct-hire mission director in country, and to have a fully
staffed mission by next summer. It will be a small presence but
it will enable us to engage and assess far more directly then
we have been able to heretofore.
Our priorities for assistance really are focused on
supporting political reform, for supporting civil society
institutions, which though informal and nascent have been very,
very resilient in meeting the urgent needs of the Burmese
people. We believe that those civil society institutions are
going to be critical for reform to really take root and to
penetrate across all levels of society particularly as we look
forward to 2015.
We also believe that the critical need on the government
side is to really have a greater technical capability and
understanding of democratic governance. Even for those who are
engaging aggressively on the path to reform, the greatest thing
that we hear from them is the lack of capacity that is
hindering institutions in Burma on the path forward, whether
that is leaders of Parliament, whether that is ministries or
the elections commission, and the like.
And finally, as I noted, ethnic reconciliation is a major,
major area of importance and of concern. The path to
development cannot go far until and unless the needs and
conditions of the ethnic minorities are addressed. And we are
working with other donors to see what we can do to support
national reconciliation, but in the meantime, also maintain our
support for the urgent needs of those vulnerable populations
that are most affected by ongoing conflicts.
And finally, I would just like to note that Congress has
had an important role, as Secretary Campbell noted, in U.S.
policy toward Burma. USAID has worked very, very closely with
Congress on how we move forward, and I want to commit to you
that it is our intention to continue to do that.
I want to thank you very much for this opportunity and open
up now to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Biswal 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]
----------
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you for your testimony. Let us talk
about the sanctions, the sanctions that have been lifted and
the sanctions that may be lifted, and what are the next steps
on lifting those sanctions and include a timeline, and how to
keep pressure on Burma if we look to sanctions.
Do you want to go first, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much, Congressman. I can give
you a general answer to your very good question. Some of the
particulars and specifics I would urge in another setting to
talk with our colleagues in OFAC and Treasury that are
responsible for the details.
I would simply say that there is no intention to ``lift
sanctions.'' I think in certain prescribed areas we will seek
to ease sanctions by using executive authorities, but we would
intend to do that in close consultation with key players on
Capitol Hill including this body. I think our desire is to
focus on those areas, and how we do this precisely obviously
will be to maintain a clear criteria in terms of entities and
individuals that are precluded from interactions because of
prior associations. We will continue to enforce those
prohibitions. We will update the list as necessary, and we will
also work in areas that we think have the greatest potential to
lift the lives of the people inside the country.
We recognize fully that to date the reforms to the extent
that they have taken effect have been primarily in urban areas
and in fact Burman areas, and that other ethnic areas in fact,
have told us quite clearly that they see very little change on
the ground. So we need to ensure that that process extends into
the country as a whole. And we are troubled by very clear and,
we believe, reliable reports of continuing attacks and
atrocities that are completely antithetical to the overall
effort that we are seeking to achieve inside the country.
I want to say that this will be a protracted process almost
invariably because first of all, the complexities of the
sanctions involved, the desire that we have to ensure that we
do this in consultation with colleagues on Capitol Hill, and
also to do this the right way. The real challenge, I think,
going forward right now is the potential for a small country
with very little infrastructure to be absolutely overwhelmed by
outside engagement. And so we want to do this in a careful way.
We do believe that American firms have the appropriate kind
of corporate governance and the right values to promote better
and more responsible actions inside the country, and we will
seek to do this in a manner that the kinds of sanctions easing
that we have in mind will actually assist reforms rather than
undermine them.
Mr. Manzullo. Your response to that?
Ms. Biswal. I think that Secretary Campbell covered the
waterfront on this. I would note that one of the actions that
we have taken more immediately is to ease the restrictions on
nonprofit organizations so that they may engage more robustly
in supporting the Burmese people.
Mr. Campbell. I would say, and I am sorry. I apologize,
Congressman, I didn't mention this. We have taken a couple of
steps that we think are important. We are seeking to ease
travel restrictions on certain officials. So we want to be able
to invite key players inside the government like the Foreign
Minister, the Health Minister was just here, to come to
Washington for consultations to engage with us on areas where
we think more work is necessary and where we can support them
going forward.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you. Congressman Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps we are
dealing with semantics, Mr. Secretary, but I just wanted to
make sure what we are, if we make reference to the colonial
legacy of the British toward Myanmar, we call it Burma. But
every country that I know among the ASEAN countries always make
reference to this country as Myanmar and not Burma. What is the
official designation by the administration? Are we going to
call it Burma and remind the world community of its British
colonial legacy or are we going to call it Myanmar? But what is
the correct designation of this country?
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Congressman. You always have the
questions that are based in the deep knowledge of the
circumstances. It is the practice of the U.S. Government and
one other government currently, to use the official term of
Burma as the reference to the country. As you suggest, most
countries in the world, ASEAN, Asia, many countries in Europe
and almost all newspapers and other official sites use the term
Myanmar. And indeed, even inside the country strong supporters
of the NLD, when writing the country down use the term Myanmar
as a whole.
I would simply say that is our policy, and we have had
deliberations with key stakeholders inside the country and
elsewhere, and I think it will be a subject of discussions
going forward.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I recall Congressman Royce had raised the
point that I wanted to ask you also, Mr. Secretary. The shift
by the current administration or the Government of Myanmar
toward these reforms like allowing Aung San Suu Kyi to
participate in the election to bring about more democratic
reforms. Of course a lot of pundits have also said that the
current government kind of wants to play both sides, not
necessarily in the pockets of the Chinese but try to also work
with the Western, our side of the fence so to speak, or is it
because it is just time to change?
My understanding historically is that the reason for the
presence of the military is because you had five, seven or
eight states that are constantly killing each other from its
history. There was never a united Myanmar so to speak, and
apparently the only party that really was able to finally put
everybody together was the military. Please correct if I am
wrong on this historical.
And I always say with fond memory, in the early '60s as a
high school student I always remember the name U Thant as the
former secretary general of the United Nations, coming from
Myanmar. And then all of a sudden we just kind of not hear
anymore about--but I really would appreciate for the record,
historically why we ended up with the military taking control?
