[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SPOTLIGHTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN
SOUTHEAST ASIA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 9, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-187
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-625PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia GRACE MENG, New York
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
TED S. YOHO, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Lorne W. Craner (former Assistant Secretary, Bureau
of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of
State)......................................................... 6
The Honorable Tom Andrews, president and chief executive officer,
United to End Genocide (former United States Representative)... 17
Ms. Janet Nguyen, supervisor, First District, Orange County Board
of Supervisors................................................. 43
Thang D. Nguyen, Ph.D., executive director, Boat People SOS...... 48
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Lorne W. Craner: Prepared statement................ 9
The Honorable Tom Andrews: Prepared statement.................... 20
Ms. Janet Nguyen: Prepared statement............................. 45
Thang D. Nguyen, Ph.D.: Prepared statement....................... 50
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 72
Hearing minutes.................................................. 73
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 75
Thang D. Nguyen, Ph.D.: Material submitted for the record........ 77
SPOTLIGHTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2014
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Royce
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce. This committee hearing will come to order.
This hearing today is on human rights in Southeast Asia.
America's commitment to protecting human dignity and justice
around the world is unparalleled. We do more than any other
nation, and we should because this is the one country founded
upon this ideal. But this commitment, which has long enjoyed
bipartisan support here in the United States, is a key focus of
this committee. We have taken legislative action on human
rights violations, particularly Venezuela, Nicaragua, North
Korea, and the People's Republic of China.
We are also working to strengthen the ability of the United
States to promote human rights through international
broadcasting.
That is one of the reasons why this committee passed
legislation to overhaul our international broadcasters so that
those who are doing this surrogate radio broadcasting can send
a message that teaches political pluralism, that teaches
tolerance, that can have the kind of effect that we had in
Eastern Germany and in the rest of Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union.
Yesterday, the House passed legislation to reauthorize the
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. As
a body of experts who speak out on behalf of persecuted
believers of any faith, the commission helps to ensure that the
U.S. stands up for what many of us consider our first freedom.
Unfortunately, now, when it comes to Southeast Asia, a
strategically important region that is home to 620 million
souls, the outlook on human rights is very troubling, in
particular, with respect to Vietnam.
In Vietnam, we have overwhelming evidence that the human
rights situation is worsening, with the government continuing
its severe crackdown on critics of the regime. We know that the
Government of Vietnam suppresses virtually all dissent through
intimidation, through physical violence, through very, very
long prison terms. These young bloggers are typically getting 7
years in prison if they blog about ideas like freedom of
speech. In my own travels to Vietnam, I have seen firsthand the
lengths that the Secret Police will go to in order to stifle
any form of free speech or religious freedom. I met with the
Venerable Thich Quang Do, the head of the Unified Buddhist
Church in Vietnam, as well as another religious leader, who was
held in prison and, basically, saw firsthand what was being
done to stifle religious freedom in the country. We have had 18
meetings now of the U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue. There
is no improvement in the human rights situation. I call on the
Government of Vietnam to immediately cease its human rights
abuses. We call on the Government of Vietnam to release the
political prisoners there.
In Burma, the regime's early progress on human rights has
given way to worsening conditions for religious and ethnic
minorities all over that country. The plight of the Rohingya
Muslims is well documented, thanks to groups such as United to
End Genocide. The Government's treatment of the Rohingya
Muslims is beyond deplorable. Forced to live in what I would
call concentration camps there, the Rohingya are systematically
deprived of access to health care and threatened with physical
harm as well as death. The expulsion of Doctors Without
Borders, the only group providing health care to the Rohingya
caused 150 people to die from otherwise curable diseases is
another example.
It is time that we take off the rose-colored glasses and
see the situation in Burma for what it is. We cannot--we, the
United States, cannot continue to lavish more incentives on the
government in Burma in hopes that it will one day do the right
thing. And that is why I have repeatedly called on the
administration to work with this committee to improve human
rights in that country. We must immediately cease military-to-
military cooperation with Burma until the systematic
persecution of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities has ended
there.
