[Senate Hearing 110-505]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-505
BURMA'S SAFFRON REVOLUTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN
AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 3, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-490 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
JIM WEBB, Virginia DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Antony J. Blinken, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN
AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JIM WEBB, Virginia CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Newspaper article ``U.N. Worker Arrested in Myanmar''........ 1
Statement by Mrs. Laura Bush, First Lady of the United States 4
Din, Aung, policy director, cofounder, U.S. Campaign for Burma,
Washington, DC................................................. 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California............. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Statement from Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.................... 13
Statement from Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson......... 13
Green, Dr. Michael J., senior adviser, Center for Strategic and
International Studies, Washington, DC.......................... 33
Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts............. 6
Malinowski, Tom, Washington Advocacy Director, Human Rights
Watch, Washington, DC.......................................... 41
Marciel, Scot, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian
and Pacific Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC....... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky................ 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska, opening statement 5
Webb, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from Virginia....................... 8
(iii)
BURMA'S SAFFRON REVOLUTION
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Kerry, Cardin, Webb, and
Murkowski.
Also Present: Senators McConnell and Feinstein.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Welcome, everybody. The subcommittee will
come to order.
We have a very important hearing, and we have three panels.
We want to welcome all of our witnesses. We really appreciate
this, because I think we're going to learn--and we're going to
shine the truth on something, that's happening as we speak,
that should never be happening.
Today, the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and
Pacific Affairs meets to consider a critical issue that's at
the forefront of global affairs: The Burmese people's struggle
against a brutal military regime that rules with an iron fist.
And I'd ask unanimous consent to place in the record an
article about a kidnapping and a detention of United Nations
officials. ``A local staff member of the U.N. and three of her
family members were taken from their home before dawn as part
of a continuing crackdown on demonstrations and
demonstrators,'' a U.N. official said. The 38-year-old woman,
her husband, and two relatives were detained at 4 a.m. And the
workers' arrest is one of an unknown number of nighttime
abductions as part of a crackdown by the junta. After
demonstrations over the past month, the largest protests in
nearly two decades, the number of people killed or detailed is
unknown.
[The article previously referred to follows:]
U.N. Worker Arrested in Myanmar
(By Thomas Fuller)
Bangkok, Oct. 3.--A local staff member of the United Nations in
Myanmar and three of her family members were taken from their home in
Yangon before dawn today as part of an ongoing crackdown on
demonstrators.
Charles Petrie, the most senior official for the United Nations in
the country, said a 38-year-old woman, her husband and two relatives
were detained by security personnel at 4 a.m. He said he was not
releasing their names to avoid jeopardizing their return.
The U.N. worker's arrest is one of an unknown number of nighttime
abductions conducted by the junta to identify and round up people who
took part in the demonstrations, which were the largest protests
against the junta in nearly two decades.
Another U.N. official who was arrested last week and then released
said he was taken to a university in Yangon where about 800 people were
held in squalid conditions.
``We're concerned with what seems to be happening at night--there
are arrests and people being detained,'' Mr. Petrie said. ``There is
palpable fear even among our staff.''
Yangon residents say helicopters fly over the city throughout the
night as military trucks patrol the streets with loudspeakers
broadcasting intimidating messages.
Shari Villarosa, the highest ranking U.S. diplomat in Myanmar, said
the message, broadcast in Burmese, was roughly this: ``We have your
pictures. We're going to come and get you.''
``I think they just are arresting anybody that they have the least
bit of suspicion about,'' Ms. Villarosa said. ``This is a military that
rules by fear and intimidation. Wouldn't you be terrified if you were
subject to being rousted out of bed at 2 o'clock at the morning, taken
away and never knew why?''
The issue of nighttime raids was raised by Ibrahim Gambari, the
special envoy of the United Nations, during a meeting Tuesday with
Myanmar's top general, Than Shwe. Three U.N. workers who had been
detained last week were subsequently released.
Mr. Gambari, who was scheduled to fly to New York late today to
report on his trip to the U.N. Secretary General, declined to speak
with reporters during a stopover in Singapore.
There are 3,000 U.N. staff in Myanmar, mainly working in poverty
alleviation projects. ``Our sense is that the U.N. is not being
targeted,'' Mr. Petrie said. ``The U.N. is being caught up in broader
events.''
The number of people killed or detained during the crackdown
remains unknown.
Reuters news agency reported from Yangon that 80 monks and 149
women, possibly nuns, who had been rounded up last week were freed
today. The agency quoted one of the monks saying he had been
interrogated but not physically abused.
The news agency also quoted a relative of three of the released
women saying those being interrogated were divided into four
categories: Passers-by, those who watched, those who clapped and those
who joined in.
The government says 10 people were killed in the crackdown
including Kenji Nagai, a Japanese photojournalist, whose body was
scheduled to be flown back to Japan on Thursday. Diplomats and Burmese
dissident groups believe the total death toll was higher.
Japan's Foreign Minister, Masahiko Komura, said Wednesday that
Tokyo was considering cutting back its aid to Myanmar to protest Mr.
Nagai's death and the crackdown, according to Kyodo News agency. Annual
aid to Myanmar from Japan is about $25 million.
Senator Boxer. The current Burmese Government, which calls
itself the State Peace and Development Council, is more
accurately known to the world as the military junta--a
dictatorship that refused to relinquish power even after the
Burmese people voted them out in a democratic election in 1990.
The winner of that election, the National League for Democracy,
or NLD, was not allowed to take power; and its leader, the
Global Icon of Freedom, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Aung San
Suu Kyi, was placed under house arrest, where she remains
today. Since them, the Burmese people have suffered imaginable
horrors--unimaginable horrors. They have paid dearly in life
and treasure. They have seen their natural resources plundered
by a corrupt regime, and they have been denied the most basic
human rights.
Two weeks ago, tens of thousands of Burmese people and
Buddhist monks took to the streets--and we have, I think, a
picture of this demonstration--to demand democracy and an end
to decades of tyranny. And you can see the endless line of
protesters there.
Initially, the protests centered on the increased gas and
fuel prices and the government's treatment of Burma's monks.
But they grew in scope as the emboldened Burmese people
demanded their liberty from one of the world's worst human-
rights abusers.
The people demanded freedom from a government that
restricts the basic freedoms of speech and assembly, engages in
human trafficking, discriminates against women and ethnic
minorities, uses children as soldiers and laborers, imprisons
arbitrarily, abuses prisoners and detainees, and rapes and
tortures.
Tragically, the military junta has responded to this
courageous stand with a bloody crackdown whose purposes is to
instill fear and silence protesters. And we have this photo of
blood on the ground, and clearly someone gone. And we have
another--you could put it over my chair, here--of the shooting
of a Japanese photographer, just, in cold blood. And I think
most of you know this photo. And these photos speak a thousand
words, as they often do.
While the Burmese people have been forced from the streets,
they continue to resist. In fact, there are reports that
smaller protests are occurring throughout the country. The
Burmese people are not willing to submit to the tactics of the
military junta anymore. They rose up last week, despite a
brutal crackdown on a similar uprising in the summer of 1988,
in which an estimated 3,000 people were killed. They rose up,
despite the fact that this regime has destroyed 3,000 villages
and displaced approximately 2 million people. They rose up in
the face of impossible odds to demand their freedom. And they
rose up, despite the fact that this regime has silenced
democracy activists and political leaders, such as Aung San Suu
Kyi. As many of you know, she has said, ``We will prevail,
because our cause is right, because our cause is just. History
is on our side. Time is on our side.''
The time for the Burmese people to prevail is now. Brutal
response of the military has captured the attention of the
international community, and shame on us if we take our eyes
off this.
The United States, the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations, the United Nations, and even China and Russia, through
the U.N. Human Rights Council, have rightfully condemned their
actions. But words must translate into action, and that is why
we've come together today to discuss the current situation in
Burma and how best to move forward.
And I want to thank my ranking member, Lisa Murkowski. I
want to thank, of course, Senator Biden, the full committee
chair, and Ranking Member Richard Lugar, because they waived
all the necessary time that this could have been delayed, and
they worked with us. And we are very proud, this is a
bipartisan matter.
In his April 1963 letter from a jail cell in Birmingham,
Alabama, Dr. Martin Luther King wrote, ``Freedom is never
voluntarily given by the oppressor. It must be demanded by the
oppressed.'' And the Burmese people are demanding their
freedom. It is time for the world to stand beside them.
Before I conclude, I want to read a little from a statement
submitted today by First Lady Laura Bush, who has spoken out
with great passion on behalf of the Burmese people. Mrs. Bush
writes--and I'd ask unanimous consent to place her full
statement in the record. Without objection, I will do that.
She writes, ``I am deeply concerned about the Burmese
people. The military regime's crackdown on protesting monks and
peaceful democracy activists is shameful. Video footage now
coming out of Burma confirms what our charge reports, that the
abuse of protesters is more brutal than initially described,
and that there are likely many more fatalities than the 10
confirmed by the military regime.''
Mrs. Bush goes on to say, ``We urge the Security Council to
issue a clear resolution that calls for the release of the
Burmese political prisoners, an end to the regime's crackdown,
and a real dialogue that leads to a peaceful transition to
democracy. The U.S. believes it is time for General Than Shwe
and the junta to step aside and to make way for a unified Burma
governed by legitimate leaders. We urge other governments to
join the United States in condemning the junta's use of
violence and in working toward freedom in Burma.''
We all thank the First Lady for her statement.
[The statement previously referred to follows:]
Statement by Mrs. Laura Bush, First Lady of the United States, The
White House, Washington, DC
The deplorable acts of violence being perpetrated against Buddhist
monks and peaceful Burmese demonstrators shame the military regime.
Tens of thousands of Burmese are turning to the streets to demand their
freedom and the country's military dictatorship has countered with
horrifying abuses. Nonviolent demonstrations by Buddhist monks and nuns
have been met with tear gas, smoke grenades, baton beatings, and
automatic weapons. The regime admits to killing 10 people, but
unofficial reports suggest the number is much higher. Getting reliable
information in and out of Burma is a challenge as cell phones have been
seized and telephone lines slashed. Burmese bloggers and citizen
journalists are being silenced. The U.N. has dispatched its special
envoy on Burma, Ibrahim Gambari. He must be allowed to meet with
demonstrating monks and Burma's democratically elected leader, Aung San
Suu Kyi. President Bush calls on all nations, especially those nations
closest to Burma that have the most influence with the regime, to
support the aspirations of the Burmese people, and to join in
condemning the junta's use of violence on its own people. Seeing Burma
through a peaceful democratic transition is in all nations' best
interest. The United States stands with the people of Burma. We support
their demands for basic human rights: Freedom of speech, worship, and
assembly. We cannot--and will not--turn our attention from courageous
people who stand up for democracy and justice.
Senator Boxer. I, again, want to thank Senator Murkowski.
I'm looking forward to hearing from her. And I would also like
to introduce our witnesses before I turn it over to Senator
Murkowski and then Senator Kerry and Webb. And we're each
supposed to have 8 minutes. I don't know what happened to the
clock, it kind of got stuck, but each of us will have 8
minutes.
Our first panel, we will hear from Mr. Scott Marciel, the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of East
Asian and Pacific Affairs, and a career member of the Senior
Foreign Service. His most recent assignments were as Director
of the Department's Office of Maritime Southeast Asia and the
Director of the Office of Mainland Southeast Asia. And I
understand that Mr. Marciel is a native of California, so
that's good.
On our second panel, we will hear from Michael Green, a
senior adviser and the Japan chair at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies. Prior to this post, Dr. Green served
as special assistant to the President for national security
affairs, and senior director for Asian Affairs at the National
Security Council, from January 2004 to December 2005. We will
also hear from Mr. Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy
director for Human Rights Watch. And we were so fortunate, Tom,
that you were able to come today, because I know you've been
traveling. Prior to joining Human Rights Watch, he was special
assistant to President Clinton and senior director for foreign
policy speechwriting at the National Security Council. And,
finally, we will hear from Mr. Aung Din, the policy director
and cofounder of the U.S. Campaign for Burma. In 1988, Mr. Din
was a student at the Rangoon Institute of Technology. He was
also a participant in the 1988 demonstrations against the
military government, Burma, in which the government troops
opened fire and killed roughly 3,000 Burmese students.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I would now
like to turn to Senator Murkowski for any comments she may
have, and then to Senators Kerry and Webb.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM
ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You mentioned
the timeliness of this hearing. I can't help but look at the
pictures that you have in front of us, and those that you
showed, and realize, when we talk about timeliness, this is
now. These individuals who are in the streets, in Rangoon,
protests that are happening, the crackdown, the violence, the
persecution; it is happening now. And for us to have an
opportunity to address this, Madam Chairman, I appreciate your
initiative greatly.
I was very pleased to join with you and with other members
of the Senate Women's Caucus on Burma as we expressed our
solidarity with the protesters in Burma, calling on the
international community to place greater pressure on the
military junta to restore democracy in the nation. I appreciate
the leadership that the First Lady has taken on this issue, not
only with the letter that you have just asked to be placed in
the record, but in participation with the Senate Women's Caucus
on Burma on this.
It is very important that those countries with the closest
ties to Burma, whether it's China, India, Russia, Japan, the
members of ASEAN, that they make clear their rejection of
violence and their support for a peaceful political process.
It was back in March 2006 that I chaired a hearing in this
subcommittee on Burma and the impact, or the lack thereof, that
U.S. sanctions were having on that country. When the subject of
Burma comes up, we most often think of Aung San Suu Kyi and her
National League of Democracy Party. She's the primary voice for
political reform in a nation that is run by a repressive
military junta; yet, for all the support of the international
community, all the support that's been demonstrated for Suu Kyi
and her party, and the pressure applied in one form or another
on the Burmese Government, Suu Kyi remains under house arrest,
and the National League of Democracy's election victory in 1990
remains unhonored.
Since the student demonstrations in 1988, our policy toward
Burma has been to sanction and to isolate, with increasing
limitations on assistance and trade. Yet, the SPDC has
effectively minimized the impact of these sanctions by playing
interested investors off one another as it offers access to
Burma's considerable natural resources and nations compete to
see who has greater influence in the region. The SPDC continues
to have access to financial assistance and the means to
continue its authoritative rule, despite Burma's continuous
ranking among the poorest of the poor.
With this latest uprising and its subsequent repression, we
see, yet again, that many of the largest investors in Burma are
unwilling to go beyond words of condemnation and urging
restraint. Certainly, regional stability is an absolute
necessity when considering what the future for Burma holds.
There's a difficult balancing act for Burma's neighbors to
carry out, and it's our responsibility to engage with the
international community to try to find that balance, to find
that right mix of sanctions and interaction.
Another issue that I believe needs to be kept in mind as
we're looking at the situation in Burma is the role of Burma's
ethnic minorities. Aung San Suu Kyi tends to get the majority
of media and political attention, but, even if the results of
the 1988 election are recognized or new legitimate elections
are held, that does not solve the armed resistance offered by
groups like the Shan State and the Karen National Union. Both
China and India are looking to sustain their domestic economic
growth. Likewise, one-third of Thailand's natural gas supply
comes from Burma. These nations are eager to avoid turmoil on
their borders. For that to happen, a resolution must be reached
with the ethnic minority groups.
Madam Chairman, I know that we have other members--I see
Senator McConnell, who has also been a leader on Burma--and I
know that Senator Feinstein was hoping to join the committee,
as well, so I will forgo the rest of my time so that we can
have an opportunity to hear from our distinguished panels.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. We're going to go to our
colleagues who are here, and invite Senator McConnell, to
please join the State Department. And we--as soon as they're
completed, Senator McConnell, we will turn to you. And if
anyone comes between now and then, they will go after Senator
McConnell.
Senator Kerry, you have 8 minutes, if you wish to use
those, and then Senator Webb.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, U.S. SENATOR FROM
MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kerry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm very
appreciative for your leadership in pulling this hearing
together today. It could not be more important.
And I appreciate Senator McConnell being present here. He
and I have worked on this issue over some years, and I would
like to thank him publicly for his assistance in the effort we
made on the resolution on the floor of the Senate.
We've seen, firsthand, in the last few weeks, the
incredible courage of Burma's people standing up against one of
the most repressive regimes in the world. This has been years
and years of repression now. I remember traveling to Burma.
I've met with Aung San Suu Kyi in her home, where she was under
arrest. I've also met with the junta, and I've listened to
their lame excuses for why they're doing what they're doing,
and deception and their lies.
What began a month ago as a modest impromptu protest has
mushroomed into a nationwide peaceful democratic groundswell,
with tens of thousands of students joining Buddhist monks in
what has now become known as the Saffron Revolution.
But I want to remind people today, we have been here
before. This is the second time in 20 years that there's been
bloodshed on the streets of Burma in response to peaceful
protests. The democratic uprisings of 1988 and the repression
that followed are clear monuments to the horrible human toll of
our collective failure to act.
Back then, the United States and the world spoke out, as
they're speaking out now. But then, guess what happened?
Everybody lost focus. Other issues became more important. And
here we are again. So, frankly, what's important now is not
just, ``Why now?'' but, ``What next?''
I'm pleased the Senate spoke out by unanimously passing a
bipartisan resolution. But we're not going to end the
oppression in Burma, we're not going to restore democracy, and
we're not going to honor these courageous protests or our
values across the globe just by passing resolutions of
disapproval. It's going to take a strategy, it's going to take
a policy, it's going to take leadership, it's going to take
focus, and it demands ongoing pressure.