It is my understanding that factions among the seven provinces
for states, or eight or nine were constantly killing each
other, a form of anarchy if you will, and correct me if I am
wrong on this.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Congressman. I probably would more
closely associate myself with the reference that the chairman
made. That this is a country with a long and tragic history. I
also believe that the true path to reconciliation will require
ethnic reconciliation. That there have been important steps
that have been taken in urban settings, but ultimately how
power, how authority is dealt with in ethnic areas, how these
long running, some of them over half a century, conflicts are
resolved will be key to the country's future.
I have to say I do believe the government has attempted to
take steps in a certain number of situations, ethnic situations
to try to deal directly with the problems which are entrenched
and long standing, and we have seen some progress. But there is
also areas where we have seen continuing violence that is
reprehensible and must be addressed going forward.
To your earlier question about why this leadership has
decided to reach out and also take steps inside the country,
and this refers back to the excellent point that Congressman
Royce and Congressman Rohrabacher raised. And the truth is one
can never know fundamentally what motivates a government or a
people to do things. My sense is that it is often a complex
number of reasons why formal or informal decisions are taken.
I will say this that it is well known and understood in
Asia that 50 years ago, the richest, the most productive, the
country with the most impressive potential future in Asia was
Burma, and today it is probably, if not the most backward,
among the most backward not just in Asia but globally. I
believe that some of the leaders have had more experience
traveling in ASEAN, traveling in Asia, and they have seen how
far their government and their country has fallen behind. And I
also am of a view that there are people inside the government,
the current government that are people of courage and of
goodwill that want to do what they can to support their people
and their country.
And so I think a big motivation is an attempt to bring this
country into the 21st century and to move away from a history
that has been clouded by violence, repression and a lack of
opportunity. And I think if the United States can help play a
role along that path we will be historically over time, I
think, rewarded.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I wish to just say in closing, Mr.
Chairman, I am sorry, but I would also like to give credit to
the members of the ASEAN association for having a lot of
influence on the leaders of Myanmar to do what they are doing
now. Thank you.
Mr. Manzullo. Congressman Royce?
Mr. Royce. I think one of the realities though in terms of
what we are talking about is the military government there. You
have a government with 60 percent of the GDP ends up in the
hands of the government, and Burma as we think about its
history as we think about the education system there and how
impressive that was. And now you have, what, 2 or 3 percent of
the GDP going for education. You have literally had an
implosion within the society of other, of anything related to
civil society or private ownership or related to institutions
like education in which what has happened in place of it is
this enormous transfer of resources into one sector of the
society which then can hand out franchises to the officer corps
or whatever. But that in fact, is what has happened in the last
few generations and the last generation.
So one of the questions I wanted to ask is given the small
number of percentage of seats that were in play here, is this
something that was done to placate the international community?
Would circumstances really have been different if more was
politically at stake in terms of a real presence there in the
Parliament? Just to get your thoughts on that.
And then the other thing, Mr. Secretary, that I wanted to
ask about, there are these talks about a third test in North
Korea being imminent, and yet the President of Burma, Thein
Sein, had this to say. He reiterated his support for Kim Jong-
un in saying, ``I am convinced that the friendship and close
cooperation between Myanmar and DPRK will continue to
develop.'' This is the type of message you get out of some
pretty odd actors on the world stage who have been based in
North Korea and it puts Burma in company, in league with some
characters that don't exactly comply with international norms
of behavior. And I was just going to ask you what else you
could tell us about that relationship.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you again, Congressman Royce. Just to
your first observations about the plundering that has taken
place inside the country. I would add just to point to what you
said, which is it has not just enriched some of the cronies,
but frankly we think some of the international deals that have
been struck, frankly, have robbed Burma of its natural
heritage. And we would like to see a set of internal checks and
balances and frankly, supported by the international financial
institutions and the multilateral development banks to ensure
that the development that takes place going forward serves the
interests of the people of the country, and we think that is an
extraordinarily important dimension going forward. And by the
way, we will only be able to effect that if we are more in the
game. So I believe that is also one of the reasons why a
certain careful, calibrated engagement is in our best
interests.
I also suggest that I think that what will be critical in
any sanctions easing will be to underscore publicly and in all
our circumstances that those that have been associated
particularly with past misdeeds will be prohibited from
economic activities and other kinds of engagements financially
and the like with the United States and our partners. And we
worked very closely to ensure that these various steps are
going to be adopted, we believe, among many of the countries in
Europe and elsewhere that will go forward with engagement.
On your last point, I don't really have much to say beyond
full agreement with what you said about North Korea. And I just
want to say publicly what we have said privately, to China, to
South Korea, to every country in Asia who has focused on their
engagement strategy with Burma that a limiting factor in our
engagement will be the future direction of their military
relationship with the DPRK. And that if they continue to take
steps that are antithetical to U.N. Security Council
resolutions it will put a break on the kind of engagement that
we seek between their two countries.
And I can't say it anymore directly that countries are
judged by the company they keep. And so we fully agree,
Congressman Royce, with your concerns in this regard.
Mr. Royce. Yes, if I could just end with one point, Mr.
Chairman. Just shifting countries for a minute, I want to thank
you for your good work, the progress we are making with an old
ally with the Philippines. One area of concern though is the
sale of public lands especially when Filipino Americans are
hurt. And I had a chance to talk to you a little bit about this
prior to the meeting, but I look forward to working with you on
it and I thank you again, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Campbell. I would like to commit publicly that we will
work with you on this issue and raise it with our Philippine
colleagues and friends.
Mr. Royce. Thank you.
Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Crowley?
Mr. Crowley. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. There are a
number of meetings that took place in the short period, the 2
days that I spent in Burma. In one meeting, I think, one of the
most extraordinary women I have ever had the opportunity to
meet is Aung San Suu Kyi. But also prior to that meeting, a
meeting that I had with the families of prisoners of
conscience, many of whom were released the day I was leaving
Burma, and many of those families reunited.