Too often the administration, like the administrations that
preceded this administration, is more interested in not
ruffling diplomatic feathers than carrying out the difficult,
but necessary task of pressing for human rights. But human
rights do not have to take a back seat to strategic
considerations. The administration must recognize that its
rebalance to Asia will be unsustainable without improvements in
this area. Countries that do not respect their citizens'
fundamental human rights will not and cannot be true enduring
partners for the United States. And this isn't to say that we
must cut off all ties when human rights abuses occur, but it is
imperative that we speak out. And that is my point. It is
imperative that we get in, lean in there, sit down with these
governments and explain that these deplorable situations in
Vietnam and in Burma need to be reversed. There is no excuse
for silence on this issue.
Now, before I turn to the ranking member, Mr. Engel from
New York, for his opening remarks, I want to take the
opportunity to welcome Janet Nguyen, supervisor of Orange
County's First District, to this committee. Janet's story is a
story of millions of Vietnamese who fled their homeland in
search of a life free from the horrific human rights abuses
that we still see perpetrated today in that country. Janet has
come a long way from the dangerous journey that her family took
on a 30-foot raft when she was just a small girl fleeing her
war-ravaged homeland. Today Janet is the highest ranking
Vietnamese-American to hold elective office in California. And
just as important, Janet is a tireless advocate for the
Vietnamese-American community in southern California and
throughout our country. And we welcome her as well.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this important hearing.
And let me also thank our distinguished witnesses for
joining us today.
In late 2011, the Obama administration announced an
American strategic rebalance or pivot to the Asia-Pacific
region. While the contours of the rebalance is still taking
shape, the logic behind the policy shift is clear.
The Asia-Pacific is home to almost half of the world's
population and more than half of global trade and GDP. This
region will be a key driver of global events in the decades to
come and central to America's international interests as a
Pacific power.
It is important that the United States continue to
strengthen our relationships with key allies in the region,
including Japan, South Korea, Australia and the Philippines.
We should also deepen strategic partnerships with emerging
powers in the region, like India and Indonesia, and take steps
to further connect our people and our economies.
Mr. Chairman, the Asian rebalance includes important
political, economic, and strategic dimensions, and these
priorities are inseparable from our obligation to promote
greater respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of
law.
After all, when citizens enjoy full political and economic
participation, it helps unleash a country's full potential.
Governments that are transparent and accountable, in turn,
grow more responsive and effective. Nations become stronger
partners on the world stage and project stability across
regions.
So for the United States, promoting human rights in the
Asia-Pacific is the right thing to do and it is also the smart
thing to do. Some countries in the region have made significant
progress in these areas. Others have not.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in Vietnam, for example,
the Communist government continues to place severe restrictions
on political rights and religious freedom. Dissenters face
restriction of movement, arbitrary detention and endless
harassment.
In Cambodia, human trafficking remains a serious problem,
although we have seen some efforts to improve law enforcement
efforts around this crime.
Still, the Cambodian People's Party continues to
consolidate power, tighten its choke hold on the media, and
silence human rights advocates.
The Cambodian Government also has failed to stop illegal
land grabs. In January 2013, 300 families living in central
Phnom Penh lost their homes to developers and, after forceful,
violent removal by security forces, were relocated to squalid
sites outside of the city.
With regard to Burma, I want to commend the administration
for its efforts to work with the government there to enact some
long overdue reforms.
At the same time, I am very concerned about the systematic
human rights abuses and ethnic violence in some parts of the
country.
The State Department reported last year--and I quote:
``Extrajudicial killings, rape and sexual violence,
arbitrary detentions and torture and mistreatment in
detention, deaths in custody and systematic denial of
due process and fair trial rights overwhelmingly
perpetuated against Rohingya.''
These horrendous acts of violence have displaced 140,000
Rohingya within Burma and have pushed thousands to neighboring
countries, including Thailand, Bangladesh, and Malaysia.