The question that remains is whether the United States is
really serious, or the United Nations is really serious, or
China is really serious, about the statements that they're
making. We have to finish what the people of Burma have
started, and that means getting the international community to
provide the necessary pressure on this military junta to
release all political prisoners, starting with Aung San Suu
Kyi, and take meaningful steps down the path of political
reform.
I will say yes; it is good that the President made the
decision to target the top generals for financial sanctions.
But, I will also say, if we haven't learned anything, we have
learned that financial sanctions by the United States are not
enough. About a month and a half ago I convened a meeting with
some of the leading people who have been working on Burma, and
there was an across-the-board agreement that the sanctions
regime currently in place isn't working, and won't work. Now,
the United Nations mission led by Special Envoy Ibrahim
Gambari, showed some promise in his meeting with Than Shwe--and
twice with Aung San Suu Kyi--but Gambari has left Burma. Let's
remember that. And he has left it without any real sense of
tangible progress.
The bottom line is that the sanctions experience of this
committee back in the 1980s and 1990s informs us that sanctions
must be multilateral to be most effective. What we did in South
Africa worked. It worked because it was multilateral. And
almost every example of unilateral, bilateral, or trilateral
sanctions tell us that it doesn't work, unless you really shut
the door by a multilateral effort. So, we need to understand
that.
Now, one other comment. Yesterday, four of us met with the
Chinese Ambassador with respect to this issue, and the fact is
that these generals in the junta, who have now moved their
capital some 200 miles from the old capital, literally a bunker
within a bunker of a country, are surviving today because of
their economic relationship with China. And the world needs to
understand that. And China particularly needs to understand
that we understand that.
And so, a statement that we need some patience here and
we're going to work through it is not sufficient. The killing
has to stop. And China needs to make it clear that it's
unacceptable that those monasteries have been cleared of monks,
that people have been loaded into trucks and driven off to God
knows where. We know what happens when people have been loaded
into trucks before. History has shown us that. There's a series
on Public Television right now about World War II that reminds
us of the impact of what happens when people are loaded into
trucks and people of ``responsibility'' look the other way.
So, this is compelling. It is now. And China, which is
about to host the Olympics, needs to understand that those
Olympics will have a cloud over them if China has not exercised
all of its leadership to end this killing and to start to push
for change.
These generals in the junta can survive, because there is
no sufficient outside global pressure to make it otherwise for
them. ASEAN has started to speak up, but even ASEAN's voice has
not had the kind of economic pressure necessary for change.
So, Madam Chairman, it is critical that the international
community respond to this ongoing tragedy by pressuring Burma's
military junta to lift all the restrictions on humanitarian-aid
delivery. Tuberculosis is widespread, and mortality rates in
Burma are among the highest in Asia. At least 37,000 died of
HIV/AIDS in 2005, and over 600,000 are affected by it. Malaria
is also rife, and about one-third of the people of the country
are mired in poverty. Many of the 52 million people live in
abject misery, and they're kept in this state by a junta that
lives in extraordinary luxury. So, it is critical that the
unfettered delivery of humanitarian aid and humanitarian aid
groups be able to work, and that the resilient and brave
Burmese people are shown that they are more than worthy of just
our verbal support and our verbal compassion. It is time for
the global community to act.
I think that a peaceful prodemocratic outcome in Burma
could be within reach. The U.N., ASEAN, India, Russia, and
especially China--China could lead this, China could change so
much in the view of the world by moving appropriately in these
next hours, and that's the message we asked the Chinese
Ambassador to convey to the highest level of the government,
and that's the message I think this committee wants to convey
here today.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you so much.
Senator Webb.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB, U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Webb. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I don't have a
formal opening statement, and I'll try to be brief. I'm
interested in hearing from the Republican leader and from the
witnesses.
But let me just say a few things. One is that, in my view,
we have an immediate crisis that needs to be resolved, but we
also have to figure out a way--and I don't think we've been
very good at it--to resolve the conditions that have fed this
crisis. I'm looking at this picture in front of you. You can't
see it, but I know that street. In 2001, I wrote an article for
the Wall Street Journal about China's incremental growth, in
terms of power in Southeast Asia, and I got a letter from an
American, who was doing business in Burma, who had an outdoor
furniture business. He said, ``If you really want to understand
this incremental growth in power, you need to come to Burma and
take a look.'' And I was on my way to Vietnam and Thailand, as
a private citizen, as a writer at the time. I went over, and I
spent 8 days with him. And it was clear, even then, that these
were people who were cut off from the world. When you see this
kind of an explosion, you see a great deal of frustration that
has been largely the result of people not having the kind of
assistance in their effort to have some sort of freedom that
they deserve, and part of that is through this democracy push,
and part of it, quite frankly, is through other approaches that
I don't think we've been strong enough, in terms of trying to
put into place.
We should keep in mind that this is a region that is filled
with autocratic regimes. We speak of China. China's not a
democracy. China does this to its own people. We can look at
North Korea, it's the same way. We can look at Vietnam. And I
spent a good bit of time, as did Senator Kerry, working with
the normalization process in Vietnam. When I first went to
Vietnam--when I first returned to Vietnam, in 1991, it was a
Stalinist state. Vietnamese citizens had to get internal
passports to travel from one province to another. We could put
all the sanctions in the world on them, and you should be
taking actions to condemn this sort of repressive activity,
but, unless you have some other approach that goes along with
it, you're not going to bring change. And, in Vietnam, we
forced them to come out. We opened them up. We brought their
mid-level bureaucrats into the United States. We did a whole
series of things, including starting trade relations.
When you have people who are cut off from the world, and
when you have pressures like we've been putting on them, it
only works if everybody else is doing it. And, in this
situation, you have the type of pressure which is driving
authoritarian governments toward like partners; China being the
classic example, with respect to Burma. But we have to live in
the reality that we're not getting the kind of support that we
could from China, or from India, or from Russia.
So, in terms of the long-term solution of this, I am really
interested in hearing from people as to how we can resolve this
situation.
And, with that, I'll just look forward to hearing from the
witnesses.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I'm very pleased that my friend and colleague from
California, Senator Feinstein, has joined us. And what we're
going to do is hear first from Senator McConnell, then Senator
Feinstein, then we'll go to the State Department.
And I just want to say to both of you, I think your sitting
there together is, just, a very good sign for the people in
this country who want to see us work together. And I think
Senator Murkowski and I working together to get this going so
quickly is another such sign. And I think it augers well, and I
hope it means that we will do something about this, that, as we
all know, is so critical, because we're shining the light, and
we've got to keep the light on.
So, Senator McConnell, thank you for your long-term
interest in this. And we're very pleased that you're here, and
you have 8 minutes to make your statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. MITCH McCONNELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Boxer, Senator
Murkowski, and Senator Webb.
Madam Chairwoman, I'll just ask that my statement be made a
part of the record, and then just----
Senator Boxer. Without objection.
Senator McConnell [continuing]. Provide some observations
about the situation in Burma.
I got interested in Burma, like a lot of Americans, in the
early 1990s, through reading an article about Aung San Suu Kyi
and her quest for democracy. And, as we all know, she's spent
most of the last 18 years under house arrest.
What have we tried to do about it? Well, in 2003, I, along
with Senator Feinstein and Senator McCain, introduced the
Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act which we've renewed on an
annual basis for 5 years now; every year since 2003. The
President, as we all know, a while back also ratcheted up a
number of U.S. sanctions by targeting members of the regime.
But, as Senator Kerry has said, as you've said, Senator Boxer,
as you've said, Senator Murkowski, and as you've said, Senator
Webb, unilateral sanctions almost never work; in fact, I can't
think of a single situation where they have worked. The one
time where global sanctions did clearly make a difference was
in South Africa, and that was because everybody participated.
The problem here is obvious. China, India and Thailand are
the key players. Thailand and India are two countries that, a
while back, seemed to be sympathetic with the reformers, but
now have adapted to the repressive conditions there. None of
the neighbors seem to have much interest in applying the real
pressure that would bring about a positive change. China and
India are the two biggest players in Burma. Their attitude
seems to be largely, ``It would be bad for business to start
siding with the prodemocracy forces.'' That's not entirely
unexpected from a country like China, but from India, the
world's largest democracy, right next door, it is really kind
of surprising, the ambivalence which they demonstrate toward
offsetting reform in Burma.
The Europeans, I think, have been somewhat better. But a
sanctions regime is only going to work to the extent the
Chinese, the Indians and the Thais are deeply involved in this.
And so, I think the path is clear, although it's not easy to
get there. The U.S. needs to continue to pressure our friends
in that part of the world to take this matter seriously.
I'll wager that if Burma had nuclear weapons, we'd be
really interested in this. I mean, they are a pariah regime,
like Iran and like North Korea. We focus intently on the other
two because of our concern about the nuclear problem. The
Burmese junta is a similarly outrageous regime. The good news
is, there are not many of these pariah regimes left in the
world, but this is clearly one of them.
So, I'd be interested in hearing, later, any suggestions
any of you have, but I think, as each of you has suggested, the
only way this is ultimately going to make a difference, in
terms of sanctions that bite, is with China, India and the
Thais, as well, buying into a sanctious regime.
So, I thank you, Senator Boxer, for having the hearing. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here and express, along with
all of you, my frustration. I can't think of an issue I've
spent more time on over a longer period of time and seen less
results, and it's because we are, to some extent, powerless
without the cooperation that you, Senator Kerry and others,
were talking about. Ultimately the world needs to treat this as
a serious problem rather than just some kind of unacceptable
behavior that we're willing to tolerate because it's a long way
away.
So, thank you for having the hearing. I think we ought to
all continue to pressure our trading partners and allies out in
that part of the world, who could really make a difference if
they took an interest in this and decided to apply the kind of
multilateral pressure that could really bring this regime to
its knees and bring about the fundamental change that we need:
Change that people of Burma already voted for in 1990. They've
had their vote. It just hasn't been honored.
So, thank you very much for the opportunity. I appreciate
the chance.
[The prepared statement of Senator McConnell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senator From Kentucky
Chairwoman Boxer, Ranking Member Murkowski, thank you for inviting
me to make a statement today about the situation in Burma.
Democratic reform in Burma is an issue that I have taken a great
interest in for many years. I am pleased that the issue today enjoys
strong bipartisan support in Congress. This was reflected in the sense
of the Senate that passed this Monday, condemning the regime for its
barbaric behavior.
The Burmese junta's recent attacks against peaceful protestors were
despicable and an affront to free people everywhere. However, simply
because the ruthlessness of the Burmese regime is slipping off of the
front pages does not mean that the heavy hand of that government has
been lifted.
Just this morning, the Associated Press reported that Burmese
soldiers were driving through the streets of Rangoon looking to round
up protestors who had previously escaped their clutches.
There are some encouraging signs, however. News reports indicate
that the European Union is nearing agreement on ratcheting up sanctions
against the Burmese regime.
Ultimately, the United Nations Security Council will need to take
meaningful action on sanctions for the junta to be pressured into
changing its behavior and embracing peaceful reconciliation. And that
means that China will need to be persuaded of the need to take the
regime to task.
It also means that India will need to join its fellow democracies
and play a more constructive role in pushing for democratic reform
within Burma. As both China and India mature into their respective
roles as economic, regional, and global powers in this century, more
will be expected of them in both word and deed. The cause of reform in
Burma is just such an area.
I think hearings such as this are crucial to keep public attention
focused on the repression in Burma and to make it more difficult for
China and India to evade their responsibilities as global stakeholders.
And I very much appreciate the committee's efforts in this vein.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you so much. And we know that
you have other obligations, and we do thank you. And I think
your presence here, as well as all my colleagues today, so
eloquent--I think it's the first step, at least at this point,
to really shining the light on this. And we will figure out
ways to keep the light on it, and we'll all work together. And
thank you.
Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM
CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I
appreciate your holding these hearings.
I very much agree with what I heard Senator Webb say, and,
of course, what the Republican leader said, I agree with. And
I've been working with him since 2003.
Now, I think, just to get the historical record complete,
we began this effort in 1997. Bill Cohen and I introduced a
resolution which essentially banned new United States
investment in Burma. It had a trigger to go into effect, and
that trigger was that the Government of Burma release Aung San
Suu Kyi and take some steps to rapprochement. Six months after
we passed it and the President--President Clinton signed it,
Madeleine Albright went to the area, and she talked with the
ASEAN nations. It became clear that what we had hoped, which
was that ASEAN would step in and encourage the junta to make
change, did not take place. President Clinton then triggered
those sanctions, and they have been in place ever since 1997.
That's banning United States investment. What Senator McConnell
and I did in 2003 is a ban on imports. So, ban on investment
has been in place since 1997, and a ban on imports, since 2003.
Senator Webb is right, if you're alone on a sanction, it
doesn't work. If the whole world joins in a sanction, as
Senator Kerry has pointed out with respect to the South African
sanctions, it works.
Last night, Senator Durbin called a small meeting. Senator
Kerry was present, Senator Lieberman, I was present, and we met
with the Chinese Ambassador and had a very frank conversation
urging the Ambassador to please move forward with this country
to take--to step up to the plate. The Ambassador told us that
China had weighed in and that China, in effect, was responsible
for securing the--Mr. Gambari's meeting with the head of the
junta. They also gave us--and I'm not advocating for China,
here, but I'm simply stating what he told us, because I think
it's important, because China shares a very long border with
Burma and is a very important trading partner, has major
investments, et cetera.
This is Premier Wen Jiabao holding a telephone talk with
his British counterpart, Gordon Brown. And this is what the
Chinese Premier said, ``China is very much concerned with the
situation in Myanmar. China hopes that all parties concerned in
Myanmar show restraint, resume stability through peaceful means
as soon as possible, promote domestic reconciliation, and
achieve democracy and development. The international community
needs to offer constructive assistance for the final settlement
of the Myanmar problem.'' The Chinese Premier said that,
``China will continue to work with the international community
to actively facilitate the proper solution to the problem in
Myanmar.''
Attached is a statement from a Chinese Foreign Ministry
spokesman on Myanmar, as well, and I'd like to ask that both of
these be entered into the record, if I might.
Senator Boxer. Without objection.
[The statements previously referred to follows:]
Premier Wen Jiabao Holds Telephone Talks With His British Counterpart
Gordon Brown
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao talked with his British counterpart
Gordon Brown on the situation in Myanmar by telephone on the evening of
September 28, 2007.
In the conversation, Brown said that the international community is
greatly concerned with the situation in Myanmar, expecting the
Southeast Asian nation to restore stability, realize reconciliation and
start political process as soon as possible. The British side hopes
that China will continue to exert positive influence to achieve a
proper settlement of the problem in Myanmar, and is willing to keep
closer contacts and communication with the Chinese side, said the
British Prime Minister.
Premier Wen, for his part, said that China is very much concerned
with the situation in Myanmar. China hopes that all parties concerned
in Myanmar show restraint, resume stability through peaceful means as
soon as possible, promote domestic reconciliation and achieve democracy
and development, he said. The international community needs to offer
constructive assistance for the final settlement of the Myanmar
problem, he added. The Chinese premier said that China will continue to
work with the international community to actively facilitate the proper
solution to the problem in Myanmar.
______
Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson on Myanmar Issue, September 27,
2007
As a neighbor of Myanmar, China follows closely the situation
there. China hopes that all parties in Myanmar exercise restraint and
properly handle the current issue so as to ensure the situation there
free from further escalation and complication. Myanmar's stability
should not be affected. Neither should peace and stability in the
region be affected.
We hope that Myanmar be devoted to improving people's welfare,
maintaining national harmony and properly dealing with its domestic
social conflicts so as to restore stability at an early date.
China noted that the Security Council held consultation on the
situation in Myanmar and the Chairman of the Council talked to the
press on the issue. China believes that the international community
should provide constructive assistance to alleviation of the domestic
situation in Myanmar. China supports the mediation efforts of the U.N.
Secretary General and his Special Envoy Gambari.
China hopes that the international press can be truthful in
reporting and cover the issue objectively rather than hyping up the
issue. We have noted that a very few press unleashed some accusation
against China, which is vicious defamation.
Senator Feinstein. Now, I think--and the reason I read this
is that China, I think, has taken the first step--I think we
should, in every way, shape, or form we can, encourage China to
really step up and to really interface with the junta
leadership, and really say two things, ``You must stop the
killing, you must release the political prisoners, and you must
free the duly elected President of this country, Aung San Suu
Kyi, elected in 1990, and sit down and have negotiations.''
I do not believe that our country, or China, if China is
going to be a world player, can really turn their head on a
democratically elected government and not work for that
government to be placed into power. So, my hope is that China
will, in fact, step up and carry out these missions.
I do not believe that unilateral sanctions work. And my
final point would be--and sitting here with the State
Department here--I think that State really ought to pull
together India, China, the other major powers of the region and
encourage ASEAN to come off of this impartial kind of
nonconfrontational stance of theirs and join us in both an
investment and an import ban, with sanctions, if sanctions are
to work, or else achieve a compromise with the government that
involves the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, the stopping of the
killing, and also the release of those political prisoners.
Those are the three big issues, as I see them right now. So,
I'd like to ask that my full remarks be entered into the
record. And also, when I wrote to the State Department earlier,
I'd like to enter a letter of September 24th from the State
Department on this issue into the record, as well.
Senator Boxer. Senator, all that will be entered in the
record, and we all thank you so much----
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. We all thank you so much, and----
Senator Feinstein. Appreciate it.
Senator Boxer.--I really do appreciate your shining the
historic light of recent history, in terms of congressional
action. I think it's----
Senator Feinstein. Oh, may I say----
Senator Boxer. Law of the Sea--very helpful.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. One other thing?
Senator Boxer. Of course.