I just would like to get a sense from you, something I just
want to say about those families momentarily. The absence of
revenge was palpable. It was so evident that these people, the
deprivation they had been through, their families, the torture.
Being in prison in Burma is probably one of the worst places in
the world to be incarcerated, and yet the total absence of
revenge that I sensed from these families and from the
prisoners as well.
Do we have a sense of how many prisoners are still
incarcerated in Burma who are prisoners of political
conscience? And what is the administration doing to secure
their release, and is the U.N. doing anything to secure their
release with the soon-to-be visit by the Secretary General?
Mr. Campbell. Thank you. I think I can address that
question, Congressman. Can I just say, my own personal
observation, I noted the same thing. And I have had a number of
meetings with family members and those that have recently been
released. I took away something else, which was just
incredible. I have never met a group of people that had that
strength of mind and appeared ready to play a role in as they
returned to society.
And one of the things that I had asked Congress to look at
perhaps working with USAID or some other institutions, it is
very clear that it is challenging for some of these hundreds of
people that are returning back into public life to find roles
in society. Some have been outside of, behind bars or
imprisoned for decades. And I think we need to do more to
support these people to help them, and we have been working
with private foundations and the like. But frankly, your
attention to this, your support to this makes a huge
difference. So what you could do to help along those lines
would be terrific.
One of our efforts, we believe a very large percentage of
the most high profile prisoners have been released, not all of
them unconditionally, a point that we make in every single
meeting with authorities that we seek those unconditional
releases. We are beginning a bilateral dialogue, a multilateral
dialogue, and we have worked with the United Nations to have a
sense of what number and what kind of prisoners of conscience
remain in prison. I would hate to give you an exact number
because I don't think we know, but we will not rest until we
achieve a full and accountable release of all the political
prisoners inside the country.
Mr. Crowley. Thank you, Ambassador. Ms. Biswal, just on
terms of USAID and the conflict areas of the Kachin state as
well as the northern Shan state, it is clearly a humanitarian
crisis. There are over 75,000 displaced civilians and they are
in desperate need of assistance and help.
What is USAID providing in terms of assistance to these
refugees, and will USAID begin to address the life and death
needs of the displaced Kachin as well?
Ms. Biswal. Thank you very much, Mr. Crowley. And before I
answer your question I just also wanted to note that I had the
opportunity a few weeks ago to visit Burma and to meet both
with Aung San Suu Kyi and with many of the '88 generation
political prisoners who have been released. And it is
remarkable that not only do we have an extraordinary leader in
Daw Suu, but that there are so many extraordinary individuals
that give cause for optimism for that country's future.
With respect to what we are doing and will continue to do,
humanitarian needs inside Burma, along the borders, in the
ethnic areas and such, we have provided over the years
assistance through the Thai-Burma border consortium to refugees
and displaced in that Thai-Burma border, we have been seeking
to gain access into the Kachin areas for our assessment teams
so that we can try to not only get a better handle on the
humanitarian needs but also the institutions that may be able
to partner with us in supporting and addressing some of those
needs.
The Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees
and Migration did recently put forward assistance through the
UNHCR specifically for Kachin, and UNHCR is right now also
engaging in partnerships with some of the local institutions to
try to get aid into the Kachin area. It has been difficult and
we continue to press that in all of our conversations with the
government, and we continue to meet very aggressively with the
humanitarian community to see how we can expand access and
assistance into that area.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you. Congressman Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for letting me sit in today. I am not a member of
this subcommittee although I have been active on many of the
issues we have been talking about.
Let me just start with a couple housekeeping chores here in
terms of wording. When I talk about engagement, I have always
personally been engaged with the people and expect our
Government to be engaged with the people of Burma and other
repressed peoples. That is where engagement belongs. For
example, we did not engage the Soviet Union by giving it most
favored nation status, but we engaged with China and that
provided most favored nation status, and where did that
engagement get us? There has been no liberalization in China
whatsoever. They are still the world's worst human rights
abuser. And in the Soviet Union, it has disappeared and they
have gone through massive reform.
I also have sat through decades of the business community
lobbying this Congress to try to get us to lift the economic
sanctions when the repression was at its worst in Burma. And
there was no reform, the business community wanted to make
money. So surprise, surprise, businessmen don't care about
human rights. They want to make money. Well, let us recognize
that. An engagement with those businessmen making money has
nothing to do with making it a freer society and, in fact, I
argue just the opposite. We should not be having free trade
with dictatorships. Free trade between free people is
wonderful. Free trade with dictatorships strengthens the
dictatorship.
Furthermore, I would like to respectfully disagree with my
friend, Mr. Faleomavaega. The Burmese junta did not take over
to stop killing and they did not have some benevolent native in
mind. They have killed and murdered more people than the ethnic
groups were killing each other. And yes, there was a great deal
of conflict that went on in that country, but nowhere near the
organized slaughter that has taken place by the Burmese
dictatorship which was the worst in the world.
When they started calling Burma, Myanmar, was after 1988
when the junta assumed total control of that society after they
reneged on agreeing with free elections. That is when the word
Myanmar, so that they could hide the fact that people don't
even know what they are, who is being criticized when you use
the word Myanmar. Most of the people over there didn't even
know what that meant. That is why the word has changed. And now
that we are going toward reform, I think it is a good idea we
start calling them Myanmar. Let us start rewarding them and let
us start engaging with them and really engaging with them, but
let us do so in a way that if they start going backwards that
there is a price to pay.
I would suggest, and I know this is another outrageous
Rohrabacher suggestion, let us give amnesty to all of them no
matter what crimes they have committed against their people.
Let us give amnesty and just say blanket amnesty everybody. But
those people who continue to commit crimes after this lose that
amnesty. That we will say, if you are going to start operating
as we do in a decent society and a democratic, we are with you.
We don't care what they say you did in the last 10 years. But
if you start getting engaged again in slaughtering the people
and the tribal groups out in the Kachins or the Kayins or
whatever, that amnesty is going to be withdrawn. Let us make
sure there is a penalty to go the wrong way and let us give
them all the incentive to go the right way.