We need to see real progress from Burma's leaders on these
human rights issues before we provide the military-led
government with any further concessions.
So as we can see, Mr. Chairman, many challenges remain
across the region. Tackling them won't be easy, but it is
important that the United States prioritize human rights as
part of a pivot or rebalance to the Asia-Pacific.
I want to thank you again for holding this hearing, and I
look forward to hearing from our excellent witnesses.
I want to call out our former colleague, Tom Andrews, with
whom we have both had the pleasure to serve, and welcome all
the witnesses today.
I look forward to all of your testimony.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
We go now to Mr. Chabot for his opening statement.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
I share your deep concerns about the human rights situation
in Southeast Asia and strongly support your efforts to
highlight the rampant abuses committed in the region.
I am particularly concerned about the deteriorating
situation in Burma and Cambodia, where the ruling regimes seem
to be concerned more about investment opportunities than the
fundamental rights of their own people.
In Cambodia, we have seen land grabs and increasing
crackdowns by the Hun Sen government. In Burma, we have been--
excuse me--we have seen complicity by the ruling junta in an
ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya Muslims.
I have worked quite a bit with one of our panel members,
Mr. Andrews, and he has spent considerable time in Burma,
working to expose the horrific conditions faced by so many
Burmese and trying to get them the basic assistance, especially
access to medical care that every human being deserves.
Tom, thank you for your work there. We certainly appreciate
it.
And I will yield back.
Chairman Royce. Any other members on this side of the aisle
like to make an opening statement?
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Lowenthal, go ahead.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank all the witnesses for appearing here
today on this very important issue.
I especially would like to welcome Supervisor Janet Nguyen,
who represents the cities of Westminster and Garden Grove in my
district, home to the largest Vietnamese-American community in
the United States.
We have all seen, as has been pointed out by my colleagues,
how the state of human rights in many countries across
Southeast Asia has deteriorated in recent years to the
detriment of millions of people who call the region home. I
would like to highlight two countries in particular.
In Vietnam, the one-party government rules without respect
for the rights of its citizens enshrined in its own
constitution. The Vietnamese Government has punished those who
speak out and exercise their basic human rights with jail
sentences.
As a member of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, I
have adopted the case of two prisoners of conscience: Blogger
Nguyen Tien Trung and Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh.
These cases highlight the Vietnamese Government's trampling
of free speech and religious freedom. While Trung has been
released from prison to home arrest, Pastor Chinh and hundreds
of other prisoners of conscience continue to remain in prison.
Chairman Royce. We will go now to Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
calling this extraordinarily important hearing. And I will just
bring focus on one issue, and that is Vietnam.
In 2004, I authored the Vietnam Human Rights Act, passed
323 to 45, no vote in the Senate. In 2007, the same bill passed
414 to 3. In 2012, the Vietnam Human Rights Act passed
unanimously. And then just recently, a year ago almost, 405 to
3.
Four times I have offered the Vietnam Human Rights Act with
strong support of virtually every member of this committee,
totally bipartisan.
And we have written Majority Leader Reid and asked simply
for a vote. You can vote against it, Mr. Senator, but please
don't block a vote.
This is an idea whose time has come. Vietnam is in a race
to the bottom with the likes of China and even North Korea,
particularly when it comes to religious freedom, as Hoang Van
Ngai was tortured to death in July 2013 and then his cousin,
Hoang Van Sung was tortured to death April 2014.
Let me finally just say--because my time is running out--
there is an active effort to suppress this legislation.
The Podesta Group was hired last December. They were paid
$30,000 per month through June 2nd, $180,000 in total. And I
suspect the contract has been renewed, but the filings haven't
been shown yet. No wonder the Senate won't take it up.
And, unfortunately, the President--I know the President's
people are here--I hope you will take it back. This is a
modest, well-calibrated, piece of human rights legislation, and
the people at this dais, many of whom--Dr. Thang especially--
helped us write it. So it is as accurate as the day is long.