Senator Feinstein. As Senator Murkowski knows and you know,
all the women of the Senate----
Senator Boxer. Yeah.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Both political parties----
Senator Boxer. Right.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Have written to the United
Nations. We also sat, when the First Lady came, with her and
made statements, signed letters. And I know that Mrs. Bush is
very involved, and, I think, can be a very positive force for
some action. So, I hope we will include the administration, as
well, in whatever effort----
Senator Boxer. Yes. Let me assure you, we have already
placed--she wrote a letter to myself and Senator Murkowski
especially for this hearing----
Senator Feinstein. Good.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. And we have included it in the
record, and, absolutely, you're right, if--we just need to keep
all these going; and, no matter what else we've got to do,
we've got to work.
Thank you very much for your----
Senator Feinstein. Thank you----
Senator Boxer [continuing]. Contribution to today's----
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Very much.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. Hearing.
[The prepared statement of Senator Feinstein and letters
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator From
California
Good afternoon, Madame Chair. Thank you very much for inviting me
here today to speak about the brave quest of the people of Burma for
democracy and freedom.
In recent weeks, we have witnessed the largest democratic
demonstrations in almost 20 years.
Tens of thousands of Burmese citizens have taken to the streets in
peaceful demonstrations to speak out against the country's oppressive
military regime, the State Peace and Development Council. They are
crying out for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
I have watched these courageous people with a deep sense of
admiration and respect.
Led by respected Buddhist monks, the people of the ``Saffron
Revolution'' have called on the military junta to release all political
prisoners, including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, and
engage in a true dialogue on national reconciliation.
Suu Kyi, the nation's duly elected democratic leader, has remained
under house arrest for the better part of the past 17 years.
Yet the country's brutal military regime has continued to refuse to
recognize the results of the 1990 democratic election. Under their iron
fist, the people of Burma have suffered numerous human rights abuses.
And as it has in the past, the military junta has responded to the
recent peaceful protests with violence and bloodshed. Soldiers have
used brutal force to break up the protests, beating, and sometimes
killing innocent civilians.
Reports indicate that hundreds of protesters, including many monks,
have lost their lives and the monasteries are now deserted.
We must not let the military junta get away with its actions.
Last week, at the United Nations, President Bush announced that the
United States would place additional sanctions on the members of the
ruling military junta and their financial backers to compel the regime
to refrain from violence and negotiate a political settlement with the
democratic opposition.
First Lady Laura Bush added her voice to raise awareness about the
situation in Burma and to express her support for the protesters.
And as you know, Madame Chair, we, the members of the Senate
Women's Caucus on Burma, also expressed our solidarity with the
prodemocratic protestors.
We called on the international community to put pressure on the
regime to free the political prisoners and being a true dialogue on
national reconciliation.
The international community must come together to put pressure on
the regime to stop the violence and the killing, release all political
prisoners and put Burma on an irreversible path toward true democratic
government.
I am pleased that United Nations Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari has
traveled to Burma and has met twice with Suu Kyi and the leader of the
junta, General Than Shwe.
Last night, Senators Durbin, Lieberman, Kerry and I met with
China's Ambassador to the United States and urged his government to do
more to urge the regime to stop the killing in Burma and release all
political prisoners. He shared with us a copy of a statement from
Premier Wen Jiabao on the situation in Burma and I would like it to be
included in the record.
Burma's neighbors with the closest ties to the regime--China,
India, Russia, and the Association of Southeast Asian nations--must
make it clear that further violence will not be tolerated. And that
there will be consequences if the regime does not take action soon.
Instability and violence in Burma affect the entire region and it
is in China's interest to have a safe, secure, and democratic Burma on
their borders.
Madame Chair, I have been involved in working to bring peace and
democracy to Burma for over 10 years.
In 1997, former Senator Bill Cohen and I authored legislation
requiring the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma if he
determined that the Government of Burma had physically harmed,
rearrested, or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale
repression or violence against the Democratic opposition.
President Clinton issued the Executive order in 1997 and the ban
remains on the books today.
In 2003, after the regime attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu
Kyi, Senator McConnell and I introduced the ``Burmese Freedom and
Democracy Act of 2003'' which placed a complete ban on imports from
Burma. It allowed that ban to be renewed 1 year at a time for up to 3
years.
It was signed into law and has been renewed 1 year at a time for
each of the past 4 years.
The problem is, these sanctions will not work unless all nations
join us.
Unfortunately, we have not seen other countries rally to our cause
and enact similar measures.
I hope they will now see fit to change course.
Although I have been disappointed that more progress toward the
release of all political prisoners and the restoration of democratic
government has not been made, I have never wavered in my conviction
that the people of Burma yearn to be free.
Madame Chairman, to the people of Burma I say this: We are
watching, we are paying attention, and we will not give up on our
shared vision of a free and democratic Burma.
______
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, August 29, 2007.
Hon. Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Rice: The current situation in Burma merits a
strong, and meaningful response by our government. We write to urge you
to immediately initiate an emergency, formal meeting on Burma at the
United Nations Security Council.
Over the past several days, as was reported in the press around the
world, Burma's military regime has carried out a widespread crackdown
on human rights and democracy activists throughout the country. These
repressive measures have come in response to the largest nonviolent
demonstrations in Burma in five years.
Many of the activists who have been imprisoned as a result of this
crackdown were reportedly beaten and carted off in trucks after
protesting on the streets of Rangoon and Burma's other major cities.
Those arrested include Min Ko Naing and Ko Ko Gyi, two of Burma's most
prominent democrary activists. Many of these activists reportedly face
life sentences for exercising the fundamental right of political
expression. These actions by the regime are appalling even in light of
the junta's longstanding and well-documented record of repression.
We applaud the State Department for swiftly condemning the regime's
brutal behavior. France and the United Kingdom, two other permanent
members of the Security Council, have issued similar condemnations,
along with Canada, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark, the European Union, and
the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. However, at this critical
juncture, words of support from the world's democracies are not enough.
The matter needs to be addressed by the U.N. Security Council.
During the past year, the United States led a successful diplomatic
effort to place Burma on the permanent agenda of the Security Council,
where it remains. We must avail ourselves of this diplomatic forum, the
brave people of Burma deserve no less.
We urge you to send a letter to the President of the Security
Council requesting that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, at a
minimum, thoroughly brief the Council on the situation in Burma.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this serious matter.
Sincerely,
Mitch McConnell,
United States Senator.
Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senator.
______
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC, September 24, 2007.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your letter of August 29
urging a formal meeting of the United Nations Security Council on the
situation in Burma.
We are deeply concerned about the recent crackdown in Burma and
have issued a number of statements condemning this most recent
repression by the military regime. We continue to coordinate closely
with other like-minded countries and key players in the region to bring
increasing pressure on the regime to change its policies. We have also
raised our concerns with U.N. Secretary General Ban and Special Envoy
Gambari and encouraged them to speak out strongly as well. We agree
that the political and human rights situation there is a matter that
the U.N. Security Council should take up urgently, so we are pleased
that Special Envoy Gambari will brief the Council in informal
consultations on September 20. We are encouraging Special Envoy Gambari
to travel to Burma as soon as possible, and we are working directly
with Security Council members and other international partners to build
support for a formal meeting of the Security Council on Burma following
his return from Burma.
In addition to pursuing the Security Council's engagement on Burma,
we will use the platform provided by the U.N. General Assembly to
highlight the regime's repression of peaceful demonstrators and its
other abuses against the Burmese people. We believe that an
international community that is united and vocal in its criticism of
the regime is the best vehicle for bringing about the kinds of changes
we seek, as well as give hope and support to those in Burma struggling
to bring democracy to their country.
We hope this information is helpful to you. Please do not hesitate
to contact us if we can be of further assistance on this or any other
matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey T. Bergner,
Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.
And, just for the interest of the Senators who are here----
Senator Cardin, do you want to make a statement, or would
you wait until your question time? It's your call. It's
whatever you want to----
Senator Cardin. I'll defer, at this moment, so we can----
Senator Boxer. OK.
Senator Cardin [continuing]. Get to the witnesses.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
And what I wanted to say was, Senator Feinstein and
McConnell, those Senators were panel two. So, we've done panel
two, we will go to panel one, and then panel three. And panel
one is a panel of one.
Mr. Marciel, thank you very much. And please proceed for 6
minutes, if you can.
STATEMENT OF SCOT MARCIEL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU
OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Marciel. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting
me here today to testify about the situation in Burma.
I'd ask that my full written testimony be entered into the
record, and then I'll try to be very brief in my oral comments.
We've all seen the gripping photos, right in front of us,
of saffron-robed monks and the brave civilians of Burma taking
peacefully to the streets in the thousands to press the case
for dialog and democracy, only to be met with blunt end of
baton sticks, clouds of teargas, automatic weapons, mass
arrests, and worse. The exact number of casualties is not
clear, and, unfortunately, we may never know. The regime admits
to 10 deaths. The true number of fatalities is likely many
times that number, with hundreds, if not thousands, arrested.
The regime's violent crackdown this past week on peaceful
dissent by its own people is an outrage. I would note that our
reports indicate the arrests are continuing.
The brutal suppression of peaceful protest has only
reinforced this administration's commitment at the highest
levels to ensure that democracy is realized in Burma. President
Bush and Secretary Rice have led the international community's
outraged response to the regime's actions, forcefully raising
the issue at the U.N. General Assembly, in public statements,
and with leaders and senior officials from key governments in
the region. We've backed up our words with actions to ratchet
up pressure on the regime. We've tightened financial sanctions
and visa bans on senior regime officials, and we're now
exploring followup measures targeting the regime and those who
provide financial support to it.
Second, we are working to turn the international outrage
into increased pressure on the regime to move in a positive
direction. We're coordinating closely with the British, the
French, and other like-minded partners. We're reaching out to
the ASEAN nations whose Foreign Ministers issued an
unprecedented statement last week directly criticizing the
regime and urging the kinds of political reforms we have been
seeking. It's clear that ASEAN's patience with Burma has worn
very thin, and we believe ASEAN can play an important role
encouraging dialog and progress.
We also are pressing some key players in the region that
have been more hesitant to speak out. Japan is one of those
countries, at least until the last few days. We appreciate
Japan's recent public calls for restraint and indications it
may be considering some form of sanctions, but we also look to
Japan to do more.
After not speaking out for a long time, India, yesterday,
called upon the Burmese military to investigate incidents of
excessive use of force against prodemocracy protesters. That
was a positive step, but India can and should do more, given
its influence with the regime.
China probably has the most influence in the regime. While
we have indications that Beijing has been quietly pressing
junta leaders to exercise restraint, and was helpful in
facilitating U.N. Special Envoy Gambari's visit and meetings
this week in Burma, we think China can do more. We have been
pressing, and we will continue to press, Beijing to do more.
The other pillar of our diplomatic strategy remains the
United Nations. We endorse and support the mission of U.N.
Special Advisor Gambari, who was just in Burma this week. We're
still awaiting word on the results of his visit and his
discussions with Senior General Than Shwe and his two meetings
with Aung San Suu Kyi. Our hope is that Mr. Gambari has been
able to catalyze a dialog between the generals and the leaders
of the prodemocracy movement, but that remains to be seen.
We're also fully committed to having Burma remain an active
issue for the U.N. Security Council. We expect Mr. Gambari to
brief the Security Council in a formal session upon his return
to New York. Based on his report, and in consultations with our
partners, we'll decide on what additional actions or measures
to take up in the Security Council in the coming weeks.
Madam Chairman, I would be less than truthful if I told you
there was an easy solution to solving Burma's political
problems and putting it on a path to genuine democracy. The
primary obstacle to progress in Burma, as we all know, is a
military that's been entrenched in power for over 40 years. The
regime has propagated the myth that the military is the only
institution in Burma that can hold the country together and
resist the force of separatism from the ethnic border areas.
The Burmese military has insinuated itself, over four decades,
into every fiber of the country, and runs a parallel economic
system that sustains it while impoverishing the rest of the
country. One pundit recently described Burma not as a ``country
with a military,'' but, rather, as a ``military with a
country.''
Recognizing this reality, our approach over the past few
years has focused on building international pressure on the
regime to engage in a truly inclusive dialog with the
democratic opposition, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, and with the
ethnic minority groups, leading to a genuine political
transition from military rule to civilian-led democracy. This
is what Burma's democratic opposition has said it wants.
The immediate prospects for progress in Burma, admittedly,
looked dimmer after the events of last week, but we believe
that through perseverance and concerted efforts with our
partners and others, we can help bring a better democratic
future to Burma and its neighbors--sorry--Burma and its people.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marciel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scot Marciel, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau
of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC
Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify about the
ongoing crisis in Burma and our efforts to help bring democracy to that
country and an end to 40-plus years of repressive military rule. We
have all seen the gripping photos of saffron-robed monks and brave
civilians taking peacefully to the streets in the thousands to press
the case for dialog and democracy, only to be met with the blunt end of
baton sticks, clouds of tear gas, automatic weapons, mass arrests, and
worse.
The exact numbers of casualties suffered over the past several days
in Burma is not clear and, unfortunately, may never be known. The
regime admits to only 10 deaths. The true number of fatalities is
likely many times that number. We have also seen troubling pictures on
the aftermath of the regime's raids on monasteries and homes of
activists. We know that those random raids have continued. Our Embassy
reports that hundreds of people or more have been arrested, and we
believe that they are being kept in unimaginably inhumane conditions.
The regime's violent crackdown this past week on peaceful dissent by
its own people is an outrage, and something we and the international
community cannot and will not accept.
VIGOROUS U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RESPONSE
In reaction to the regime's brutal crackdown, the international
community has responded with a crescendo of outrage, revulsion, and
calls for the junta to halt the violence and begin a true dialog with
Burma's democratic opposition. Our efforts have focused on ensuring
that this outrage channels into greater pressure on the regime to
change. President Bush and Secretary Rice have led the charge,
forcefully raising the issue at APEC in Sydney, the U.N. General
Assembly, in public statements, and with leaders and senior officials
from key governments in the region, including China, India, Japan, and
countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (or ASEAN). The
First Lady's continued attention to the tragedy in Burma has also
helped to keep the issue squarely in the public eye, as have
resolutions and letters from Members in both the Senate and House.
The United States has also backed up its words with actions that
will serve to ratchet up pressure on the regime. Last week, the
Department of the Treasury designated 14 senior regime officials under
Executive Order 13310, which authorizes the blocking of assets in U.S.
jurisdiction belonging to senior officials and other designated
persons. The Department of State also identified senior regime
officials and their immediate family members--over 200 individuals--as
subject to the Presidential proclamation that suspends the entry into
the United States of persons who formulate, implement, or benefit from
policies that impede Burma's transition to democracy. We are now
exploring followup measures targeting the regime and those who provide
financial support to it.
At the same time, as the President made clear in his speech to the
United Nations General Assembly on September 25, that although we will
tighten sanctions, we also will ``continue to support the efforts of
humanitarian groups working to alleviate suffering in Burma.'' The
State Department is seeking ways to increase humanitarian assistance
and support for the movement to restore democracy in Burma.
The United States, of course, has not been alone in this endeavor.
The British, French, and other like-minded partners, in close
coordination with us, have been equally forceful in their condemnation
of the regime's actions and have pressed for strong measures. The EU
warned the regime on September 25 that it would reinforce and
strengthen existing sanctions if the junta resorted to violence against
unarmed and peaceful protestors and we understand that it is now
considering such actions. And on September 27, the Government of
Australia announced its intention to implement targeted financial
sanctions against regime figures and supporters. Perhaps even more
significant, however, has been the unprecedented statement by ASEAN
Foreign Ministers last week in New York directly criticizing the regime
and calling for restraint and urging the kinds of political reforms we
have been seeking. It is clear that ASEAN's patience with Burma has
worn very thin and last week's sharp words for the regime indicate the
organization will no longer automatically circle the wagons and protect
a member whose behavior has gone beyond all acceptable norms. We will
continue to engage with ASEAN and its individual members to ensure that
pressure on the regime from this influential regional body is
sustained.
While many countries and regional organizations, like ASEAN, have
stepped up and spoken out against the regime and the crackdown; some
key players in the region have been hesitant do so. Japan is one of
those countries. We appreciate Japan's recent public calls for
restraint and indications that it may be considering some form of
sanctions. We also welcome the visit to Burma this week of Deputy
Foreign Minister Yabunaka, who we understand will deliver a tough
message to the regime, while seeking answers from the generals on the
killing of a Japanese photo-journalist last week. But Japan, we think,
can do more. We would encourage Tokyo to look closely at its assistance
programs to see what kind of leverage can be applied there. We
appreciate Foreign Minister Komura's statement October 3 that Japan
will look closely at its economic assistance with a view to further
narrowing that assistance.
India is another country that can do more. In an improvement of its
traditional policy of not interfering in the internal affairs or
publicly criticizing Burma, India on October 2 called upon the Burmese
military to investigate incidents of excessive use of force against
prodemocracy protestors. This action follows Foreign Minister
Mukherjee's public statement last week calling for restraint by Burmese
authorities in dealing with the demonstrators. While we are aware of
India's strategic and commercial interests in Burma, we believe they
should not inhibit India's ability to forcefully advocate, both
publicly and privately, for the regime to end the violence and initiate
a genuine dialog with the democratic opposition. India's voice on this
subject, at this time, is critical.
Finally, China is the one country that everyone believes has the
most influence on the regime and its policies. While we have
indications that Beijing has been quietly pressing junta leaders to
exercise restraint and was helpful in securing meetings for U.N.