And again, I think we should be celebrating. This is a
tremendous breakthrough. This is a victory for the honorable
people and the idealists of Myanmar, and it is also I might
add, it is a defeat for China and it should be taken that way.
This is a major country that was being given to the Chinese.
They were raping, the Chinese were raping the natural resources
of that country in exchange for arming the junta that oppressed
the people. They have broken away from that cycle. That is a
magnificent achievement for humankind.
And maybe either of you would like to comment on that
diatribe or whatever it was.
Mr. Campbell. I think I will just reflect on it for awhile.
Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. He doesn't want to engage with me.
Mr. Crowley. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman move forward?
Mr. Manzullo. Certainly.
Mr. Crowley. He should refrain from self-diagnosis. I don't
think he is an M.D. or a doctor or a psychiatrist, so it is
really----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you for your testimony, Secretary
Campbell and Administrator Biswal. We appreciate you coming
here this afternoon. We can prepare for the second panel, thank
you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Manzullo. Okay, our second panel is former Congressman
Tom Andrews from the great state of Maine. He is president and
CEO of United to End Genocide. He most recently served as the
national director of Win Without War, a coalition of 40
national organizations promoting a more progressive national
security strategy that calls for prudent use of military
engagement. He has worked toward democracy and human rights
throughout the world. He has worked closely with the National
Coalition of Government of the Union of Burma facilitating the
creation of the European Burma Network, and served as general
secretary of the Nobel Peace Laureate Campaign for Aung San Suu
Kyi.
Tom was elected to the Maine House of Representatives in
1982, the Maine Senate in 1984, and the U.S. House of
Representatives in 1990. He recently served as an observer in
the elections in Burma. Glad to have you here, Congressman.
Our next witness is Mr. Aung Din, who 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 president 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 former President U Nu during the peak of
the 1988 pro-democracy uprising in September.
Amnesty International adopted Mr. Din as a prisoner of
conscience in 1989, and its chapters worldwide campaigned for
his release. In 2003, he co-founded the Washington, DC-based
U.S. Campaign for Burma, an umbrella group of Burmese
dissidents in exile and American activists.
Mr. Aung Din, good to see you here.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM ANDREWS, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
UNITED TO END GENOCIDE (FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, D-ME)
Mr. Andrews. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having
this hearing at this extraordinarily important time for Burma
and this part of the world, and for inviting me to serve as a
witness today. You are right, I did serve in this body. As a
matter of fact, I was elected to the U.S. House of
Representatives the same year that Aung San Suu Kyi and the
National League for Democracy won 92 percent of the seats in
the Parliament. I went on to Congress, she went to prison.
And certainly there is a lot to celebrate in the fact that
Aung San Suu Kyi has gone from a prison cell to house arrest to
being elected to the Burmese Parliament. But reforms that
President Thein Sein has announced should indeed be recognized,
but we should also recognize that Burma, the progress that we
have seen in Burma can easily be reversed and that we need to
be prudent and clear-eyed because of the fact that a great deal
in this country has not changed.
The United States and this subcommittee has played a key
role in generating and sustaining the international pressure
that has been instrumental in making this progress possible,
but to abandon this leverage prematurely would be to jeopardize
this positive movement and condemn those who suffer and
continue to suffer in Burma to more of the same.
While the world was watching and celebrating Aung San Suu
Kyi's election, I spent that day, election day in Burma, on the
front lines of the brutality at the hands of this regime,
Kachin state. A place the Burmese Government did not want me to
see and does not want you to know about. A place where 75,000
men, women and children have been forced to flee their homes
because of attacks by the Burmese military. I would like to
share with you what I saw.
I visited the town of Laiza and Mai Ja Yang and the
surrounding areas where despite President Thein Sein's
assurances to the country in his speech on December 10th,
Burmese troops, weapons and violence is, in fact, escalating. I
spoke with dozens and dozens of people who were literally
running for their lives having abandoned their homes and their
villages. I heard stories of killing, forced disappearance and
death from disease. The day after the election I asked an NGO
worker in Kachin state, what was the news from Rangoon, and she
said, frankly, I could care less. For the people of Kachin, the
election and the declaration of reform by this government mean
absolutely nothing.
On election day I stood just beyond the range of Burmese
military mortar fire north of Laiza, a place that had been
attacked as recently as the day before. We could see the
Burmese troops positioned on a hill across the valley. They had
recently more than tripled their troop presence. Hundreds of
soldiers occupied the hill and valley below, reinforcements had
filled in from behind. Between where I stood and these troops
was literally a gold mine. Mining operations had been suspended
because of the fighting.
As we were getting ready to leave a pickup truck came by
with two elderly women in the back, Yi Ma Sa and Waw Ma Lay,
told us they had just fled their village. The Burmese soldiers
had destroyed their crops and shot their livestock. Fearing for
their lives, they hid in the jungle the previous night,
returned in the early morning hours to their village to grab
what they could and now they were forced and were on their way
to join tens of thousands already displaced.
We met La Hpay Nang Bauk who spoke to us with a toddler
afoot and an infant on her back. Her photo I brought to show to
the committee. Her husband, a Baptist minister, had attempted
to return to her village for supplies. He was captured by the
Burmese military and had been missing for a month. She is now
taking care of seven children while desperately trying to
uncover news about her husband. Similar stories, Mr. Chairman,
were all too common.
Others tell us about an elderly man who had been working in
a rice paddy when then Burmese military came upon him and shot
him, killed him. We heard about a nursing mother who had been
stabbed and left to die in the jungle, her child forced to
spend a cold night crying next to her body. We met a farmer who
had been harvesting corn with his wife and father-in-law when
Burmese soldiers entered their field, ordered them to carry
their corn to a military encampment. They tried to escape the
next morning. His wife was caught and he has not heard word
about her since.
One of the most heartbreaking memories of my time in Kachin
state happened 2 days after the election. I arrived in Bum Ring
Zup camp in Mai Ja Yang. An 11-month-old baby, a little boy
named Myu Jat Aung, had died the day before. I was invited to
attend his funeral ceremony as an honored guest. He had reached
the safety of the displaced persons camp after his family had
escaped their village. But living in poor conditions with
little access to medical treatment, a bout of diarrhea had
become a death sentence. The family told us that we had been
sent by God to see them so that the world would know.