This is an idea whose time has come. Vietnam, like I said,
is in a race to the bottom with some of the worst dictatorships
throughout the world. It is time to pass this legislation. Just
give it a vote in the United States Senate.
I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
This morning we are joined by a distinguished group of
witnesses.
I will start with Mr. Lorne Craner. He served as president
of the International Republican Institute that oversaw
elections around the world. He was Assistant Secretary of State
for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor from 2001 to 2004.
Some of us in our work and bipartisan effort--myself and
Gregory Meeks and some of the other members here--had an
opportunity to meet with Lorne. I think it was in 1999 when I
co-led an election oversight team with General Powell on the
Nigerian elections.
And I was just reflecting--I just asked my staff--over the
years we have heard Lorne testify a number of times between the
Senate and the House, different committees.
They did a quick tally back here, and they say you have
testified over 25 times. I am glad your sons are here to hear
you testify today, Lorne. Thank you.
Mr. Andrews, Tom Andrews, president and chief executive
officer of United to End Genocide, was our former colleague
from the state of Maine. He most recently served as national
director of Win Without War.
Ms. Janet Nguyen, supervisor for the First District of
Orange County, first woman supervisor to represent that
district, first Asian-American, first Vietnamese-American to
serve on the Board of Supervisors, as well as the youngest
supervisor elected in the history in Orange County.
And we have Mr. Thang Nguyen, executive director of Boat
People SOS. Many of us know him from his humanitarian work over
the years. He is also the co-founder of Coalition to Abolish
Modern Day Slavery in Asia.
Without objection, the witnesses' full prepared statements
will be made part of the record and the members will have 5
calendar days to submit statements and questions and other
extraneous material for the record.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Craner, if you would like. We would ask
you, though, to please summarize your remarks, if you could,
and then we will go to questions.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LORNE W. CRANER (FORMER ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE)
Mr. Craner. Mr. Chairman, members, thank you very much for
the opportunity to testify before you. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for your kind words.
The countries we are discussing are in different stages of
democratic development, an important factor in considering
policies toward them.
Let me start with Burma, where we are all familiar with the
country's democratic opening, but large problems remain,
including allowing Aung San Suu Kyi to run in the 2015
elections.
Less remarked upon has been the violence between Burma's
Buddhists and Muslims. The Rohingya's plight is different from
other Burmese ethnic groups in that they are persecuted by the
country's religious majority, including many Buddhists, who had
worked for a political opening.
Led by Secretary Clinton, the administration did an
exceptional job in rapprochement with Burma. That said, it was
a front-loaded process that left us with few carrots to
encourage Yangon today.
In looking at influencing events, however, we need to
remember the reasons Burma opened up: China's tight embrace and
the fact that the country was declining economically.
The transition is delicate, but the likelihood of a return
to China and isolation diminish by the day. We should think
through thoughtful measures to help the Rohingya and encourage
reform.
First, we should add those responsible for violence and
their families to our visa ban and SDN investment list. Second,
we should limit contacts with Burma's security forces. Third,
with the spread of sectarian violence to Mandelay last week,
the U.S. should look at reimposing some past sanctions.
We need to work closely with our European, Australian, and
ASEAN friends, some of whom are receiving large Rohingya
refugee flows, particularly on visa and investment issues.
Cambodia's sad history continues, thanks to Hun Sen, who
has essentially run the country in one way or another since
1985.
The 2013 elections were clearly flawed even before they
occurred, which is no small feat. After the election, the
opposition CNRP, claiming widespread fraud, refused to take
their seats in Parliament and began demonstrations, which were
repressed by the police. The CNRP today continues its
parliamentary boycott and is negotiating over arrangements for
future elections.
Two important trends were obscured by these events. First,
the CNRP did remarkably well in the elections, winning 44
percent of the vote to the CPP's 49. Second, there was higher-
than-usual youth voter turnout, and that benefited the CNRP.
Our pivot to Asia, which we have already mentioned here
today, should not inhibit actions to support democracy in
Cambodia. Hun Sen remains closely aligned with Vietnam, but he
cultivates a close relationship with Beijing.