Special Envoy Gambari this week with Aung San Suu Kyi and the top
generals, we think China can and must do more, much more. We have no
illusions that China has the promotion of democracy and human rights at
the top of or even on its bilateral agenda with Burma. However, we do
know that China is concerned with ensuring its neighbor's stability and
prosperity. Last week's events have illustrated again that the Burmese
regime's rule has no legitimacy and popular support, and that absent a
genuine dialog with the democratic opposition its ``roadmap'' process
for political transition is a charade and a dead-end for both democracy
and stability. We will continue to press Beijing to do more to promote
national reconciliation in Burma based on dialog between the regime and
the democratic opposition and ethnic minority groups. We will encourage
China to step up to the challenge in a way commensurate with its
emerging status as a global power. If it does not, then China will
continue to be an appropriate target for growing international
criticism.
THE U.N., GAMBARI AND THE SECURITY COUNCIL
The other pillar of our strategy to pressure the regime to affect
genuine democratic reforms remains the United Nations. We fully endorse
and support the mission of U.N. Burma Special Advisor Gambari, who was
just in Burma this week. We are still awaiting word on the results of
his visit and his discussions with senior General Than Shwe and Aung
San Suu Kyi, with whom he met twice. Our hope is that Mr. Gambari has
been able to catalyze a dialog between the generals and the leaders of
the prodemocracy movement, but that remains to be seen. We also are
fully committed to having Burma remain an active issue for the Security
Council. We expect Mr. Gambari to brief the Security Council in a
formal session shortly after his return from Burma to report on the
results of his discussions and next steps for his good offices mission.
Based on Mr. Gambari's report, and in consultations with our partners,
we will decide what additional actions/measures to take up in the
Security Council in the coming days. While we welcome the Human Rights
Council's passage of a resolution on Burma, this in no way substitutes
for continued Security Council engagement.
A WAY FORWARD
Madame Chairman, I would be less than truthful if I told you that
there is an easy solution to solving Burma's political problems and
putting it on a path to genuine democracy. If it were easy, it would
have been resolved years ago.
The truth is that the primary obstacle to democratic change in
Burma is a 400,000 strong military that has been entrenched in power
for over 46 years. The military's officer corps finds it virtually
inconceivable that they should surrender the commanding heights of
power and governance to a democratic opposition composed of civilians.
The regime has propagated the myth that the military is the only
institution in Burma that can hold the country together and resist the
forces of separatism from the ethnic border areas. The Burmese military
has forcefully insinuated itself over four decades into every fiber of
the country and runs a parallel economic system that sustains it while
impoverishing the rest of Burma. One pundit recently described Burma
not as a ``country with a military,'' but rather as a ``military with a
country.''
Recognizing this reality, that change will not come easily, our
approach to Burma over the past couple of years has focused on building
maximum international pressure on the regime to engage in a dialog with
the democratic opposition, led by Aung Sang Suu Kyi, and the ethnic
minority groups, leading to a genuine political transition from
military rule to civilian-led democracy. This is what Aung Sang Suu Kyi
and Burmese democracy activists, both within Burma and without, have
said they want. They do not want the regime's ``roadmap'' process as
constructed; that is a dead-end, as long as it does not involve the
opposition in a genuine and open dialog.
The brutal crackdown by the regime, first on democracy activists
then on the monks and average citizens who bravely followed them into
the streets, was outrageous and clearly a setback for the democratic
aspirations of the Burmese people and our efforts to support those
aspirations. That said, I can assure you that the administration
remains committed at the highest levels to ensure that democracy is
realized in Burma. We will intensify our bilateral actions to pressure
the regime. We will continue to actively engage the key regional
partners (e.g., China, India, Japan, ASEAN) and employ all appropriate
measures to gain their support in pressing the regime for a democratic
transition. We will continue to coordinate closely with like-minded
partners in Europe and elsewhere in this endeavor. We will actively
support Mr. Gambari's good offices mission to promote dialog and
national reconciliation and urge others to do the same. We will also
press for appropriate actions by the U.N. Security Council to help
bring about the kind of changes we and the Burmese people seek.
Madame Chairman, while the immediate prospects for progress in
Burma may look dim given events last week, we believe that through
perseverance and concerted effort with our partners and others, we can
help bring a better, democratic future to Burma and its people.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you this
afternoon. I am pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. We'll keep questions to 6
minutes.
Mr. Marciel, thank you very much. During his address to the
U.N. General Assembly last week, the President made a very
good, strong statement about the situation in Burma, and he
rightly stated the American people were horrified by it, and
are horrified by it, and he made a strong statement, further,
about tightening sanctions. He didn't seem to address the
loophole that's in the bill, which I think requires tightening,
which allows American companies to continue to do business in
Burma. Now, it's all well and good for everyone to say the
sanctions have to be multilateral. We agree. But if we still
have a big loophole, I think that gives us a little bit of a
lower moral ground.
So, for example, the Chevron Corporation is one such
company that continues to do business in Burma as part of the
Yadana offshore gas project, the natural gas field that
provides $400 to $600 million in revenues to the Burmese
junta--$400 to $600 million every year to the junta.
Arvind Ganesan, director of the Business and Human Rights
Program for Human Rights Watch, has said, ``The Yadana project
is probably one of the biggest revenue-raisers, if not the
biggest revenue-raiser, for the Burmese Government, so it gives
them the ability to do what they want. And, at the moment, the
money is being used to fund the Burmese military's brutal
crackdown on its citizens.''
So, again, I just wonder, have you discussed this with the
President? Is there a way that we could join together, the
legislative and executive branch, to tighten up this loophole?
Because it seems to me it sends a mixed message on our
commitment if we have such a giant loophole and an--and
Chevron--I don't mean to pick on them, they just happened to be
doing business before the sanctions went into play--but they
are, in essence, providing so much--hundreds of millions of
dollars to the government every year. Could you respond to
that?
Mr. Marciel. Sure, Senator.
Chevron, as you know, its investment or presence in Burma
was grandfathered in----
Senator Boxer. I understand.
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. Under the 1997 law. What I would
say is, you know, we're looking at everything, to be
perfectly----
Senator Boxer. Good.
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. Honest.
Senator Boxer. Good.
Mr. Marciel. I think our view is that we've tried very
hard--lots of administrations, with the strong support of
Congress, have tried a lot of different things, and we haven't
succeeded, so we have to be open and looking----
Senator Boxer. Right.
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. At every new----
Senator Boxer. Well, I'm glad----
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. Idea, and putting this----
Senator Boxer [continuing]. You said that, because, again,
that's a big loophole, seems to me.
Mr. Marciel. Yeah. We are----
Senator Boxer. Now----
Mr. Marciel. We are looking at----
Senator Boxer [continuing]. In terms of China, we've all
spoken out on the importance of China here--is there any
indication to you--Senator Feinstein put a statement in the
record, et cetera--you know, when I hear a statement that says,
``We ask all parties to show restraint,'' what does that mean?
That means we're asking the people in their robes to no longer
walk in peace? I worry about that statement, ``all parties to
show restraint.'' So, I'm a little concerned about that type of
statement. What's your analysis of where we are? If you think
China's any way willing to scale back the hundreds of millions
of dollars in military aid it provides the junta?
Mr. Marciel. I would answer that in two ways. First,
international pressure is key, and that means, really,
everybody--us, the Europeans, the ASEANs, China, and India. So,
China's involvement is very important.
I think what I would say is that our sense is that China is
concerned about the situation inside Burma, and we do believe
they have weighed in, for example, to facilitate the U.N. Envoy
Gambari's visit, perhaps to call for restraint. They have not
yet shown a willingness to go beyond that. We're continuing to
work on them. We have to continue doing that. And one question
will be, when this issue comes before the Security Council in
the coming days, how China reacts.
Senator Boxer. OK. I'm running out of time, so I'm going to
make one quick statement and then my last question.
My quick statement is this. India. I mean, India is a model
of democracy for the developing world. And, as you, yourself,
have pointed out, where are they? Now, I happen to--I happen to
be one of the very few people here who did not vote for the
nuclear deal with India. But that deal is really important to
India. I would hope that we can connect the dots here and say,
``Look, if we're going to show the confidence in you to do
this, then you need to help us here.'' Have you made those
reach-outs to India in that direct a way?
Mr. Marciel. Senator, I'm--to be honest, I'm--I know there
have been a number of high-level discussions with the Indians.
I don't know if it's been put exactly that way, but we have
made it very clear to India that we felt that, particularly as
a democracy, it needed to step up and use its influence with
the regime to press for exactly the things that everyone here
has talked about.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, I think you have some cards in
your deck there. So, my last--since I have 30 seconds--the
Government of Thailand does not allow the U.N. Refugee Agency--
UNHCR--to conduct refugee status determinations of Burmese.
That means refugees fleeing Burma cannot currently be
appropriately registered and provided with essential services.
They are detained at the border, they're routinely returned.
Where do we stand, in terms of Thailand and what they should be
doing, in terms of an open border and registering refugees and
so on?
Mr. Marciel. Senator, that's a very good question. As you
know, there are a lot of--millions of Burmese refugees in
Thailand--or hundreds of thousands. If I could, I would like to
get back to you with----
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. A fully thought-out answer,
because I'm not sure----
Senator Boxer. Sure.
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. I have all the answers here.
[The written information from Deputy Assistant Secretary
Marciel follows:]
There are over 140,000 Burmese refugees in Thailand. While some
refugees fled Burma as long as two decades ago, asylum-seekers continue
to flee to Thailand and other countries. Conditions in Burma do not
permit these refugees to return to their home country. We appreciate
the Royal Thai Government's cooperation with humanitarian
organizations, the United States, and other donor governments in
meeting the needs of these refugees.
The Royal Thai Government conducts its own screening of the refugee
claims of Burmese asylum-seekers through Provincial Admissions Boards
(PABs), which were reestablished in recent years following close
coordination with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR). The PABs were intended to continue reviewing the
cases of any new Burmese asylum-seekers seeking entry into the refugee
camps; however, the process has lapsed in several of the camps. UNHCR
is now coordinating with Thai authorities in an effort to revitalize
the screening process. The U.S. Government has encouraged the
Government of Thailand to continue screening asylum-seekers and
providing protection to any refugees.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. There was an article in the Washington
Post this morning about the number of refugees in Thailand. You
look at the picture of, literally, house on--not even
``house''--slum on top of slum, and appreciate the--just the
devastating situation with the refugees there.
Mr. Marciel, in terms of other possible sanctions that
could be put in place, it's been suggested that Burma's fiscal
policy is simply to raise enough money for the military, with
little concern for any other activities. Outside of the current
provisions within the Patriot Act and sanctions on money-
laundering and the prohibitions on new investments, what other
financial policies might be available that we could put in
place that might give us something that we haven't got, to this
point in time?
Mr. Marciel. First, in your--response to your first point,
our sense is that the regime is getting enough hard currency to
keep itself afloat, even as the country becomes more
impoverished. We're still, to be honest, studying all the
options out there on the sanctions. We--you know, we haven't
reached any conclusions yet, beyond the additional sanctions
that were allowed last week. So, we're still working on the
answer to your question, to be perfectly honest. But it's a
very high priority for us.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we learned, with the situation in
North Korea, that perhaps going after the financial
institutions was something where you can put a squeeze on a
regime and see some impact. So, certainly it's something that
is--I'm sure you're reviewing and considering.
Along the lines of North Korea, at the hearing that we had
back in March 2006, I had mentioned, at that time, that some
who were following the situation in Burma very closely had
raised the possibility of some type of a six-party talk,
similar or fashioned after what we were doing there in Korea.
And Michael Green, who's one of the panelists coming up after
you, had also suggested that we might want to be pushing for a
common set of talking points, basically a roadmap as to how we
go forward with other parties who share those same values with
regards to Burma.
Has there been any development along this front? Any
further discussion about the roadmap, six-party talk, or in----
Mr. Marciel. Well, there's been----
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. That direction?
Mr. Marciel. It's a good question. There's been intense and
constant discussion about how we can work with countries in the
region to put maximum pressure on the regime, not in a formal
format like the six-party talks. And, of course, one big
difference is that, in the six-party talks, you have North
Korea. The Burmese haven't shown particular interest in
participating in much of any dialog, either with their own
people or with the international community. But what we have
been doing is pushing very hard for the countries in the
region, even if they have different approaches toward the
regime, toward Burma--some have sanctions, some have trade, but
to push for some common points, as you suggested. And those
common points really have been: Release political prisoners;
begin a genuine dialog with the opposition; allow U.N. and
other international humanitarian organizations to do their
work. So, those have been the common talking points that we
have been pressing, with some success.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you about the ASEAN nations,
because they--you had mentioned the joint statement, the
release that had come out from the ASEAN members expressing
their revulsion over the use of the violence. Certainly there
appears to be a sense of unity that's expressed in that letter.
Is there a divide amongst the ASEAN members on how to approach
Burma, or are they pretty much united on this?
Mr. Marciel. I think ASEAN's position has evolved over the
last 2 years. Two years ago, they were basically defending the
regime in a unified ASEAN policy. About a year and a half ago,
if I remember correctly, they ended that unified policy, and
each country, sort of, freed, if you will, in the ASEAN
context, to take up its own position. I think what we saw last
week is a unified ASEAN position--unified, with the exception
of Burma--the other nine members taking a very strong stance on
insisting that the regime had to begin a political dialog, end
the violence, release political prisoners. I think, to that
extent, ASEAN--the rest of ASEAN, the nine--are unified. As we
go further and look to ASEAN member--as an entity and as
individual members to step up pressure, I mean, we'll--we're
going to have to see how much unity there is. But I think----
Senator Murkowski. Does the----
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. Overall the----
Senator Murkowski. Does the military junta, then, take
advantage of the fact that you do have members who are coming
at it from a different perspective? Are they capitalizing on
that?
Mr. Marciel. I'll tell you, my sense, at this point, is
that it's much more unity in ASEAN. It's striking for----
Senator Murkowski. But that is very recent. Is that
correct?
Mr. Marciel. That's--in--well, certainly, last week--I
mean, the crackdown the last 10 days really has appalled
everybody, including, I think, the ASEANs, as far as I can
tell. It's very genuine revulsion at what they see. So, I think
there's--there is unity that Burma has to change, has to begin.
I think that's pretty clear.
Senator Murkowski. Maybe that'll make the difference.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kerry.
Senator Kerry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Marciel, I hate to say it, but what I hear is kind of a
slow-walk diplomatic policy for a rather urgent humanitarian
situation. Can you tell me, specifically what the
administration is doing to get the Gambari mission on track?
Mr. Marciel. Well, I mean, now, of course, Gambari, as
you've said, has visited and has already left Burma, and is on
his way back to New York.
Senator Kerry. But he has an ongoing mission. He's been----
Mr. Marciel. He has an----
Senator Kerry [continuing]. Appointed by the----
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. Ongoing mission.
Senator Kerry [continuing]. Secretary General to be the
mediator.
Mr. Marciel. You're right, sir.
Senator Kerry. What are we doing to further that mediation?
Mr. Marciel. We have been pushing every country, that has
any involvement in this at all very hard, to support his
mission, and urging all countries to unify in support of----
Senator Kerry. What are we doing----
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. Its efforts.
Senator Kerry [continuing]. To leverage that? I mean----
Mr. Marciel. Pardon me?
Senator Kerry. What are we doing to leverage that? As far
as I can tell, the only public statements I've seen are from
the President at the U.N., and the Secretary at the U.N. last
week. Where are the President and the Secretary of State and
Chris Hill yesterday and the day before yesterday and on the
weekend, when people's lives are at risk? Where are they?
Mr. Marciel. Well, I'll tell you, Senator, they have been
very active on this issue----
Senator Kerry. But we haven't----
Mr. Marciel. Extremely active.
Senator Kerry [continuing]. Heard anything, and we
certainly haven't seen anything. What--can you tell us about
that?
Mr. Marciel. Well, they're--I could--I think, if you would,
Senator, I could--we can pull together a list of the
statements. That's just the public statements. There's been any
number of diplomatic discussions, certainly in New York last
week and over the weekend or any number involving, certainly,
the Secretary of State and Assistant Secretary Hill and others,
with ASEAN----
Senator Kerry. Well, I think it would----
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. With China----
Senator Kerry [continuing]. Be interesting----
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. And India----
Senator Kerry. I would like the committee to have a record
of those conversations and/or meetings.
Mr. Marciel. Sure. We can do that.
[The written information from Deputy Assistant Secretary
Marciel follows:]
Burma remains one of the administration's highest foreign policy
priorities. President Bush, Secretary Rice, and other senior
administration officials, including our ambassadors in key Asian and
European countries and the United Nations, have forcefully and
consistently expressed the United States outrage and condemnation of
the recent crackdown in Burma, and called for an immediate cessation of
the violence and release of all political prisoners, and initiation of
a genuine multistakeholder dialogue toward democratic transition.
President Bush met with ASEAN leaders during the APEC summit in
September and stressed the need for regional pressure on the Burmese
regime. In his remarks to the U.N. General Assembly, President Bush
condemned the regime's crackdown on prodemocracy activists and
announced tightened sanctions against regime leaders and their
supporters. Secretary Rice and EU Foreign Ministers issued a joint
statement on Burma, and we expressed our deep concerns about the
situation there with ASEAN Foreign Ministers in New York during the
U.N. General Assembly. Senior administration officials have urged
leaders and senior officials from other countries, including China,
India, and key ASEAN Member States, to fully support the U.N. good
offices mission led by Special Advisor Gambari to bring about a genuine
dialogue among the regime, Aung Sang Suu Kyi and the democratic
opposition, and the ethnic minorities. We continue to actively engage
with like-minded governments and the key countries in the region at the
highest levels to mobilize international consensus and support for
pressing the regime to take the tough steps necessary for a transition
to a civilian, democratic government in Burma. Our strategy of bringing
maximum pressure to bear on the Burmese regime to initiate the kind of
reforms we seek also includes a ratcheting-up of our sanctions directed
at regime leaders and their cronies. We continue to support those
working to realize a transition to a civilian, democratic government in
Burma and provide humanitarian assistance to the victims of the Burmese
regime's misrule.