The Burmese Army as you know, Mr. Chairman, has a long and
brutal history of targeting ethnic minorities. They do it
through direct violence, rape and killing but also indirectly
by destroying crops, livestock and preventing international
humanitarian access. The stories we heard while on the ground
in Kachin state indicate a clear targeting of civilians that
shows no sign whatsoever of abating. Despite multiple public
announcements from President Thein Sein in December ordering
the Army to cease offensive attacks in Kachin state, Mr.
Chairman, precisely the opposite is occurring.
In reviewing U.S. policy toward Burma, I hope that this
committee and our nation bears three basic things in mind.
Number one, everything that the Burmese Government has done
positively can be undone. The real questions about who is
actually in control of the government and what real power the
President might have must be asked. This was illustrated when
the Burmese Army escalated its forces in Kachin state after
President Thein Sein's announcement.
Secondly, lifting sanctions on the extractive resource
sectors of this economy precisely in the areas that we visited
could have very negative impacts on vulnerable populations if
those living in ethnic minority areas are not protected. And
finally, economic pressure has helped to push forward progress
in Burma. Giving away rewards too quickly in exchange for too
little, leave the United States and the international community
without leverage.
For the people we met in Kachin state, trapped between
hydroelectric projects, a new oil and natural gas pipeline, and
situated along major trade routes to China, their economic
advantages have become their misfortune.
Mr. Chairman, my written testimony outlines specifics that
I believe the United States should be looking at and insisting
upon before gradual, deliberate, reversible removal of
sanctions would be allowed to proceed. But first and foremost
of those, we should be insisting that there be demonstrated
progress and, in fact, an end to the gross violations of human
rights including an end to attacks on civilians of all regions
and meaningful access for international human rights monitors
everywhere in this country.
Much as we hope that the recent progress toward democracy
in Burma will mark a turning point, nothing positive will last
until the Burmese military stops committing atrocities and a
civilian government exists that has the right and the capacity
to hold it accountable, just the opposite is true.
Mr. Chairman, Congress should renew the Burmese Freedom and
Democracy Act, and urge the administration to take a measured
approach on incentives. It is imperative that the United States
Government engage with the legitimate representatives of each
ethnic nationality and support redress of their long-standing
and unresolved concerns. And given the reality in Burma that I
saw, the United States cannot forget our commitment to cross-
border humanitarian assistance. The more than 0.5 million
internally displaced people living in border areas depend on
these aid networks for their very survival.
I understand the desire, Mr. Chairman, to declare Burma a
success story. I have been working for two decades to celebrate
that achievement. But success is not marked by removing
sanctions. It is marked by lasting and meaningful change for
the people of Burma who have endured endless suffering under a
brutal military regime. We must choose our steps wisely. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews 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]
----------
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
Mr. Din?
STATEMENT OF MR. AUNG DIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CO-FOUNDER,
U.S. CAMPAIGN FOR BURMA
Mr. Din. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the
subcommittees, I really appreciate that the committee hold
hearing about Burma at a very good time. And I also want to
just state my appreciation to the United States Congress for
its consistent interest and support for the Burmese democracy
movement. I already submitted my written testimony for the
record and I will summarize my testimony here.
The historic by-elections in Burma were held on April 1st,
2012. And democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her party,
the National League for Democracy, won 43 seats out of 44 they
had contested. And now governments around the world are
congratulating Aung San Suu Kyi for her landslide victory. But
in my opinion, Burmese Government led by President Thein Sein
is the real winner of the elections.
Winning of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her party about 7
percent of seats in the Parliament will not constitute a major
threat to the Burmese regime as they still hold 80 percent of
seats in the Parliament and the military still has a veto power
to kill any proposed legal change. However, what they have
achieved from the by-elections is enormous. The international
community recognized their political system as all party-
inclusive and legitimate and many international leaders see
them as true reformers.
The pressure and sanctions imposed by the United States,
Australia, Canada and EU are being significantly lifted or
suspended and the Japanese Government has announced that it
will write off $3.7 billion debt and plans to resume
development assistance. Engagement and appeasement will
flourish further. More investment and more tourists will come
in.
Furthermore, this election effectively eradicates the long-
standing objective and expectation of Burma's democracy
movement and ethnic nationalities. It is the realization of a
meaningful and time-bound political dialogue between the
military, democracy forces led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and
ethnic representatives that would lead to the real
democratization and sustainable national reconciliation. Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi has moved herself into the military-controlled
political system with expectation that she can work together
with former and current generals to make the country democratic
and prosperous, and especially to work for the rule of law,
internal peace and amendment to the undemocratic 2008
Constitution. However, as we can see from the current stand-off
between the regime and the NLD over the language of the
Parliamentary oath, the magnitude and depth of obstacles she
will face in the Parliament are extremely huge.
So this election victory is just the beginning of new
challenges for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. There is a risk of course
that she may be condemned, confined and co-opted in the
regime's political system without achieving anything. Or she
may be able to crack the door wider and recruit more and more
members of the USDP and the military to join in the alliance of
the agents of reform. There are so many uncertainties lying
ahead.
Two days before the by-election when a journalist asked her
how she would rate the current state of changes toward
democracy in the country on a scale of one to ten, Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi said, we are ``on the way to 1.'' She knows clearly
that there is still a long way to go. But the governments
around the world including the United States, are now rushing
to reward the regime with the excuse of encouraging the
reformers.
I support the measures announced by Secretary Clinton on
April 4th, 2012, except targeted easing of investment and the
financial services. I believe such easing of major sanctions
will only help cronies, the military and families of
authorities as they have power, resources, connections and
institutions to profit from such opportunities. That is why I
would like to make the following recommendations and request
for the Congress to balance the fast track action of the
administration.
Number one, before the removal of any financial sanctions
takes place, the SDN, Specially Designated Nationals list on
Burma, managed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, must be
updated to include more cronies and hardliners. This list
should be a must-check reference for U.S. companies that will
do business in Burma.