The next National Assembly elections will occur in 2018,
and looking at our U.S. aid funding there, there should be more
youth civic education and a resumption of political party
training.
Third, a congressional review of U.S. training for
Cambodia's military is overdue. Fourth, we should limit contact
with Hun Sen's government until negotiations with the
opposition are satisfactorily included. Again, we should ask
our European, Australian, and ASEAN friends to do the same.
On Vietnam, many of us had hoped that diplomatic relations
and trade between our two countries would lead to more
political openness. We were wrong. Vietnam is the most
politically repressive country we are discussing, a one-party
state that tolerates no opposition.
There have been minor changes over the last decade, but
they are limited to reforms within the existing political
system, not reform of the system. And over the last few years,
things have worsened, with a stream of arrests and trials for
journalists, bloggers, and dissidents.
We have a tendency to treat Vietnam as a special country,
given our involvement there. To borrow an old phrase, in
dealing with Vietnam on human rights today, we instead need to
think of it as a country, not a war.
The pivot to Asia has increased Vietnam's strategic
importance to the U.S. But given their long mutual antipathy
with China, we need to keep in mind America's importance to
Vietnam.
We should start by pressing harder for an end to the
campaign against those who peacefully question the leadership
and seek the release of those already in prison for such
activities.
There should be more broadcasting to Vietnam by our
services. We should also push for structural changes in those
laws and policies that penalize such activities, again,
conducted in a multi-lateral way with European, Australian and
ASEAN allies.
Mr. Chairman, our economic and strategic interests are
clearly trending toward the Asia-Pacific area. Our hope is to
continue to shape a peaceful and prosperous future for the
region.
We should seek to repeat our past successes and not our
past failures in other regions by helping those who seek rights
and democratic institutions. In the long run, this will be
indispensable in advancing our interests in the region.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Craner.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Craner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Mr. Andrews.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM ANDREWS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED TO END GENOCIDE (FORMER UNITED STATES
REPRESENTATIVE)
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much for convening this important hearing. It is an honor for
me to be here.
I also want to thank you for the leadership that you have
provided in bringing what has been an inconvenient truth about
Burma to the attention of this Congress and to the public: The
systematic abuse, discrimination and assault on members of
minority communities, from the Rohingya ethnic minority in the
west, to the Kachin and Shan ethnic minority states to the
east, to Muslims, who are finding themselves threatened and
under attack in communities throughout Burma.
I have traveled extensively in Burma over the last 3 years,
and I can report to you, Mr. Chairman, that the brutal reality
that I discovered in my travels contradicts the pervasive--the
all-too-pervasive good-news narrative of a nation securely on
the path to democracy, justice and the rule of law.
I made several visits to what you aptly described as
concentration camps in western Rakhine that house more than
140,000 members of Rohingya Muslim community. These men, women
and children were marched to these camps after violence
destroyed their villages and neighborhoods in Sittwe.
They have been confined there ever since, living wretched
lives in isolation with virtually every aspect of their lives
controlled by government security.
Approximately 1,200,000 additional Rohingya live in other
areas of Rakhine State. While their homes and villages have not
been torched in ethnic violence, they, too, live in fear and
face restrictions on their freedom of movement, on who they can
marry, on how many children they can have, on access to
education, and on the construction of religious buildings.
These unbearable conditions have led tens of thousands of
Rohingya to leave at sea. The U.N. Refugee Agency estimates
that some 80,000 Rohingya have fled by boats since 2012. Of
those, hundreds, if not thousands, are believed to have
drowned.
Those who have survived have ended up in surrounding
countries, such as Thailand or Malaysia, who often fall victim
to human traffickers who imprison them or force them to work on
rubber plantations or as sex workers until family members come
up with ransom.
I traveled to Malaysia, where I followed and met with some
of these people and their families, and they told me
personally, Mr. Chairman, that the risk that they took was
greater than the living hell that they were bearing within
Burma.