Mr. Marciel. I should add, Under Secretary Burns also very
active.
Senator Kerry. So, what is--I mean, as everybody here has
said--and I don't think there's much disagreement on it--
statements are not going to alter this, correct?
Mr. Marciel. Right.
Senator Kerry. OK. So, what's the policy to alter it?
Mr. Marciel. Senator, the policy is: One, bilaterally, we
maintain our own sanctions. I understand the concerns about----
Senator Kerry. But that's not going to change it.
Mr. Marciel. It's part of the pressure.
Senator Kerry. Not evidently, no, it isn't. It hasn't
changed anything in all these years.
Mr. Marciel. That's correct, but we still----
Senator Kerry. So, it's not part of the pressure.
Mr. Marciel. Well, I guess we'd, respectfully, disagree,
sir.
Senator Kerry. Well, what pressure is it? If it hasn't
changed anything, what pressure can you define?
Mr. Marciel. Senator, it's very hard to know what the
generals are thinking, but it's very important that we--it's
one way of maintaining, constantly in the spotlight, the
situation in Burma. And there's very strong support among the
democratic opposition in Burma for our sanctions. I'm the first
to admit that they, by themselves, have not solved the problem,
nor, frankly, has any other approach, which is why I said we're
so open to new ideas.
Senator Kerry. Well, do you believe that, if China joined
in sanctions together with Thailand and with India, that there
would be a legitimate squeeze on Burma----
Mr. Marciel. Yes.
Senator Kerry [continuing]. On the junta?
Mr. Marciel. Yes; I think there would be.
Senator Kerry. So, why isn't that the strategy? Why aren't
we declaring that that must happen in exchange for any number
of things with India and China?
Mr. Marciel. Well, as I said, Senator, the sanctions, I
said--our own sanctions--are a part of our strategy, but
they're not the whole strategy.
Senator Kerry. Well, what is the whole strategy?
Mr. Marciel. The----
Senator Kerry. That's what----
Mr. Marciel. I'll----
Senator Kerry [continuing]. I'm asking you.
Mr. Marciel. I'm--I'll try to tell you, Senator.
Senator Kerry. To get something done--not just to have the
appearance of doing things, to actually get something done.
Mr. Marciel. Senator, the administration's absolutely
committed to getting something done.
Senator Kerry. What's the evidence of that? Is there--
what's the, sort of, agreement here with respect to how we're
going to get humanitarian assistance back in? Is there one?
Mr. Marciel. Well, humanitarian assistance, if I could--
that's a slightly separate issue, I think, than getting----
Senator Kerry. Well, then leave that, for now.
Mr. Marciel. OK.
Senator Kerry. Just stay with the sanctions.
Mr. Marciel. The focus is: One, we maintain, strengthen our
own sanctions; two, we get as much international pressure on
the regime as possible. And that involves heavy, heavy
diplomacy, and it's slow. We can't go to China today, or India,
or anyone else in the region, and say, ``Impose sanctions,''
and expect it to happen tomorrow. This is really hard work, as
you----
Senator Kerry. What are we----
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. Know, Senator.
Senator Kerry [continuing]. Going to put before the
Security Council next week?
Mr. Marciel. I don't know. We're going to, first, wait and
see what Mr. Gambari reports. We really just have to see what
he says.
But I really want to stress, Senator, there is genuine
commitment in the administration to doing everything we can to
bring about change. And there's a lot of people at very high
levels--and certainly the President and the First Lady--very
active on this. And the goal is to bring about change.
Sanctions, a lot of heavy diplomatic work, which is--which is
really slow. And we're all incredibly frustrated that it is so
slow and so hard, but that's----
Senator Kerry. Well----
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. The way ahead.
Senator Kerry [continuing]. With all due respect, I have
been chair of this subcommittee until this year. Senator Boxer
has taken that over. And I've traveled to the region many
times. And we just haven't focused on this. I'd tell you
bluntly that there's been this sort of occasional statement,
and then everybody goes about their business. Not dissimilar,
may I add, to six-party talks that engaged in no talks for
about 4\1/2\ years with North Korea, until you finally did
bilateral, and now we're making some progress with the very
thing this committee proposed 5 years ago.
Mr. Marciel. Right. Senator, I can speak for the last 2
years. I wasn't working on Burma before that. For the last 2
years, there's been quite intensive work, particularly on the
diplomatic front, on Burma that has resulted in increased
international pressure on the regime. Part of the trouble, of
course, is the regime doesn't--isn't easily influenced.
Senator Kerry. Because they don't have to be, because they
have a sweetheart relationship, militarily and economically,
with their friend to the north. It's very simple.
Mr. Marciel. And----
Senator Kerry. It's not a hard equation.
Mr. Marciel. Well, and it's not just----
Senator Kerry. And they've done well with India, and
they've done well with----
Mr. Marciel. Right.
Senator Kerry [continuing]. Thailand.
Mr. Marciel. I agree.
Senator Kerry. So, they don't have to. So, all of the rest
of this is folderol, frankly.
Mr. Marciel. Well, Senator, as I said, we're not saying
that we've had great success here. We're open to ideas, if
people have ideas. We have also let the regime know--we've
offered positive inducements by letting the regime know that,
if they were to move in the right direction, we would respond
positively. It's not that--this is not--I was in Vietnam in the
early 1990s, then you were working on it, Senator--this is not
Vietnam, this is not a regime that's shown----
Senator Kerry. I absolutely----
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. An interest----
Senator Kerry [continuing]. Understand that, believe me. I
know that.
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. In reaching out. So, it's very
hard to leverage them.
Senator Kerry. There are zero redeeming qualities about
this regime.
Mr. Marciel. I agree with that.
Senator Boxer. Senator Kerry, thank you.
Senator Webb.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The first thing I would say is that we obviously are
dealing with two problems here at once, which makes it kind of
difficult to have the sort of dialog that you're having with
the subcommittee. The first is the immediate problem, and it's
urgent, and I have no doubt in my mind that there are people
being rounded up right now, and that we need to do whatever we
can to resolve the short-term problem. And then we have the
long-term problem. And I would respectfully disagree with the
way that this sanctions program has moved forward. I would
posit a theory that countries around the world that are the
most isolated are also the most repressive; North Korea being a
classic example, and Burma being a classic example of that.
And there is something of a parallel with Vietnam. The
governmental system is not a parallel, but the techniques that
we were using, you can, I think, develop an analytical parallel
with. From 1975 until probably 1990, this was an enormously
repressive regime. They put a million people in reeducation
camps because they had been aligned with us, more than 56,000
of them died in these camps, 240,000 of them stayed longer than
4 years, some of them stayed as long as 18 years, locked up.
They could pull anybody off the street. And it was when I first
started going back to Vietnam, and it was interesting, anybody
could come up to you and talk to you, but, if you left, their
family was visited that night. So, there were those kinds of
parallels. And we had economic sanctions in place. And I
actually supported those sanctions, and we lifted the
sanctions, and the positive result of lifting the sanctions,
not by themselves, but coupled, as you know, if you were there
in the early 1990s, with the roadmap--the diplomatic roadmap
that was put in place, with benchmarks, with--the economic
liberalization that went along with that opened up the country
in a way that they could not escape a certain amount of outside
influence. There were reasons that they had to do that, with
the demise of the Soviet Union and all those rest of--all those
sorts of things.
But the model, it seems to me, has some applicability here.
I mean, when you were talking, in your testimony, about the
fact that there are parallel economic systems in Burma, it
would seem logical to me that the impact of the sanctions that
we have in place really don't affect the government. Would that
be true? The regime?
Mr. Marciel. I think some of the--I think it affects the
overall economy, some of the sanctions--for example, the
investment ban or the import ban would affect the economy, as a
whole, possibly----
Senator Webb. But it wouldn't be affecting the ruling----
Mr. Marciel. Right.
Senator Webb [continuing]. Regime, as opposed to the
people.
Mr. Marciel. Well, we also have sanctions, and those--this
is what we did last week, particularly, was, we focused
specifically on the regime, to try to squeeze----
Senator Webb. Right.
Mr. Marciel [continuing]. Them.
Senator Webb. Well, and that's a--that's a place that----
Mr. Marciel. Right.
Senator Webb [continuing]. I can see some applicability.
But, on the other side, with the average person, I can only go
back to the individual that I was talking about in my opening
statement. This is an American businessman who had opened up an
outdoor furniture business in Burma, hiring all Burmese people,
creating a business pattern that they could understand, working
quietly with government officials. And he's not there any more.
You know, he's a voice that could explain our culture, that
could actually train people and help create a bottom-up
pressure against a repressive regime, is gone, multiplied by
however many times that occurs. And you can only do that sort
of thing along with a diplomatic roadmap, along with pressures,
but it seems to me that, with the reality that China's not
going to go with us on sanctions, India's not going to go with
us on sanctions--I met with the Thai Foreign Minister this
morning. He had a very respectful voice, warning against the
inapplicability, as opposed to other ways of doing it. What do
we do?
Mr. Marciel. It's a very good question, Senator. At the
risk of--in a discussion on Vietnam normalization with two
veterans, in more than one way--the Vietnamese, because of the
collapse of the Soviet Union, made a strategic decision, as you
know, to open up and join the world. And that allowed--that
gave us some leverage, through the roadmap. We would love to
see that sort of approach with Burma. They just haven't shown
any indication of willingness to--or interest in reaching out.
In fact, I agree with you, they're so isolated, but they're
isolating themselves. Their decision to move the capital is a
classic----
Senator Webb. No question about that. And I----
Mr. Marciel. So----
Senator Webb [continuing]. I would agree with you, I don't
think we disagree with the ultimate----
Mr. Marciel. Right.
Senator Webb [continuing]. Objectives here. But the--when
you look at the pattern in this administration, with all due
respect, it has been not to talk to people----
Mr. Marciel. Right.
Senator Webb [continuing]. Whether it's Iran or Syria or--
pick a country.
Mr. Marciel. I understand.
Senator Webb. And with--we're the big guy on the block. You
know, we bring a lot of things to the table that we could use,
in terms of moving these things forward.
Mr. Marciel. Senator, I understand. We have talked to the
regime. We have indicated a willingness to move in a positive
way, if they will move in a positive way. It's not detailed
like the roadmap, it's a much more general approach. So, if
they were showing some interest and a willingness to make some
positive--take some positive steps, I think it's clearly----
Senator Webb. Well, they definitely aren't--and this is not
to contradict what you're saying, in just--in terms of
searching for a formula that will make it better for the people
of Burma. I mean, they're not--I'm getting gaveled down at the
bell, there--but the other way is not working, either. That's
the point.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. The only reason I'm doing this is, there's a
vote coming, and I want to make sure we get our panel in.
So, Senator Cardin, the floor is yours.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your testimony.
I've listened to your responses, and I think you're hearing
from all of us that we believe there's got to be greater
urgency for effective policy to stop the humanitarian disaster
that's taking place today in Burma, that we just can't sit back
and use the same terms we've been using now for many, many
years.
I don't really think it should have surprised us that there
was a blowup in Burma. This repressive regime's been there, the
signs of these types of problems have been there for a long
time, it's been a very closed society, it's been very difficult
for us to get anyone into the country. And now we're faced with
a crisis, and our options become more challenging.
So, I just really want to express some frustration that we
did not pay attention to more effective policies prior to this
most recent blowup.
We all agree that statements, alone, will not be effective.
But then I listen to your strategy about getting our--other
countries to use the same terms we're using--release of
prisoners and end of violence, et cetera--which certainly are
goals, but it seems like what you're saying is that, if they
make those demands, that perhaps we're making progress, when,
in reality, without some effective action, we're not making
progress. We don't know what's happening in Burma today, we
don't know how many people were killed today. And we just can't
sit by.
We all agree that sanctions is part of our strategy. But
our sanctions haven't been effective. So, you stated that the
administration's policy is to strengthen the sanctions. Would
that be to close the loopholes that exist today; if necessary,
through legislation?
Mr. Marciel. Senator, I would say that sanctions is part of
our policy. We're looking at various options. We haven't made a
decision, beyond last week's tightening of sanctions, but--
we're looking at other options, in terms of sanctions or
tightening things up, but we haven't made decisions yet. But I
would say we are looking at them with urgency.
On the point about getting other countries, it--we're not
just asking them to make statements. I take your point on that.
We're asking them to use whatever influence they have, and
different countries have different forms of influence. It's
very hard to get countries, particularly in the region, to
agree to impose sanctions. What we're trying to do is get them
to put more and more pressure on the regime, and get, as much
as possible, the international community to speak to one voice
to maximize the pressure. It's very hard. I mean, there is no
easy solution, but that's at least what we need to be doing
now. If we could get everybody--China, India, ASEAN--all to
impose sanctions tomorrow, it probably would have a profound
effect, but that's not an easy thing to do.
Senator Cardin. I don't deny it's difficult. I'm not trying
to make this a simple solution, because there is not a simple
solution. But I know that, unless we are--unless the countries
we're talking to sense the urgency that's in this committee
room, the likelihood of effective action is--it's not going to
be there. So, I guess we would feel more comfortable if we
sensed that urgency in the administration's conversations with
the countries that can help us effectively change policy in
Burma.
As far as making the sanctions work, I think that's an
important point. And I don't understand why we would be
reluctant to deal with the oil issue--the gas issue that was
brought up. I would certainly hope that that would be on the
table. That's a significant amount of resources going to this
government. And if we are to expect other countries to perhaps
join us in isolating Burma's economy through sanctions, they're
going to be looking at the actions that we have taken first.
We're the leader.
I see you shaking your head. I'm only saying that, because
I want to make sure that's in the record, that I got a positive
nod. Because I do think we have to be the leader. And I think
people are going to be looking--other countries are going to be
looking at whether we are just being convenient in our
sanctions or we are trying to be effective in our sanctions.
Mr. Marciel. Yes, Senator, I would say two things. One, we
are looking at all of the ideas on sanctions. I can't say much
more than that, because we haven't made an administration
decision yet on some of these things.
In terms of urgency, I must not be expressing myself very
well. There's incredible urgency in the administration. You
know, it's very, very active, constantly meeting, calling,
pressing, cajoling, everything we can do. I don't know how to
express it better than that, but it--this is not, sort of,
business as usual, where, ``Let's have a meeting in 2 weeks on
Burma.'' It's constant, every day.
Senator Cardin. I thank you for that reply. That certainly
is--I'm pleased to hear you say that. I'd just repeat, today
people are dying in Burma. We don't know the extent of it, and
we don't have good information as to what's happening on a day-
to-day basis. But we know that there's a--there is a
humanitarian crisis. And the United States must exercise
international leadership to do everything we can to effectively
bring an end to that humanitarian disaster
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator. I think you
spoke for all of us, there.
I want to thank you very much, Mr. Marciel. I think what
you're hearing from all of us is, we really want to be helpful
here, we want to give you the backbone to go forward and do as
much as you can. And, when you say ``tighten sanctions,'' you
know, we've got to look at the obvious. It's hard to ask
somebody else to do it, when we have a loophole the size of a,
you know, Mack truck. So, I think we're ready to help you, and
we urge you to take that message back, if you would, to----
Mr. Marciel. Thank you.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. Secretary Rice and everybody
over at State. Thank you----
Mr. Marciel. I will.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. Very much.
Mr. Marciel. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. And we will invite up panel three: Michael
Green, senior adviser, Center for Strategic and International
Studies, in Washington; Mr. Aung Din, policy director,
cofounder, U.S. Campaign for Burma; and Mr. Tom Malinowski,
Washington advocacy director, Human Rights Watch.
We're going to give you each 5 minutes, and we're going to
really hope that we're not interrupted by a vote. If we are, we
still have enough time, I say to my ranking member, to hear
from this panel. So, let's just plunge right ahead.
Mr. Green, we welcome you, and go forward for 5 minutes.
We'll put your statement in the record.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL J. GREEN, SENIOR ADVISER, CENTER FOR
STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I, as Senator Murkowski said, was invited to speak to this
committee last year, and we discussed, in those hearings, how
to organize, internationally, to apply more pressure and build
more consensus to effect change in Burma. And that's what I'd
like to talk about today.
I would first add, though, that the center of action, the
moves that count most, are always on the ground, and our
colleague Aung Din will speak to that, and I think that is
going to be where this will ultimately be decided. But we could
organize ourselves better.
After 1988, the international community split. The United
States, most Western democracies, imposed sanctions; most Asian
nations argued for patient engagement. And we've had an
interesting discussion about the inadequacy of sanctions, in
and of themselves, if they're unilateral, to change the junta's
behavior. But what is interesting is how leaders in Bangkok,
Tokyo, and even in Beijing are acknowledging that their patient
engagement has not worked any better. And I think we're at a
crossroads, where the level of international indignation has
never been higher. There are definitely differences among the
neighbors, and they've been explained in the previous session.
On the other hand, we've never had the focus we have today,
internationally.
Senator Feinstein noted some of the subtle, but important,
changes in China's rhetoric. I--you know, as an Asia expert,
you see these small changes, and see icebergs moving, but it's
important that China's beginning to use rhetoric like
``reconciliation,'' even if they caveat it by, unfortunately,
``calling on all sides.'' So, it's far from what we need, but
there is movement. India, as well, Japan, and, most notably,
the ASEAN statement, led by Singapore, but representing all of
the members, other than Burma, calling what's happening
``repulsive.''