And number two, the process of selecting targets to be
eased for investment and financial services should take
sufficient time and should be made through broader consultation
with the human rights community in the United States and key
stakeholders inside Burma, especially ethnic nationalities.
Number three, the implementation of targeted easing of bans
on investment and financial service should wait until we see
clearly how National League for Democracy and Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi are treated by the USDP and the military in the Parliament
and establishment of a nationwide ceasefire especially in
Kachin state.
And number four, binding requirements or a compulsory
framework for responsible business conduct should be imposed
for any U.S. business that will invest in Burma.
And number five, United States must pressure the Burmese
regime to allow former political prisoners to obtain passports
so they can make trips abroad in response to the United States
easing of visa restrictions on Burmese officials. And U.S. also
must pressure the Burmese regime to allow members of the
Burmese civil society to form and operate nonprofit
organizations freely, in response to the U.S. granting
permission to the U.S. organizations to work in nonprofit
sectors in Burma.
And United States also must pressure the Burmese regime to
release all remaining political prisoners unconditionally, lift
all restrictions imposed upon all former political prisoners,
and allow former political prisoners to go back to schools or
resume their professions such as legal representation, teaching
or medical practice, et cetera.
And United States now planning to establish official USAID
office in Burma and support a UNDP country program, U.S. must
pressure the regime to allow international organizations to
have unhindered access to the areas affected by disaster or
armed conflict.
And U.S. must remind and keep reminding to the Burmese
regime that their full cooperation with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
and democratic MPs in the Parliament and achieving negotiated
political settlement with ethnic nationalities through a
meaningful political dialogue outside the Parliament are the
sole factors to justify fully lifting of sanctions. And again
United States Congress must renew import restrictions contained
in Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 for Burma. And
thank you.
[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]
----------
Mr. Manzullo. Congressman Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
our colleague, Congressman Andrews, for taking the time to come
and testify before our subcommittee. And I certainly want to
commend you, Tom, for all the work that you have done in the
areas of human rights, and especially dealing with, I don't
know whether to call it Burma or Myanmar, and I am getting a
little mixed up myself here now.
Tom, with all that you have said, it sounds like the only
reason why we are giving this step now toward allowing or
working, having a better, closer relationship with Myanmar is
because of Aung San Suu Kyi's elections. I mean with all the
atrocities and the things that you have said, it seems like
lifting the sanctions cannot be justified with what you have
just shared with us.
So am I catching the wrong wind here? Because not only
that, we said oh, let us be cautious. It sounds like let us not
even do it. If we are going to really honor the meaning and why
we put sanctions against countries that commit military coups,
then I have another series of concerns about this whole thing
about sanctions where we have given the President the authority
to waive the sanctions. And a costly example of this is
Pakistan. For 8 years a military coup takes place and because
of the nuclear issues, oh no, we have got to deal with Masharif
in a very different way despite all the problems that we have
dealt with.
But I am concerned that what you are sharing with us is
that it seems like Myanmar really has not changed at all when
it comes to atrocities and the kind of killings that continue
to go on in Myanmar. Can you shed some light on this? Am I
wrong on what I am hearing from you?
Mr. Andrews Congressman, you are not wrong. I think
certainly from my experience at Kachin state as I mentioned in
my testimony, they have no idea what anyone is talking about
when it comes to reform and that things are going to get
better. And as they see the escalation of troops and weaponry
and violence, they have every reason to feel that way.
I think that what is important is number one, that we do
recognize the progress that has been made in Burma. I have met
with Aung San Suu Kyi long before she was allowed to run for
office. I have spent time in Burma at the time when the NLD was
just barely able to exist at all.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am not taking anything away from the
tremendous sacrifice and demonstration of her leadership and
what she has done, I am talking about Aung San Suu Kyi. But it
seems that our whole international media and everything in this
statement is focused, it is just Aung San Suu Kyi, but beyond
that you are telling us it really hasn't changed that much. We
know that winning 44 out of 45 seats is an achievement in that
direction but we are only talking about one-sixth of the entire
parliamentary system that they have.
And so who are we really kidding, other than to commend
Aung San Suu Kyi for the sacrifices for what, 10, 15 years now
that she has been under house arrest? I get the impression that
we seem to be having a double standard here. If we were really
serious about sanctions then let us do it. But the way we are
saying well, let us do it halfway like giving a half of a loaf
of bread or a third of a bread or whatever, I am not getting a
straight answer in terms of, even from Secretary Campbell and
all the administration's efforts that have been made. Now we
are having diplomatic relations, but in the midst of what you
just shared with us it hasn't changed that much. So who are we
really kidding?
Mr. Andrews. Well, that is right, Mr. Chairman. Her party,
the NLD, ran the table on April 1st, on election day. She won
6.5 percent of the vote, but the military by Constitution is
guaranteed 25 percent of the seats in that Parliament and they
are guaranteed a veto over any changes the Parliament may want
to make to that Constitution. So in that respect nothing has
changed. And certainly respective of the people like we are
talking about today in Kachin state, nothing has changed. So
sanctions, I believe, need to remain in place and that only
when clear progress is demonstrated should we incrementally and
very, very prudently begin to make reversible changes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I had about 100 other questions I wanted
to ask, Mr. Chairman, but I am going to forego. Thank you, Tom
and Mr. Din. I am sorry I don't have the time to ask questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Din. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Manzullo. I find it interesting that the NLD party only
came into obtaining those seats which were previously held by
the ruling party because the members of the ruling party left
the government and the seats became available. I share Mr.
Faleomavaega's concern as to what really has happened here? I
mean at most, 7 percent of the seats were picked up and they
have not even been sworn in. There is a huge dispute over the
oath. Anybody want to comment on the oath? I think it is
important.
Mr. Din. First, I would like to respond something about our
immediate concern. You are right, Mr. Chair. The international
policymakers, the international media, there has been much
attention on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, but there has not been much
attention on very big immediate issue in the country about what
is happening among ethnic nationalities. But their plight is
almost forgotten.