The suffering of--the decision that you mentioned, Mr.
Chairman, of the eviction of Doctors Without Borders from
Rakhine State continues to this day.
One hundred and fifty people, in fact, died in the first 2
weeks of that expulsion, and that was the end of February. It
is unimaginable how many people have died. But I have seen
them. I have spoken with them. I took photographs and met with
their family.
And, Mr. Chairman, when you were advancing a resolution on
the Rohingya on the Floor of the House, you displayed
photographs that I took in those camps of these people.
And I am afraid to say, Mr. Chairman, that some of those
photographs of some of the families and people that you
displayed on the Floor have since perished.
The Government of Burma claims that it can fill the gap
that has been left by the expulsion of Doctors Without Borders,
but I can tell you that Doctors Without Borders last year alone
provided more than 400,000 healthcare consultations and over
2,900 emergency referrals. There is no way the Government of
Burma can meet that need.
While the plight of the Rohingya in western Burma, of
course, is the most egregious and urgent, anti-Muslim campaigns
stretch across the entire country.
The infamous so-called ``969 Movement'' of extremist
Buddhist monks, led by Ashin Wirathu, the self-proclaimed
Buddhist Bin Laden, systematically exploits and fans popular
fear and prejudice.
He calls Muslims dogs; African carp who breed quickly and
are violent, and they eat their own kind. I am quoting now, Mr.
Chairman:
Such dehumanization, the use of hate speech in well-
organized campaigns, the denial of basic health care,
and the systematic persecution of a specific people are
all known precursors to genocide.''
But Muslims are not the only people under siege. Over the
last 3 years, government forces tortured and raped many in the
Kachin and northern Shan states.
A report by Fortified Rights last month documented
systematic use of torture and other cruel, inhumane and
degrading treatment or punishment of more than 60 civilians by
military authorities.
Similarly, a report by the Women's League of Burma has
documented more than 100 cases of rape being committed by
Burma's military. It is being used, as they say, as a tool
against ethic minorities.
I was in Kachin State when, in fact, Aung San Suu Kyi was
elected to Parliament, and I saw firsthand the violence that
were occurring in those villages.
It was a stark reminder to me of the dark side of
developments of Burma that cannot be ignored even as we want to
celebrate the positive reforms that indeed have been made.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the disturbing conditions and
trends in Burma require a fundamental reassessment and
recalibration of U.S.-Burma policy. I have outlined some of
those specifically.
One of them is the increasing number of high-level
officials of the United States going to Burma. Secretary of
State Kerry is scheduled to go there next month. President
Obama is scheduled to visit Burma in November.
I think all of these trips, these indicators by the United
States of growing acceptance of conditions in Burma, need to be
questioned and challenged and stopped.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing. I very
much appreciate your concern for the people of Burma. And I
will be very happy to answer any of your questions.
Chairman Royce. Tom, we appreciate your work on human
rights.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Janet.
STATEMENT OF MS. JANET NGUYEN, SUPERVISOR, FIRST DISTRICT,
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Ms. Janet Nguyen. Good morning, Honorable Chairman Royce,
and members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
I want to particularly thank Chairman Royce for your
decades of leadership in support of the County of Orange and
the cities and residents you represent, particularly your
effort in fighting for human rights in Vietnam.
I also want to thank Congressman Rohrabacher and, also,
Congressman Lowenthal. Your representation and leadership in
Orange County and, also, for the people of Vietnam is greatly
appreciated.
It is my honor to be here before this esteemed committee to
comment on the continuing violations of religious freedom and
individual rights in Vietnam.
In the end, I request your assistance in fighting for
greater respect for personal liberty by the Government of
Vietnam and the release of human rights advocates, who are
currently in prison throughout Vietnam, by supporting H.R.
4254, which has been introduced by Chairman Royce and which I
have had the distinct privilege of assisting in drafting. It
has also been approved by the Orange County Board of
Supervisors.