This is not happening only because the demonstrations and
the brutal suppression of those demonstrations by the regime
are there for everyone to see. I think it's also happening
because this is a different Asia from 1988. ASEAN is now
working on a new charter that will emphasize human rights, the
rule of law, democracy, and establish some form of human rights
commission. This is not the ASEAN we were dealing with 10 or 20
years ago. We ought to be pushing them to live up to the
standards that they, themselves, are starting to articulate.
Japan, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, argued that Asian ideas
of democracy or capitalism are different. You heard that
frequently. Today, the Japanese Foreign Minister talks about an
arc of prosperity and freedom and Asia, and identifying, in
Tokyo, these democratic ideals. And India's Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh speaks of the idea of India being democracy.
And, even in China, this is not the China of 1988. China
worries about stability, and there's an interesting debate
among Chinese intellectuals about whether they can sustain in
the--a role in the world based on noninterference in internal
affairs. So, we ought to be pushing all these countries to move
further in that direction. We'll, I think, not only be able to
make progress on this specific crisis, but begin establishing a
broader norm in the region that will contribute to stability
over the longer term.
What concerns me is what many of the members were
discussing, and that is that we will fall back into
complacency, settle for a hollow process, as we often have in
the past. And I think that we need to galvanize the
international community, as several of the members of the
committee have said. The United States has to lead on this. The
solution is going to lie largely within Asia, but the
leadership is going to have to come from Washington.
I would argue, first, that, while sanctions, in and of
themselves, have not changed the behavior of the regime,
they're absolutely indispensable. The President announced new
targeted financial sanctions, which I think are critical to our
overall strategy--first, because the democracy movement wants
them, they know we're doing them. This is giving them the moral
support and encouragement they need to win this battle in the
streets. Second, sanctions--these targeted financial sanctions
are much more sophisticated than they used to be. They sting,
and they complicate those who try to do business with the
elite, and will get international attention.
Now, I think we also have to push harder on the Security
Council for a resolution. The administration has been hesitant,
because it, to date, did not want to provoke a Chinese or
Russian veto that would give encouragement to the junta. I
think we're beyond that. I think we need to force China and
Russia to put their cards on the table. I would push for an
arms embargo, as well.
Ultimately, China and India will not agree to American-
style sanctions, but we know, from North Korea, that they'll
turn the oil off for 3 days, they'll cut off critical
shipments. They can express their displeasures in ways that are
hard to miss.
And, finally, I think we need to organize the diplomacy in
a more deliberate and almost formal way. We need senior
officials, perhaps even a special envoy, not to go talk to the
regime, but to go talk to India, China, on behalf of the
President and the Congress, begin pulling this together.
We need to agree to a common set of benchmarks to move this
loose change in rhetoric toward something of a concrete set of
steps, beginning with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, in a
transparent and inclusive process. And I think if we do this
work, it will pay off in the longer term, not only in Burma, as
I said, but in starting to move the norms in Asia in directions
that will support the kind of freedom that that the people in
Burma are now struggling to achieve.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, sir.
And we're privileged to welcome Mr. Aung Din, policy and
cofounder of U.S. Campaign for Burma, Washington, DC.
And we're so grateful to you for making this possible on
your schedule, sir.
STATEMENT OF AUNG DIN, POLICY DIRECTOR, COFOUNDER, U.S.
CAMPAIGN FOR BURMA, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Din. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Murkowski.
I wanted to thank you for holding this important hearing
today to review the situation in Burma.
As we speak here, horrible events, massive killings and
massive arrests of peaceful demonstrators by the military
junta, already have begun and continue in my country. More than
200 peaceful protesters, including Buddhist monks, students as
young as 12 years old, and civilians, have been brutally
killed, and over 2,000 were arrested by the soldiers and riot
police in a matter of days. The people of Burma are now in a
great shock and traumatized from these brutal experiences.
I have submitted my written testimony. I would like to ask
you to put it into the record. And I would like to jump to the
end of my testimony, to save the time.
So far, the military junta has claimed that they have
killed nine protesters. However, the actual number of deaths is
much more than they have claimed. We believe that more than 200
protesters, including monks and students, were killed by the
Burmese military junta in a matter of days. One of the
fatalities is a Japanese reporter, Mr. Kenji Nagai, and sources
from Rangoon General Hospital said that they received about 100
dead bodies on September 26 alone, and they were also
instructed by the junta's Minister of Health, Dr. Kyaw Myint,
not to send ambulances to incidents without permission from the
military junta. According to some sources, the junta is using a
crematorium at Yay Way Cemetery on the outskirts of Rangoon to
destroy the dead bodies. Soldiers also threw dead bodies into
the rivers.
We also believe that more than 2,000 protesters, most of
them monks, nuns, have been arrested and put in windowless
warehouses inside the compounds of the Government Technological
Institute in Insein Township near the notorious Insein Prison;
several hundred more are being detained at various detention
centers in many other cities. Number of arrests will be
increased dramatically, as soldiers are now searching house by
house, apartment by apartment, with photos in hands, to arrest
those they suspect.
According to the National League for Democracy Party, over
150 members of the NLD, including three leaders from the NLD
headquarters, and several dozen members of Parliament-elect
were arrested. Monks in detention have been forcibly disrobed
by the soldiers, but they still refuse to accept food provided
by their jailers. At least four monks died in detention due to
severe injuries they have sustained from being attacked by
soldiers.
The military junta claimed that the situation in Burma has
returned to normal. It is true that over 20,000 soldiers roam
the streets of Rangoon. Their brutal and merciless actions and
massive arrests have made it too difficult for people to stage
protests in the streets. But this is not the end of the story.
People of Burma have stopped protests, for time being, while
they transform their protests into another style. They will
treat their wounded colleagues, they will search for missing
members of their families, they will regroup, and they will
come back again with stronger force. I believe the military
junta will not be able to kill the spirit of the Saffron
Revolution. Democracy will prevail in Burma.
I was a student leader in 1988, working together with other
student leaders. We organized a nationwide popular uprising in
Burma in August 1988, calling on the military junta to bring
about political reform. The 1988 popular democracy uprising was
ended with bloodshed after the junta killed thousands of
peaceful demonstrators in the streets in cold blood. We found,
surprisingly, that the international community did not pay
attention to Burma at that time, and the international
community failed to stop the violence in Burma. Therefore, the
military junta was able to get away with these crimes against
humanity.
We do not want the international community to fail again
this time. The international community must hold the military
junta of Burma accountable for these crimes against humanity,
and it must take effective and collective action. The
international community should not let this murderous regime
get away with their serial killings.
Let me go over to the conclusion now.
What we are asking is collective and effective action from
the U.N. Council, a binding resolution for Burma to stop
killing and arresting protesters, to treat all detainees
humanely and provide them proper medical care, release all
political detainees, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and engage in
a meaningful political dialogue with democracy forces and
ethnic minority leaders for the sake of national reconciliation
and a transition to democracy and civilian rule.
We also want the U.N. Security Council to impose targeted
sanctions against the military junta, which include an arms
embargo, a travel ban of the top generals and their family
members, and a ban on investment and threaten the junta with
stronger sanctions if it fails to fulfill the instructions of
the Security Council. We all know that China and Russia might
still exercise their veto powers to kill such a resolution.
However, we, the people of Burma, really want the United
States, in consultation with the United Kingdom and France and
other like-minded members to table the resolution at the
Security Council as soon as possible. As the people of Burma
courageously challenge the brutal junta, we want the United
States and democratic countries to challenge China and Russia
at the Security Council. We might fail, but we will surely win.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Din follows:]
Prepared Statement of Aung Din, Policy Director, U.S. Campaign for
Burma, Washington, DC
INTRODUCTION
Madam Chair, Senator Murkowski, I would like to thank you for
holding a hearing today to review the situation in Burma. As we speak
here today, horrible events, massive killings, and massive arrests of
peaceful demonstrators by the military junta already have begun and
continued in my country. More than 200 peaceful protesters, including
Buddhist monks, students as young as 12 years old, and civilians, have
been brutally killed and over 2,000 were arrested, by soldiers and not
police in a matter of days. The people of Burma are now in great shock
and traumatized from these brutal experiences.
BRIEF SITUATION IN BURMA
Let me present the current situation in Burma briefly. On August
15, the military junta suddenly increased gas prices, doubling the
price of fuel and quintupling the price of compressed natural gas. This
made the lives of ordinary citizens more difficult and more insecure.
They could not go to school, offices, or factories as they could not
afford to pay for the new higher travel costs. They have not been able
to purchase food and medicine for their families. Their already-
difficult lives became more desperate.
The leaders of the 88-Generation Students, comprised of former
student leaders who had spent over a decade in prison for their leading
role in the 1988 popular democracy uprising, responsibly and quickly
called on the military junta to reduce the prices and started to
organize the people to walk, instead of taking buses, to make their
demand more serious. A peaceful march, with about 500 people led by the
student leaders, took place in Rangoon on August 19, 2007. The military
junta responded by arresting key members of the 88-Generation Students,
including Min Ko Naing, the second most prominent leader of Burma's
democracy movement, in the early morning of August 21, 2007, and
threatened civil society not to hold any protest.
However, the arrests of student leaders did not stop the protests
from continuing in the following days. Peaceful marches in the streets
in various cities continued and the military junta used its militia,
the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), to crackdown
on protesters. Peaceful protesters were brutally beaten and attacked by
members of USDA and arrested. In the 2 weeks between August 21 and
early September, the military junta arrested about 200 peaceful
protesters.
The situation's tipping point came on September 5 at Pakkoku
Township in middle Burma. Hundreds of monks came to streets, reciting
Metta Sutra, which is the Buddhist teaching of loving and kindness.
They felt that there is a lack of love and kindness in the country, and
that's why they tried to send their enormous Metta to all the people of
Burma, and believe that a peaceful solution can be reached under their
Metta. However, they were wrong. They were confronted by angry soldiers
and USDA members, who brutally attacked and fired several warning shots
above them. Five monks were arrested, beaten, and insulted by the
soldiers in police lockup. This is a huge insult in Buddhism and toward
the monks, who are highly respected by the majority of the population
in Burma.
Buddhist monks all over the country joined together, formed an
organization called the ``All Burma Monks' Alliance,'' and called on
the military junta to fulfill four demands, which are (1) to apologize
to the monks whom they have attacked and insulted, (2) to reduce the
prices of fuel and basic commodities, (3) to release all detainees
including Aung San Suu Kyi and (4) to engage in a meaningful political
dialogue with the election winning party National League for Democracy
and ethnic representatives. They asked the junta to fulfill these
demands no later than September 17, 2007. On September 18, the 19th
anniversary of the military junta in power, Buddhist monks began a
nationwide excommunicative boycott against the junta, USDA members and
their families. Buddhist monks have refused to accept donations and
offerings from them, and would not attend religious and social
functions conducted by them, until and unless the junta fulfills their
demands.
At that point, thousands of monks gathered at important Pagodas in
various cities, and vowed to take excommunicative boycott against the
junta. The junta tried to blocked access to the Pagodas and used its
civilian militias to attack the monks. Then monks marched in the
cities, reciting Metta Sutra, peacefully and with discipline. In
Rangoon, monks gathered at the country's most famous Buddhist shrine,
the Shwe Dagon Pagoda, prayed in front of the Pagoda, and then marched
toward Sule Pagoda in downtown Rangoon. First, the monks asked people
not to join in the protests, and therefore, students and people only
marched single file on both sides of the columns of monks, chaining
their hands together to protect the monks. After a week in which their
demands went unanswered monks encouraged all the people to join the
protest. Hundreds of thousands of students and people joined tens of
thousands of monks in peaceful marches in every major city in Burma,
Rangoon, Mandalay, Mon Ywar, Bago, Sagaing, Pakkoku, Sittwe, Myitkyina,
Mogok, Kyauk Padaung, and many other cities throughout Burma.
The military junta increased security forces in Rangoon and many
other cities and imposed a curfew order on the night of September 25,
and also banned the gathering, and assembly of more than five persons.
Rangoon and Mandalay were also put under the authority of Divisional
Commanders. This was effectively imposing martial law.
On September 26, 2007, in defiance against the threat, hundreds of
thousands of peaceful protesters, under the leadership of monks, came
into the streets. Several confrontations between security forces and
protesters took place at many locations, nearby Shwe Dagon Pagoda, in
Bahan Township, in Tamwe Township, at Shwe Gone Daing, nearby Sule
Pagoda and in front of the Rangoon City Hall. Security forces threw
tear gas canisters and smoke bombs to disperse the crowd and fired
several rounds, in the air and at the crowd. According to various eye-
witness accounts and the leader of the All Burma Monks' Alliance, five
monks and two civilians were killed on September 26. Some of them were
beaten to death and the rest were killed by gunshots.
Major crackdown against the monks began at midnight of September 26
and early morning of September 27. Security forces raided Buddhist
monasteries in Rangoon, and Myitkyina, Moe Nyin and Bhamo Townships in
Kachin State.
In early morning of September 27, the SPDC troops, as instructed by
Divisional Commander Major General Ohn Myint, surrounded monasteries in
Myitkyina, Bhamo and Moe Nyin Townships in Kachin State. Soldiers broke
down the doors and entered the compounds as they were occupying enemy
camps. Monks were brutally beaten and over 300 monks were taken by the
soldiers. When residents came to see the monasteries, they saw blood
and damages everywhere. People believed that at least more than seven
monks were beaten to death during the raids.
In Rangoon, several monasteries in South Okkalapa, North Okkalapa,
Tamwe, Yankin, Thingangyun, Bahan, and Insein were raided by the troops
at midnight and early morning. Let me share with you an example of how
they had raided the monasteries.
Ngwe Kyar Yan Monastery is a famous Buddhist teaching center,
located in South Okkalapa Township in Rangoon, with about 350 monks.
These monks took part in the peaceful protests; as they did in the 1988
popular uprising. Therefore, this monastery was a major target of the
SPDC. Early in the morning of September 27, several hundred soldiers
came with over 20 trucks and attacked the monastery. They brutally
attacked the monks, arrested over 200 monks and left before dawn. When
people from the neighborhood came to see the monastery in the morning,
when curfew order was over, they amazingly saw blood spattering all
over the monastery and about 50 monks left behind traumatized and badly
beaten. They were told by the remaining monks that several monks were
beaten to death by the soldiers. While the people were treating the
injured monks, the military troops came back again and dragged away the
rest of the monks. The people had to disperse from the monastery as the
soldiers threatened to shoot, but they regrouped later with a large
number of people, blocked the way of the military troops and demanded
the release of the monks. The situation was tense, soldiers fired at
the crowd and people threw stones at them. After a 2-hour standoff,
additional soldiers came in and they fired at the crowd. At least 8
people were killed and their bodies were taken away by the troops.
More than 50 monasteries in Rangoon and many other cities were
raided by the military troops in a similar fashion as I mentioned above
and the monasteries are all empty now. More than 1,000 monks were
brought into detention centers. Other monks are also being kept in
detention in their monastery campuses, as their monasteries are
surrounded by the military troops and their entrances are blocked by
barricades.
On September 27, 2007, Rangoon became a battle field, between armed
and blood-thirsty soldiers and unarmed protesters. The news of brutal
attack and raids on monasteries spread all over the city and many
people came out into street filled with enormous anger. They were
confronted by security forces in various places. The troops fired at
crowds with their automatic weapons at Pansodan Street, at Shwe Gone
Daing, in front of Sule Pagoda, nearby Shwe Dagon Pagoda, in Sanchaung
Township, Ahlone Township, nearby Kyaikkasan Pagoda, in Thingangyun
Township, China Town, Pazundaung Township, and at the junction of 38th
Street and Mahabandoola Street. Various sources said that at least
nearly 100 protesters were killed in these incidents and several
hundreds were arrested. At 2:30 p.m., the military troops tried to
disperse protesters, who were staging a protest in front of State High
School No. (3), Tamwe Township. As their examination had just finished,
students, teachers, and their parents who came out from the school
became the victims of a brutal killing rampage. Military trucks, fully
loaded with soldiers, ran into the crowd and many were killed by being
run over by the trucks. Soldiers also shot at the crowd and according
to several eye witness accounts, between 50 and 100, including
students, teachers, and parents, were killed. Soldiers left the scene
and then came back again a half an hour later to pick up the bodies.
Now, over 20,000 soldiers and riot police are deployed in Rangoon
alone. Military trucks are patrolling the streets, soldiers have set up
checkpoints at every corner, checking every young man and woman, and
arresting anyone whom they suspect and anyone who has cell phone with a
camera. Hundreds of young men and women were arrested over the past few
days.
NUMBER OF DEATH AND ARREST
So far, the military junta has claimed that they have killed nine
protesters. However, the actual number of deaths is much more than they
have claimed. We believe that more than 200 protesters, including monks
and students were killed by the Burmese military junta in a matter of
days. One of the fatalities is Japanese reporter Mr. Kenji Nagai.
Sources from Rangoon General Hospital said that they received about 100
dead bodies on September 26 alone. They were also instructed by the
junta's Minister of Health, Dr. Kyaw Myint, not to send ambulances to
incidents without permission from the military junta. According to some
sources, the junta is using a crematorium at Yay Way Cemetery, on the
outskirts of Rangoon, to destroy the dead bodies. Soldiers also threw
dead bodies into the rivers.