So when international policymakers tried to make a policy,
they only listened to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and they didn't try
to reach out to other leaderships. That is why when they made
the decision and when they do the implementation, something is
missing.
Then you will see the story in the news media, victory of
Aung San Suu Kyi, actually she only won 43 seats which is 6.5
percent of the total Parliamentarian seats. She couldn't make
any difference without convincing the military and the USDP
party to join with her. But apparently USDP said oh no, there
is no way to change the Constitution. And then military said
oh, our duty is to protect the Constitution.
Mr. Manzullo. So let me ask you both this question. It took
but 4 days for a huge amount of sanctions to be lifted, and I
refer to the testimony on, to your testimony, Mr. Din.
Mr. Din. Yes, that is correct, sir.
Mr. Manzullo. I think on Page 3, the USAID mission will
establish an official presence in Burma, restrictions imposed
upon the UNDP will be lifted, a U.S. Ambassador to Burma will
be nominated, selected Burmese officials and parliamentarians
will be invited to the U.S., private organizations in the U.S.
will be allowed to operate in Burma, and two major financial
sanctions, bans on investment and financial services will be
eased for selected targets. This is an extraordinary amount of
sanctions to be lifted in only 4 days.
Mr. Din. Yes, correct.
Mr. Manzullo. What is going on here?
Mr. Din. They are going too fast. We look at the measures
announced, and we have done too much. They are too fast because
they made the announcement only after the 3 days of the by-
election. Now we have done too much because instead of
beginning a process of selection of targets to ease investment
banking, financial services which we consider major sanctions.
So while we look at it as the situation on the ground, and
winning 6.5 percent of seats in Parliament.
Mr. Manzullo. But what about, and Congressman Andrews,
maybe you can answer this in addition to Mr. Din, what about
the ability of Americans and others to travel freely in Burma
and to go wherever they want and observe whatever they want?
Mr. Din. Well, some of them are granted visas, some of them
are not. Even many of those, their visas was denied so they
have to come to the State Department to get the United States
stamps. And not only American travelers but also the Burmese
people. Sometimes they are allowed to visit, sometimes they are
not allowed to visit. Even if they are allowed to visit the
country they have to sign a paper that they will not get
involved in the political situation and something like that.
Mr. Manzullo. Well, I am talking about the lifting of these
restrictions. Do you think that will include the ability to
have more people on the ground and the ability to make personal
``inspections,'' for lack of a better word?
Mr. Din. Well, some of this I agree that, okay, U.S. are
now going to allow the U.S. organizations to do the nonprofits,
et cetera, in Burma.
Mr. Manzullo. The NGOs, okay.
Mr. Din. No, this is a kind of encouragement for our civil
society in each of the country. I believe that we need to build
a strong and active civil society in Burma. The United State
organization go into the country and have that do in the
nonprofit centers, especially in education, health care and
social affair. That would be grateful. This is a good thing, I
think. We support it.
Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Crowley?
Mr. Crowley. Well, first of all, Congressman, I think if I
sprinkled a little cold water on the first panel, you are like
an iceberg coming in, an entire ocean. And I really don't
disagree per se, in terms of the two tracks that are going on
here. They have this diplomatic track that they are moving
forward on to kind of show the world that they are changing,
and at the same time it is similar to what the President said
in his speech that things are going to change in this region.
No longer will the state be attacking, they will only respond
if attacked and we know that they are actually taking their own
steps to attack the people of the Kachin region.
And I think in terms of my observation that from a
diplomatic point of view with even on the other track, which is
the diplomatic end or the public relations end, that their move
needs to be responded in a measured way. And I would even
suggest that diplomatic relations was a measured way. The
release of almost 1,000 prisoners and other good things that
were happening, which really doesn't materialize beyond, the
charge d'affaires we have there will now be called an
ambassador. So we kind of all know what the reality is.
I also think, in talking before about the hyperbole that
has been out there about the great changes within Burma, and
much of it has been driven by almost international competition,
like Secretary Clinton was there and it was unexpected that
trip would take place, and the visuals with Aung San Suu Kyi.
And by the way I think Aung San Suu Kyi was the first person to
say, it is not about me, and there is too much attention to
what is happening here. And I hope and I believe that when she
is in a position whether in Norway or in Great Britain or
eventually when she comes here to the Capitol to talk about, I
think, much of what both of you have mentioned today.
But I do think that whatever that movement is from our end
has to be measured and one in which we don't lift, and I think
it really is pressure because of what Britain says or what the
Prime Minister there says or what happens with the French or
the Germans and who else says in terms of their own interest in
wanting to get into Burma before anyone else. And it makes me a
little concerned about the focus and attention on the
competition between the United States and China in terms of
what the fallout or the benefits of the relationship or the
improved relationship will be.
But real quickly, I have just a couple seconds or a few
minutes left. In terms of the response, the measured response.
What do you think a measured response should be in terms of
sanctions? And what do you expect to see change in terms of
between now and the time in 2014 when Burma is scheduled to
chair the ASEAN conference? And we know the Secretary General
of the U.N. is heading to Burma next week. What type of message
should he deliver to the junta as well as to the world about
Burma?
Mr. Andrews. Well, thank you, Congressman. I have been
described as many, many things but never an iceberg. But I
appreciate that because frankly I think that we need to have a
balanced view of the reality in Burma, and the people of this
country and certainly Members of Congress who I have spoken
with, have not received a balanced view of what is going on in
Burma. So that is the purpose for this iceberg.
And secondly, it was because of the leadership of the
United States of America, leadership of both parties, that we
were able to exercise the kind of pressure and leverage that
has led to these challenges. I was on the front lines of the
battles in Europe to try to get the European Union to follow
the United States in creating the kind of economic leverage
that ultimately they did which ultimately paid dividends. So it
doesn't surprise me that because of great economic and
corporate pressure places like the European Union are falling
aside very quickly. But again we need U.S. leadership.