Despite Vietnam's status as one of the U.S.' normal trade
partners, Vietnam has not reduced its oppression of its people,
including journalists, dissidents and human rights advocates.
As a county supervisor, whose district includes the Little
Saigon community, which is the largest Vietnamese community
outside Vietnam, I speak for many in voicing our concerns about
the continuing political oppression which exists in Vietnam and
hope that we in the United States will stand up and demand that
Vietnam respect the basic tenets of freedom and democracy that
we, as a Nation, expect from our trade partners.
As a beacon of civil liberties around the world, our
country has never shied away from its commitment to basic human
rights. We will not stand idly by while tyrants repress their
people, least of all our own trade partners.
Access to our economy and the opportunity has for financial
benefits that such access presents--must be earned through
compliance with the basic rules of human dignity and fairness
we live by.
Unfortunately, Vietnam has continued to push the limits of
our tolerance in this regard. Almost 4 decades after the
Vietnam war, Vietnam has continued its use of force,
intimidation and imprisonment to silence and oppress its
people.
The incarceration of songwriter Tri Minh Vo, also known as
Viet Khang, who has been sentenced to 4 years in prison, is a
prime example of the political oppression that the Vietnamese
people must continue to live under.
There are also other examples of oppression in legal
detention and suppression of free speech and religious figures
throughout Vietnam, such as the Venerable Thich Quang Do,
Reverend Nguyen Van Ly, Reverend Nguyen Cong Chinh, Blogger
Dieu Cay, also known as Nguyen Van Hai, as well as countless
other human rights fighters.
We believe the United States alone has the unique power to
effectuate political change in Vietnam. And for that reason, we
appeal to this committee to lend your support to this noble
cause.
As the highest ranking Vietnamese-American elected official
in California, I humbly ask that you support H.R. 4254. This
action will send a clear message to the Government of Vietnam
and the officials engaging in the violation of human rights
that United States has no tolerance for intolerance and
political suppression and that we will hold those officials
personally accountable for their actions.
I hereby submit a representative number of signatures from
thousands of community members from around the country which
has been displayed to show the overwhelming support for H.R.
4254.
I also submit a list of names of Vietnamese citizens who we
believe have violated the basic human rights of other
Vietnamese citizens. A case summary with evidence of each of
their violations is included for your review.
Given their blatant disregard for human rights, these
individuals should not be allowed entry into the United States
of America, nor should they have the ability to use our
financial system for their own personal benefit.
Therefore, I urge you to consider adopting the list of
individuals who are complicit in human rights abuses under H.R.
4254 and adding these individuals to that list for sanction.
I would also like to take this opportunity to express the
concerns of Vietnamese-Americans everywhere that, despite
international condemnation, China has become more militarily
aggressive against its neighbors over the past few years.
China's aggression has escalated and now includes the
violation of Vietnam's territorial rights and the capsizing of
a Vietnamese fishing boat on May 26th this year with ten
fishermen onboard.
This conduct is unacceptable and poses a threat to the
stability of the region. These actions are hostile and
detrimental to the sovereign interests of Vietnam.
An example of these actions include China deploying an
illegal deepwater oil rig in Vietnam's Exclusive Economic Zone,
ramming into Vietnamese private fishing boats, and firing a
water cannon at a Vietnamese naval patrol ship, which injured
several sailors.
Given China's increasing aggression, I am fearful that
these aggressions could soon result in a loss of life and
escalate tension in the South Asia Sea.
I ask that this committee also look into this issue, as it
may significantly impact our Nation's interests in the Pacific
Rim.
Again, thank you for your time and your attention and for
the opportunity to speak to you today. And I am available for
any questions.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Supervisor Nguyen.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Janet Nguyen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thang, go ahead with your testimony,
please.
STATEMENT OF THANG D. NGUYEN, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOAT
PEOPLE SOS
Mr. Thang Nguyen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the committee.
Vietnam has one of the worst human rights records in
Southeast Asia. From time to time, its government releases a
number of prisoners of conscience.