We also believe that more than 2,000 protesters, most of them
monks, have been arrested and put in windowless warehouses inside the
campus of the Government Technological Institute (GTI) in Insein
Township, near the notorious Insein Prison. Several hundred more are
being detained at various detention centers in many other cities.
Number of arrests will be increased dramatically as the soldiers are
now searching house by house, apartment by apartment, with photos in
hands to arrest those they suspect. According to the National League
for Democracy Party, over 150 members of the NLD, including three
leaders from NLD Headquarters and several dozen Members of Parliament-
elect were arrested. Monks in detention have been forcibly disrobed by
the soldiers, but they still refuse to accept food provided by their
jailors. At least four monks died in detention due to the severe
injuries they have sustained from being attacked by soldiers.
WHAT'S NEXT?
The military junta claimed that the situation in Burma has returned
to normal. It is true that over 20,000 soldiers roam the streets of
Rangoon. Their brutal and merciless actions and massive arrests have
made it too difficult for people to stage protests in the streets. But
this is not the end of story. People of Burma have stopped protests for
the time being, while they transform the protest into another style.
They will treat their wounded colleagues, they will search for missing
members of their families, they will regroup and they will come back
again with stronger force. I believe the military junta will not be
able to kill the spirit of the Saffron Revolution. Democracy will
prevail in Burma.
I was a student leader in 1988. Working together with other student
leaders, we organized a nationwide popular uprising in Burma in August
1988, calling on the military junta to bring about political reform.
The 1988 popular democracy uprising was ended with bloodshed, after the
junta killed thousands of peaceful demonstrators in the streets in cold
blood. We found surprisingly that the international community did not
pay attention to Burma at that time and the international community
failed to stop the violence in Burma. Therefore, the military junta was
able to get away with crimes against humanity. We do not want the
international community to fail again this time. The international
community must hold the military junta of Burma accountable for these
crimes against humanity and must take effective and collective action.
The international community should not let this murderous regime get
away with their serial killings.
SPEAKING WITH ONE VOICE, TAKING COLLECTIVE AND EFFECTIVE ACTION NOW
The people of Burma have already proved with their blood that they
sincerely want democracy and human rights by peaceful means. They are
not asking the junta to move away from power at once. All they are
asking is to engage in a meaningful political dialogue with the
democracy movement and ethnic representatives. They are being killed,
arrested, and their families are being destroyed by the junta for such
a moderate demand. Therefore, we hope that the international community
will step in to stop the killings in Burma and to realize the political
dialogue between the military junta, the election winning party
National League for Democracy, and ethnic representatives. We are
asking now for collective and effective action from the U.N. Security
Council, a binding resolution, instructing the military junta of Burma
to stop killing and arresting protesters, to treat all detainees
humanely and provide them proper medical care, release all political
detainees including Aung San Suu Kyi, and engage in a meaningful
political dialogue with democracy forces and ethnic minority leaders
for the sake of national reconciliation and a transition to democracy
and civilian rule. We also want the U.N. Security Council to impose
targeted sanctions against the military junta, which include an arms
embargo, a travel ban of the top generals and their family members, and
a ban on investment, and threaten the junta with stronger sanctions if
it fails to fulfill the instructions of the Security Council.
We know that there is a possibility of strong rejection from China
and Russia to adopt such a resolution. China has been comprehensively
and profoundly interfering in the internal affairs of Burma for two
decades, providing more than a billion dollars in weapons to the
generals whom the Burmese people, writ large, have tried every way they
can to get rid of. Further, the Chinese have repeatedly provided cash
infusions to the same killers of monks, rapists of young girls, and
destroyers of 3,000 villages. The blood of this past week is on China's
hands and they better start to clean it up now. Any claim from the
Chinese about not interfering in the internal affairs of its neighbor
should provoke derisive laughter, because that statement is patently
false.
We all know that China and Russia might still exercise their veto
powers to kill such a resolution. However, we, the people of Burma
really want the United States, in consultation with the United Kingdom,
France, and other like-minded members, to table the resolution at the
U.N. Security Council as soon as possible. As the people of Burma
courageously challenge the brutal junta, we want the U.S. and
democratic countries to challenge China and Russia at the Security
Council. We might fail, but, we will surely win.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so very much.
Mr. Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director of Human
Rights Watch, here in Washington.
Welcome, Tom.
STATEMENT OF TOM MALINOWSKI, WASHINGTON ADVOCACY DIRECTOR,
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much, Senator. And thank you
for pulling us together today and doing this, and for the
attention you're paying to this issue.
This country is very close to my heart. Burma was the first
human rights issue that I ever worked on when I was a very
young aide to a member of this committee, whom we dearly miss,
Senator Pat Moynihan, back in 1988, the last time that the
Burmese people came out like this and were crushed by their
government.
People thought we were kind of odd back then working on
this; it was such an obscure place, nobody really cared about
it or thought about it. But Senator Moynihan thought it was
important, and he pressed on. And I remember, one day we were
sitting in our office in the Russell Building, and someone
brought us a picture very much like one of these. It was a
picture of a big, long, huge crowd of young Burmese marching
through the streets. And they had a banner in front of them
that read, in big block letters, ``Thank you, Senator Moynihan.
Thank you, United States Senate.'' And it made us very proud,
but also profoundly sad, because, you know, we knew then that
our words and that banner weren't going to protect them from
the bullets, and we knew then that the world wasn't mobilized
to help, and that we really probably couldn't do very much,
because that was a very different time.
My main message to you right now is that this situation is
profoundly different. Things have changed. The internal dynamic
in Burma has profoundly changed just in the last few weeks.
What the Burmese Government has done--it is brutal, it has
inspired fear--but going after the monks crosses a line in
Burmese society that I think they will rue the day they
crossed.
But I also think, even more importantly, the world has
changed in the last 20 years. We've seen that in the reaction
of ASEAN, an extraordinary condemnation of a country they used
to defend. We've seen it to some extent in China's reaction.
China calling for a democratic process in Burma is almost
surreal, when you think about it. And yet, they have. And we
see it in other ways that are perhaps harder to understand, the
increasing interconnectedness of Burma in the international
financial system, which creates opportunities for us.
Now, those Burmese generals sitting up there in their
jungle hideaway, they do not comprehend these changes, and
that's why they are acting as if nothing has changed. But that
doesn't mean that nothing has changed, and we need to recognize
that.
Now, I think, in terms of what we need to do, Senator Kerry
is right, we need a concerted diplomatic strategy, and pursue
it with some urgency, but the question always is: What's going
to make the generals listen to the diplomacy? Everybody has
said that the sanctions that have been imposed in the past have
not produced that effect. That effect will be produced, in my
view, when the Burmese Government pays a price for its
intransigence that is higher than the very considerable price
it would pay in its own mind if it compromises.
What will get us to that point? Again, the trade and
investment sanctions, unilateral, have not done it. But I think
there is a different kind of sanction that could tip the
balance, that could bring us to that point, and it doesn't
require the support of China or India, and it's been mentioned
by Senator Murkowski, by Mike Green, and by others, and it's to
impose these targeted banking measures that would freeze the
offshore accounts of top Burmese leaders, their families, the
business cronies who work in partnership with the regime, and
block the movement of their money through the global financial
system.
And the analogy, as you mentioned, Senator, is to North
Korea. The United States maintained general trade and
investment sanctions on North Korea for decades. Hasn't
produced much results. But when we caused one bank, by
ourselves, to freeze one account belonging to the leadership,
they came to the table pretty darn quickly.
Even in a country as isolated as Burma, there is a simple
economic reality: You can't get rich without hard currency, you
can't earn hard currency without doing business with the
outside world, and you can't do business with the outside world
without passing money through international banks. If you're
using dollars, they're going to go through a U.S. bank. If
you're using euros, they're going through a European bank. For
example, the Burmese Government would find it very hard to make
money from those sweetheart deals that Senator Kerry mentioned
without operating accounts in real banks outside of Burma.
Now, Burma's leaders, their relatives, their financial
partners do a lot of their business through a country that no
one has mentioned today yet, and that's Singapore. They bank in
Singapore, they shop in Singapore, they get their health care
in Singapore. Focused, aggressively enforced financial
sanctions could shut down their ability to do so, not only
denying them potential wealth in the future, but denying them
access to the wealth that they currently have and use to
sustain their government and their very lavish lifestyles. And
it could be felt very personally. For example, we got news,
last week, that the family of General Than Shwe, the leader of
Burma, left the country in the last few days to, you know, get
away from this unpleasantness. They may be in Dubai, we heard.
If so, what are they doing to pay for their hotels and their
airlines? They're using a credit card that's been issued by a
bank, presumably in Singapore or Thailand. Targeted financial
sanctions of the sort we're discussing could cause those credit
cards to be canceled tomorrow, and we have the power to do
that.
Now, imagine that scene, for a moment. I think
``authorization denied'' is a message that will break through
even to the most isolated general in the jungles of Burma.
Now, the administration has taken the first step toward
imposing those kinds of sanctions. I think they deserve a lot
of credit. I think they have been, actually, quite energetic.
My understanding is that they're going to expand that list.
They need to do that urgently. It's also extremely important
for the Europeans to follow suit because of the role of euros
in all of this. And, hopefully, governments and banks in the
region, especially in Singapore and Thailand, will cooperate by
freezing some of these accounts. If they don't--and this is an
important point--we should take the additional step that we
took in the North Korea case, by prohibiting U.S. financial
institutions from dealing with foreign banks that allow the
targeted Burmese individuals and entities to maintain accounts.
That's where legislation might come in.
And, at that point, I think their calculations change. At
that point, I think they may listen to the Chinese and the
United Nations when they come in and say, ``We want to offer
you a way out by brokering a deal with the opposition.''
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Little did you know, when you were at Human
Rights Watch, that you'd become a credit specialist and a
specialist in how to get these guys. As I said to Senator
Murkowski--I hope she's going to ask you more about how to go
about doing this. It's very interesting.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. What I'd like to do is ask this question,
because, Mr. Din, I think, in his testimony, said something
that I found very compelling. And I'm going to quote from his
written statement, ``We are now asking for collective and
effective action from the U.N. Security Council, a binding
resolution instructing the military junta of Burma to stop
killing, stop arresting protesters, treat all detainees
humanely, provide them proper care, release all political
detainees, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and engage in a
meaningful political dialogue with democratic forces and ethnic
minority leaders for the sake of national reconciliation, a
transition to democracy and civilian rule. We want the U.N.
Security Council to impose targeted sanctions against the
military junta, which includes an arms embargo, a travel ban of
top generals and their families, a ban on investment, and
threaten the junta with stronger sanctions if it fails to
fulfill the instructions of the Security Council.''
And then he says, ``We know there's a possibility of a
strong rejection from China and Russia. China has been
interfering in Burma'' and so on and so on, ``the blood is on
their hands. But they say''--he says, ``we all know China and
Russia might still exercise their veto power to kill to such a
resolution, but we, the people of Burma, want the United
States, in consultation with the United Kingdom, France, and
others, to table''--when you say ``table the resolution,'' I
think that could be misconstrued--I think, ``to bring this
resolution to the U.N. Security Council as soon as possible. As
the people of Burma courageously challenge the brutal junta, we
want the U.S. and democratic countries to challenge China and
Russia in the Security Council. We might fail, but we will
win.''
Now, I am very taken by that, because I think there's a
mindset, sometimes around here, that you never do anything
unless you have the votes. I do not subscribe to that. Maybe
it's because when I first got elected to local government, I
was on the losing end so much, four to one, four to one, and
people kept saying, ``Why do you keep offering your amendments?
You're going to lose them, four to one.'' I said, ``Someday
I'll win them.'' And it took several years and several
elections. And, guess what? When I left that board, it was four
to one my way.
So, if you just sit back and say, ``We don't want to do it,
because we could lose,'' I think that's the wrong strategy. So,
I think, in some ways, we should talk to our U.N. And I think
I'm going to call him--our Ambassador--he's very charismatic,
he's terrific--and ask him what he thinks about--even if we
might lose--I hear what you're saying, sir--am I right, as I
read this, and I see how you wrote with your exclamation
points, and so on--that you're giving us a message today----
Mr. Din. Yeah, that's----
Senator Boxer [continuing]. Even if you might not win this
vote, pursue it, and get it to the Council. Is that--am I
right?
Mr. Din. That's true, Madam Senator. We want China and
Russia to put on the record how they defend this regime. They
might kill such a resolution. We are so sick of the U.N.
diplomacy. The Burmese regime knows very well how to treat the
special envoy and how to trick a special envoy that they are
working. With the red carpet, they will treat him very well,
and they will give him hollow promises, then the special envoy
comes back again and tells the world, ``Wait, I saw the light.
I saw the light in the tunnel.'' Actually, it's not a light,
it's a fire in the tunnel, but, ``I saw the light. So, please
wait.'' And when he sees the senior diplomats, and what he does
is, ``wait sometimes to fulfill their promises.'' Because the
special envoy was sent by the Secretary General, who is
mandated by the General Assembly, which does not have any power
to enforce any resolutions. That is why we try, many times, to
call for the Security Council to strengthen the mandate of the
Secretary General. So, if you go there, you can make the regime
to listen to you.
Senator Boxer. Well, I think you've got to shame these
people, for God's sakes.
Mr. Din. Yeah.
Senator Boxer. And I think sometimes we make--``Oh, well,
they'll never--this is hard, they'll never do this, they'll
never do that.'' Put them to the test. Make them stand up in
the light of day in the United Nations, say, ``I vote no
against sanctioning this regime.'' Make them do it. Make them
explain it. Make them go to sleep at night--make them face it.
And I so appreciate your courage today.
Mr. Din. That's exactly what----
Senator Boxer. And I thank you very much for it.
Senator Murkowski.
Mr. Din. Maybe--you have to ask our administration to go
for it.
Senator Boxer. I'm going to do it.
Mr. Din. Please do.
Senator Boxer. You told me, and I'm going to listen.
Mr. Din. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This has been a very, very, very important hearing, and I
appreciate some of the suggestions, the very specifics.
Mr. Malinowski, I want to go back to your very specific
suggestions, and the discussion of targeted financial
sanctions. And you go beyond that and say exactly where we can
go. You suggest Singapore. I--we had a hearing--again, last
March--and we had Dr. Sean Turnell, who is with the Burma
Economic Watch. And I asked him a question about Singapore's
relationship with Burma, and Singapore's concern over money-
laundering, and asked him specifically about the Singapore-
Burma relationship and whether or not that relationship was
beginning to be overshadowed by India and China. And his
response back to me was, ``Singapore used to be the biggest
player in Burma, but it's withdrawn at a rapid rate. If we look
at new investments in Burma, we find that Singapore has been
completely pushed aside in favor of China; to some extent,
India and South Korea. But''--and he goes on to further state--
``the Singapore withdrawal from the country,'' which is
directly as a consequence, I think, of the pariah status, and,
in particular, the problems with money-laundering and so on--he
goes on to say that Singapore is very anxious to set itself up
as a--as, kind of, the clean and honest financial hub in the
region. Do you agree with him? Do you think that we can still
focus on Singapore, or are China and India the new players on
the scene? We--you've all indicated that there has been a great
deal that has changed dramatically in the area over a period of
years.
Mr. Malinowski. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Can you speak to that?
Mr. Malinowski. Sure. Well, it's true that China--there's a
lot of cross-border trade with China. There's a lot of Chinese
investment. The Indians just did a gas deal. The Indian Oil
Minister was in Burma doing this deal in the middle of these
protests, which was just shameful. And I hope you all, in the
spirit of a good relationship between the United States and
India, point out how harmful that is to our relationship.
But, you know, a distinction needs to be made between doing
business with Burma, in general, and the banking stuff, in
particular. What I have in mind is something very, very focused
and very targeted. You know, Burma's actually not that
complicated, politically. There are a few senior generals. They
have families, kids, maybe a dozen or so leading financial
figures in the country who have been allowed to get rich by the
regime in exchange for investing in their projects, doing
business with them. And most of these people maintain, as far
as we know, banking accounts in Singapore, sometimes in
Thailand, sometimes elsewhere. And they can't do business
anywhere without passing--you know, you can't do business in
the international economy with Burmese money. You need to use
dollars, you need to use euros, you need to use the global
financial system. And international transactions in the banking
system--and I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding is
most of them pass through the United States and Western Europe.
So, we have a tremendous amount of leverage, in terms of that,
and ought to use it, in my view.
Senator Murkowski. You know, I----
Mr. Malinowski. And that would mean working with Singapore;
I would hope, in partnership. I think the Treasury Department
believes that the banks there will actually voluntarily freeze
some of these accounts if we act. But, if not, I think we can
compel it.
Senator Murkowski. And I had asked the gentleman from the
State Department, Mr. Marciel, about--other than what we have
in the Patriot Act, what other financial sanctions? Do you
think that we've got the ability to move forward with these
targeted financial sanctions, or is a legislative response the
way that we would have to go? And I know that this is not
necessarily your area of expertise.
Mr. Malinowski. I can't give you a definitive answer to
that. My understanding is that the Patriot Act gives us
extraordinary authorities if there's a money-laundering nexus.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. Malinowski. And there may well be, in the case of some
of these individuals in Burma. Certainly, Treasury has thought
so in the past. I believe that, under IEEPA, the Emergency
Economic Powers Act, the President can do pretty much whatever
he pleases, in terms of sanctions, if it's in the national
interest. But this may also be an area where an already
somewhat energetic effort within the administration might be
spurred on if Members of Congress were to introduce and pursue
legislation. I think they're moving in this direction. They're
doing due diligence. That doesn't mean that encouragement
wouldn't be helpful.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Green, did you care to add anything to that? And I know
that my time is out, but----
Dr. Green. Sure. In the case of North Korea, the--and I was
involved in this, in the administration at the time--we used
section 311 on Banco Delta Asia, which was a bank in Macao that
was laundering North Korean money from drug and counterfeit and
other sales.