Finally I would say, measured and prudent, we have both
provided you and the committee with some very specific steps
that we would recommend that you urge the administration to
take and that Congress take that is simply based upon
maintaining the sanctions regime that we have in place, of
course recognize that having an ambassador there is a good
step. Having USAID go in and assess what needs to be done,
providing the means by which health care and education and
other NGOs that provide these services can begin to engage. All
of those are positive steps that recognize the progress that
has been made.
But in terms of sanctions, the real bite, I would say let
us keep them but let us remove them incrementally step by step
in reaction to specific, concrete, tangible progress and do it
with measured and reversible lifting of sanctions.
Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. I am still trying to figure out why the
military regime in Burma has taken the steps that it has.
Certainly more sanctions efforts were part of it. But they
always had an open door to Beijing. What is it that they
desperately need from the West that they were unable to get
from China?
Mr. Din. If you ask such a question to many other peoples I
believe you will have a lot of different answers. So for me----
Mr. Sherman. So I shouldn't feel bad about being confused
about the matter. Go ahead.
Mr. Din. Yes, for me I would like to recall the history.
General Ne Win took over power in 1962, so when military took
over power he set up a political party called Burma Socialist
Programme Party. He knew that he could not run the country and
with a military government so he set up a political party and
then he draw the Constitution which granted the, which is a
single-party dictatorship.
So he took more than 12 years to finish that Constitution,
and in 1973 this one-party system conditions were approved, and
then 1974 he hold the first one-party system election, and then
let his party, Burma Socialist Programme Party became the
ruling party because there is only one party. So my point is
that----
Mr. Sherman. Perhaps you going back to 1962 may be a little
bit more of an answer.
Mr. Din. No, that is why, I mean, their system, they built
the political platform for them, so they hold the power. Once
they finish the political platform, they allow the people, they
ask the opposition members to join in their political system by
offering incentives or general amnesty or something like that.
So when people choose to join in their political system, they
would be awarded and they would quote it as kind of the
position here.
Mr. Sherman. I also want to hear from Tom on this. What do
they hope to get from the West that they couldn't get from
China?
Mr. Andrews. Well, Mr. Chairman, I agree with Aung Din that
there are many responses to this, and reading the tea leaves of
this regime is a very difficult thing to do. But I think in a
word, pressure, the sustained pressure by the United States and
the West made this possible to the limitation----
Mr. Sherman. What were the pressure points? What did they
say, oh, this sanction is hurting us. We can't buy this from
the United States. We can't get this technical expertise from
Europe. What was it that they couldn't get from China that they
hoped to get from us?
Mr. Andrews. There is great limitations they discovered to
being totally dependent as they were on China, both in terms of
market, both in terms of the kinds of conditions that those
investments being made on the country meant in terms of taking
natural resources and extracting them and putting them into
China. In terms of the popular view of what was happening to
Burma at the hands of the Chinese, I mean there are many,
many----
Mr. Sherman. So China had the capital, the technology and
the markets that Burma would need, but being dependent upon
China has some disadvantages.
Mr. Andrews. Distinct disadvantages to the Government and
to the people of Burma, whereas engagement with the rest of the
world had significant advantages which they now want to cease.
Mr. Sherman. And as long as they have a relationship with
China they can play one side off of on the other, give us some
of what they want, give the Chinese some of what they want. I
am a bit confused as to why we would have sanctions, which hurt
our economy as well as Burma, and at the same time provide
development aid to Burma, I realize very small. We allo, we
give about $38 million a year to Burma. If the purpose of our
sanctions is to hurt the Burmese economy as well as individuals
in ruling leadership, why is that consistent with the $38
million of aid?
Mr. Andrews. Well, Congressman, let me tell you. When I
asked Aung San Suu Kyi and others in the NLD about economic
pressure on the regime and its impact on the people, that
development aid, support, it was explained to me that the real
bite of the sanction is not on people on the grassroots level
that basically surviving on a very localized economy. It is on
those at the very top, particularly in the extractive
industries, that have been the worst violators of human rights.
And the economic pressure on the regime and the military that
controls so much more of the economy particularly in this area
of the economy, would have some real and significant bite
without impacting those on the very bottom of this localized
economy.
There is desperate poverty in this area as a result of
many, many factors. And that is why I said in my testimony that
certainly those who are on the border areas need to have
significant and sustained continued support just as a matter of
survival. But cutting off----
Mr. Sherman. Their money is fungible and that if we provide
$38 million of aid to the poorest people in Burma, the ruling
group can then take $38 million they otherwise would have spent
and not spend it. You seem to be talking about a situation
where it is not that quite simple. And in the absence of our
aid the ruling elites would not be dipping into their own funds
and spending money on the same projects?
Mr. Andrews. I think it is extremely important for any aid
package that goes to Burma, and this is certainly true in the
past, it is certainly true now, should be very, very clearly
directed that it goes directly to the people and the services
that are needed. And that certainly is not the Government of
Burma that will then as you say use it in a fungible way to
support things that we just simply cannot tolerate.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Manzullo. Well, I thank both of you. Mr. Din, this is
the second time you have appeared before the subcommittee.
Mr. Din. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Manzullo. And Tom, thank you for a firsthand report of
seeing different things. We are obviously very interested in
Burma, and so is China. And I find it quite remarkable that the
number of restrictions to be lifted before Aung San Suu Kyi and
her party are actually sworn in and become members of the
Parliament. I just find that quite perplexing that issue as to,
and it is a very important issue with regard to the oath,
considering the Constitution should have been resolved with
pressure from Washington.
I like to have one panel, but unfortunately the State
Department does not like to do that. It is not at the request
of the witnesses but that is their protocol. The reason for the
one panel is that I like to have the interaction, because we
have heard two quite distinct and different stories here as to
exactly what is going on. And I am not being critical of
anybody here, it is just a matter of the ability to observe
firsthand.
Congressman Andrews, what you shared with us simply was not
available to the prior two witnesses, but it all goes together
to make for the big picture. The testimony of both of you is
regarded very highly by the people at the State Department and
I would encourage both of you to continue what you are doing;
to continue speaking out, especially with regard to the lifting
of the next sanctions because the ultimate step will be the
economic sanctions.
So thank you all for coming, and this subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:18 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]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