So, the comparable move would be to find a bank that's
taking these Burmese accounts, and applying section 311, which
denies that bank a corresponding banking relationship with the
United States. And our banking position is so dominant that
that is a death sentence.
So, it's not a perfect application, in the case of 311,
but, as Tom was saying the Patriot Act authorities are broad
enough, and Treasury has become sophisticated enough at this,
that there would ways, I think, to have an escalation of
pressure, focusing on their bank accounts.
I think it would require, as it did with Banco Delta Asia,
a diplomatic effort to encourage the Singapore banking
authorities and others to work with us. And I think we'd get
some support from some friendly governments.
And, frankly, without going into details, it would require
some sustained intelligence effort, because they move the
money, and they launder it. So, you need a--in effect, a
dedicated task force to follow the money in a case like this.
You have to organize for it, just as you would organize for the
diplomatic effort.
Senator Murkowski. Appreciate that.
You know, when you think about it, Madam Chairman, whether
it's terrorism or whether it's human rights abuses through a
military junta, it all comes down to money and whether or not
they've got the funding. And if you can cut off the funding,
that seems to be the most effective way to get somebody's
attention.
Senator Boxer. And I think what you have done, by opening
up this issue, is interesting, along with Tom's point, is more
go after the personal money of the corrupt military people and
their families. The other way is to keep money out of the
government itself, which leads me to the question about China,
which has provided Burma with an estimated $2 to $3 billion in
military aid, which has afforded the Burmese to build up a
military of 450,000 troops, making it one of the largest
standing militaries in the world. Now, how many people live in
Burma? Anybody know the answer to that?
Dr. Green. Almost 50 million.
Senator Boxer. Fifty.
Mr. Din. About 54 million, I believe.
Senator Boxer. How many?
Mr. Din. 54 million population.
Senator Boxer. 54 million, 450,000 troops.
Now, while the military is clearly under this strict
control--now, just to put that into context, 50 million people,
right? We have 37 million in California--37 million people. And
they have 450,000 troops in a country with 50 million people.
Now, while the military is clearly under the strict control of
the State Peace and Development Council--I always find, if
people call their military ``State Peace Council,'' watch out
``--there have been reports over the past week of soldiers
disobeying orders to take action against the protesters, who
appear to be, most of them unarmed. Is that just an anecdotal
story, or how strong is the support within the Burmese military
for the current junta leader, Shwe? Do you know, any of the
three of you, if the reports about soldiers refusing to use
force against civilians, including monks, if those reports are
accurate?
Mr. Din. According to my knowledge, there have been some
places where the soldiers refused to obey the order to shoot at
protesters. But they were called back and replaced by another
troops, who really shot at protesters. So, because they refused
to obey the order, it does not mean that they will join with
the protesters. They are called back to headquarters, and then
taken by administrative actions. So far, we don't see any kind
of military junta or military generals who are willing to
change for the country who is willing to join with the
democracy forces.
Senator Boxer. You don't see anyone within the military?
Mr. Din. Not right now.
Senator Boxer. Do either of you want to comment on that?
Dr. Green. Well, 75 percent of the people in Burma are
Buddhist, and, of course, that includes the military families
and family members. So, that's why this, as Tom said, was a
line--a very dangerous line that the junta crossed. That's not
to mention all of the Buddhists in India and Thailand, across
the region. There are protests by monks on both those
countries, putting pressure on those governments.
We don't know that much about the internal dynamics of the
junta. There is, I think, pretty compelling evidence that Than
Shwe has been developing a very bizarre kind of culta
personality. The movement of the capital was reportedly based
on the advice of a soothsayer. You know, in these authoritarian
governments, the elite expects a certain mandate of heaven, and
Than Shwe has not demonstrated good government, basically. He's
not demonstrated leadership. Even for the Chinese, it's an
embarrassment. And I think it would not be surprising if, among
the elite, there were real concerns about his actions, and that
that might be a weak point within the leadership.
Senator Boxer. How old is he?
Mr. Din. Seventy-two years.
Dr. Green. Seventy-two.
Senator Boxer. Tom, any comments?
Mr. Malinowski. Well, I think that the best analysis anyone
can give you is, ``We don't know.'' It's a hard prism----
Senator Boxer. It's rare that we ever hear that in the
Senate----
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer [continuing]. People admitting that they
don't know. It's----
Mr. Malinowski. Well, we don't know. But, you know, it's--
--
Senator Boxer [continuing]. Very refreshing.
Mr. Malinowski. Two months ago, I would have said, ``We
know nothing good is going to happen in Burma.''
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Mr. Malinowski. Right now, we don't know. And, in a way,
that's progress.
Senator Boxer. I have a last question, and then, Senator,
if you have some more, please, you can take it from there.
In terms of the United Nations, which is obviously where
all eyes are--What are they going to say? What are they going
to do? How aggressive are they going to be?--do you think
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has done enough, so far? Do you
think that it would be worthwhile having him do more? What's
your sense it, any of the three?
Tom, we'll start with you, and we'll go----
Mr. Malinowski. Yeah. Well, I think the answer is: No, he
had not done enough. You know, the United Nations had to be
prodded a bit too much into getting its act somewhat together
last week by sending Mr. Gambari. The Secretary General issued
some fairly tepid statements about Burma as this crisis was
beginning. Mr. Gambari was fairly tepid, as well, as you know.
I think this is an issue that demands much higher-level--much
higher-priority attention. I think it would probably be a----
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. Malinowski [continuing]. Good thing for the Secretary
General to go. Let's hear what Mr. Gambari says. If he--if all
he says to the Security Council when he briefs them on Friday
is, ``Let's just have, you know, more trips; it was great that
I went. Isn't that a sign of great progress?'' that would be a
signal to me that we need a fundamental change in approach. But
let's----
Senator Boxer. Well, I think I'm going to call----
Mr. Malinowski [continuing]. Let's see what he says.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. Mr. Ban tomorrow, and talk to
him, and talk to our Ambassador, who's--and get a better
picture----
Mr. Malinowski. Yes. One----
Senator Boxer [continuing]. Of what's going on.
Mr. Malinowski [continuing]. One merit of having people
like that go to Burma is that they get to see Aung San Suu Kyi.
And every day that they see her, we know she's alive.
Senator Boxer. Yes. I hear your point.
Mr. Din. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Din.
Mr. Din. I agree with Tom. We are not impressed with his
performance on Burma. In late August, he issued a statement in
response to the situation in Burma. He used the language,
``provoke.'' He asked all sides to stop provoking in the
statement. We are the people who were beaten by the soldiers,
but he asked both sides to stop provocations. We are not
provocating. They are beating us. But he asked both sides to
stop. And so, we are angry with the use of that language, and
also, actually, if the situation is not now getting worse, his
plan is to send his human rights coordinator to Burma first,
before Gambari. So, we were also angry with that, because his
mandate is to facilitate a reconciliation in Burma. That is why
the political issue will be first. He has sent the humanitarian
coordinator, Ms. Walstrom, but his original plan to send first
Ms. Walstrom again, then Gambari, if the situation is getting
worse like this.
Senator Boxer. So, you don't think they've done enough.
What about you, Mr. Green?
Dr. Green. Tom is right, we need to give Mr. Gambari a
chance to report. But--and I do think, as several of the
members said, we should support Mr. Gambari's efforts. And it
would be good, probably, for Ban Ki-moon, under the right
circumstances, to go. I would worry, though, that if we let the
center of action for this be with Mr. Ban and Mr. Gambari,
that, because the emphasis in the U.N. process is so much on
consensus, particularly on the Security Council, they'll fall
very quickly to a lowest common denominator. And, while we've
seen some shift in China's rhetoric, and even in India's now, I
think both those countries, and perhaps others in the region,
would be very satisfied to have a process rested in the United
Nations that would focus on stability in a very slow lowest-
common-denominator approach to reconciliation, which is not
where we should be right now if we're going to sustain
attention. That's why I think we need to have a process, if you
will, or action, that's more dynamic, that goes to like-minded
states and starts building a more concrete set of benchmarks
that's backed by sanctions and by looking at things, like you
mentioned, ways to tighten those sanctions. So, United Nations,
necessary, not sufficient. I think we need to go well beyond
that.
Senator Boxer. It is, however, a world stage, where, you
know, we can capture the attention of the world there while we
do our work bilaterally with other countries. And I think Mr.
Din's point, of America just saying, ``We're just going to call
it the way it is. This is murder. This is cold-blooded murder.
This is wrong. This is shooting people. This is stopping
democracy. And, worse, this is denying people's self-
determination,'' and just straightforward--and if people way to
say, ``We can't vote for that,'' let them defend it. I just
think we've become too gun shy of losing a vote. And I just
think it's important to say that. After we lose it, if we lose
it, we can sit and figure something else out. But I agree with
you, that we still have to do these other sanctions and move
outside of the U.N. in--to friendly nations, and bolster
those--what about my point that I actually got from you, Tom,
your organization, about going back and tightening a loophole
that has companies like Chevron outside the--outside, and we
can't stop them doing business?
Mr. Malinowski. Yeah, I think we have to--we have to
consider that. Here's where it gets complicated. The--Chevron
and Total, they're in this partnership, the biggest, you know,
one of these oil/natural-gas partnerships, from which the
Burmese Government is getting over $2 billion in revenue a
year. It's a big deal. They have a contract with the Burmese
Government that says, if they pull out, they have to pay the
Burmese Government--I think it's something like half a billion
dollars. And another possibility is, if they get out, some
Malaysian company will come in, or Thai company, or South
Korean company. Right? So, we don't want to do that in a way
that doesn't actually result in----
Senator Boxer. So, after--what does--if they pull out, they
have to do what?
Mr. Malinowski. They have a contract with the Burmese
Government that says, if they pull out before the contract
expires, it's a penalty, like if you----
Senator Boxer. When is the----
Mr. Malinowski [continuing]. Cancel your cell phone plan.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. Contract expiring?
Mr. Malinowski. I'm not----
Senator Boxer. Do you know?
Mr. Malinowski. I'm not sure.
Senator Boxer. Well, they're--my staff tells me it's
resulting in $400 to $500 billion. Is that a year or over time?
In a year? In a year. So, if they have to pay 1 year over
there, it still pays to get them out of there, it seems to me.
Mr. Malinowski. It would, unless them getting out is--
simply results in another company coming in, and the Burmese
Government just gets more revenue.
Now, there is a way of dealing with this, I think, and it
actually gets back to the banking side. And I'm going to say
something fairly odd, and that is that I actually don't want to
discuss it in a public----
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. Malinowski. One of the tricky things about these
sanctions is that sometimes you don't want to talk too much
about----
Senator Boxer. Right.
Mr. Malinowski [continuing]. What you're going to do.
Senator Boxer. Right. OK.
Mr. Malinowski. Because then people move----
Senator Boxer. Fair enough.
Mr. Malinowski. But I'd be happy to talk to you afterward--
--
Senator Boxer. Well, I would love that. I think you--if you
could brief--I think Senator Murkowski is extremely ahead of us
on the financial sanctions. And so, I would really love to work
with her. I told her----
Mr. Malinowski. Sure.
Senator Boxer. So----
Mr. Malinowski. You also mentioned the loophole----
Senator Boxer [continuing]. If you have some thoughts on
that, if you would share them with her and----
Mr. Malinowski. I'd be happy to. You also mentioned the
loophole with--I think someone mentioned, with the gems, that
you have----
Senator Boxer. I don't think we did.
Mr. Malinowski. Well, we have an import ban, as you know,
but it doesn't apply to Burmese gems that come out of Burma and
then get finished in a third country. And that's something--
it's a discrete thing, but something that you could also look
at. And I believe the administration is looking at it.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. Malinowski. So----
Senator Boxer. Well, we just want to----
Yes, please, go forward.
Senator Murkowski. Let me just ask one----
Senator Boxer. Yes. Have a----
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. More question.
Senator Boxer. Take as much time as----
Senator Murkowski. No, no, no, I--because I appreciate all
the discussion that we've had on the financial sanctions, and
would be very curious to know other areas that we might want to
pursue.
In some of the background that I've got here on Burma, just
as a country, it mentions that Burma is the world's second-
largest producer of illicit opium. We go ahead, and we impose
all these sanctions, whether they're on gems or other imports--
and you have an illegal drug trade that is going back and
forth, we're really not getting to it, are we? If----
Mr. Malinowski. Well----
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. If you've got this volume
of--I'm assuming it's quite a substantial volume of----
Mr. Malinowski. Right.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. Money coming in because of
opium trade.
Mr. Malinowski. The original source of most of the money
that these crooked people in Burma have is from the drug trade,
basically. It starts with the drug trade. It then gets invested
or laundered into the ``legitimate economy,'' where these
financiers or tycoons, who we've been talking about, in
partnership with the government, then do legitimate businesses,
like airlines and hotels. But the money comes, originally, from
the drug trade.
If we shut the legitimate business down, do they just make
money directly from the drug trade? At the risk of sounding
like a one-trick pony, I would get back to the banking, and say
what's the most effective way of going after drug-traffickers
in Colombia, in Afghanistan, anywhere else? The one effective
tool we actually have is going after their money. That's the
one thing they can't afford to lose. They can afford to lose
the opium. They can't afford to lose the bank account, because
that's their ultimate aim, to be rich. So, you actually are--if
you go down this route that we've been talking about, it
doesn't matter whether it's a hotel deal, a gas deal, an arms
deal, or a drug deal, because, at the end of the day, someone
in Burma has a bank account in Singapore and Thailand that they
can no longer draw money from. And their relatives walk into
their room in the morning and say, ``What on earth have you
done?'' And I think that's the moment when the diplomacy has a
chance, because that's the moment when they start looking for a
way out.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask one last question, and this
is about the general, Than Shwe. How deep is his organization?
If he is no longer there, if he's shut off, cut off, out of the
country----
Mr. Malinowski. His family. He's there.
Senator Murkowski. He and his family.
Mr. Malinowski. No; he's still there. His family is left.
Mr. Din. He's still there.
Senator Murkowski. No; that--I understand that. But what
I'm saying is, if we are successful in cutting things off to
this general, how deep does it go? Is it--could this regime
continue on without his leadership? Or is he really the leader,
and, without him, we would have better opportunity in finding a
resolution for the atrocities that we're seeing in Burma?
Mr. Green.
Dr. Green. He's not Kim Il Sung or Pol Pot. This is not a
fully effective culta personality, where, when the leader
falls, the whole ideology collapses. The generals, it's often
said, hang together or they hang separately. They are
collectively enriching themselves on this corruption, on these
drugs, but they're also afraid. I think you want to have enough
pressure on all of them. And financial sanctions would target
the elite, broadly. They start wondering about the
sustainability of what they're doing. I don't think we can
expect much more than that.
It does raise a very difficult question, one that I noticed
Fred Hiatt addressed in the Washington Post, which is, what
assurances do you give the elite in a diplomatic process?
Because if they think that the end of the road is inevitably
going to be tribunals, they may dig their heels in even harder.
So, we haven't talked that much about inducements or
assurances, but any diplomatic pressure has to have the
coercive element we've talked about. But because they are so
afraid--they're not only corruption, they're afraid--we have to
think about incentives on both the negative and positive side,
as difficult as that is. I think a multilateral process also
makes that inevitable, because other countries will, you know,
pool sticks and carrots, but that requires everyone to think
about both the sticks and the carrots.
Mr. Din. Can I add?
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Din.
Mr. Din. Yeah. If the administration can really effectively
impose a financial sanctions against the military junta and
their financial sources, it will be really, really effective.
Because, so far, the junta and their family members are relying
so much on some businessmen who are providing them with
financial sources. So many of them hold Singapore permanent
resident status. They have the bank accounts in Singapore. They
have the economy in Singapore. They have the business in
Singapore, and also in Thailand. So, if the administration--
really effectively cut these financial resources, the generals
will have their troubles, and it will make the--we hope the
administration will effectively take care of these financial
sanctions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Well, I just want to thank you for being
here. This panel was terrific, as I felt all of the panels
were. And, you know, we're going to stay on this. And the
reason I thought it was important to move swiftly is, what
Senator Murkowski said, this is happening now, and we don't
have the time to sit back and wait. And we need--this is just
the beginning of what I hope will be a sustained effort on the
parts of many Senators working together, the women Senators,
working on sanctions, which I think Senator Murkowski is going
to do, working to see if we can get the U.N. to do some more
things, working with our Ambassador, of course working with the
administration at all places that we can. But sometimes shining
the light, in this world that we live in now, where--you know,
I always say, if it wasn't the age of communications, who knows
if the wall ever would have fallen that divided the East from
the West, but it--you can't keep these pictures away. They can
kill a photographer, they can do what they want. The bottom
line is, word is going to spread. And that's a blessing of the
times in which we live. There are some tough things about it,
but--there are harsher weapons, there's more weapons trading.
There's tough things about the times in which we live, but one
good thing that mitigates against people like this winning, in
the long term, is, the light will shine on them. And it's up to
us, I think, to give this platform, here, over to shining that
light.
So, that's what we've done today. I hope it helps. But
we'll keep it up. And we know that the three of you are deep in
the middle of this. And we would urge you to work with us, as
individual Senators and as a subcommittee, and we will report
to Senators Biden and Lugar about the importance of this
hearing, and we can assure you that we will keep an eye on this
and work together on it.
Thank you so much for--very much for coming.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]