However, over the same period of time, they usually arrest
and detain a lot more. So the list of prisoners of conscience
has grown longer and longer.
There is no freedom of expression, including freedom of
Internet, or peaceful assembly or association in Vietnam, and
that affects the entire society.
Most affected are the faith communities, particularly those
located in remote regions and those among ethnic minorities.
Decree 92, which took effect in January 2013, has been used
by the authorities to sanction and restrict religious
activities and, at times, even to eliminate independent
religious groups.
On July 3rd of last year, for instance, the police in Tien
Giang Province supported members of the Caodai Governance
Council, which was set up by the government, to forcefully take
over the Long Binh Temple using violence. And Long Binh Temple
was one of the few temples that was still operated by
independent Caodai followers.
The attackers knocked down the front gate of the temple and
assaulted with clubs and rocks the 20 Caodai leaders and
followers who were conducting a religious ceremony inside the
temple.
And this is the picture of these attackers. They were
surrounding the temple and, eventually, they took it over, with
the support of the police. And, amazingly, the police arrested
not the attackers, but the victims.
The Vietnamese Government continues to force ethnic
Christians to renounce their faith. For example, earlier this
year, in January, the authorities in Dak Lak Province--that is
in central Vietnam--arrested, detained and tortured Pastor Y
Noen Ayun and Missionary Y Jon Ayun--they are both Montagnards
of the Vietnam Evangelical Church of Christ--until they had to
sign a statement agreeing to renounce their faith.
Likewise, the authorities have systematically forced Hmong
Christians in central Vietnam and, also, in northern Vietnam to
return to the so-called ancestral beliefs, which means forced
renunciation of their faith.
On March 17th of last year, the local authorities in Dak
Nong Province, central Vietnam, tortured to death Hoang Van
Ngai, a Hmong Protestant deacon. That is the case mentioned by
Chairman Smith. And this is a picture of Deacon Ngai when he
was still alive, standing right at the center here in front of
his church.
And then 3 months ago the authorities in Cao Bang Province,
all the way in the north, detained Ngai's cousin because he was
suspected by the authorities of having initiated a complaint
which was signed by all family members and relatives of Ngai
about his death.
Ten days later the police delivered Ngai's cousin's body in
a sealed coffin to his family and ordered the family not to
open it. The police stood watch until after the burial to
ensure that the coffin was never opened.
Then the police in both Dak Nong and Cao Bang Provinces--
this shows clearly there is coordination among the provinces--
went after all the relatives of Ngai who had signed the
complaint.
Last month our office in Bangkok received 55 relatives of
Ngai, who had to flee their villages to Thailand to seek
protection, along with Ngai's children and wife.
Those relatives of Ngai who remain in Vietnam are now being
hounded by the police, harassed, threatened and persecuted by
the local authorities.
The situation of religions in Vietnam is best summed up by
Hua Phi, a clergy member of the independent Caodai sect:
``In Vietnam, only the religious sects that follow the
directions of the government will be allowed to
function. Those that do not will meet harassment and
repression.''
Over the next 6 months, there will be a number of
opportunities for this Congress to act on Vietnam to make sure
that human rights will be a cornerstone in U.S. policies toward
that country, namely, the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with
Vietnam, the lifting of the ban on sale and transfer of lethal
weapons to Vietnam and, most importantly, negotiations with
Vietnam on its participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
or TPP.
We should demand fundamental improvements, to include the
unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience, the
elimination of all the instruments of repression that have been
used by the government in Vietnam to arrest and detain and
imprison these dissidents and, also, the full respect of the
right of workers to form and join free and independent labor
unions.
With that, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all
the members of the committee. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Nguyen.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thang Nguyen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. I was reading this Human Rights Watch
report, and it says,
``The situation in Vietnam deteriorated significantly
in 2013. The year was marked by a severe and
intensifying crackdown on critics, including long
prison terms for many peaceful activists whose crime
was calling for political change.''
We are aware of that crackdown because we have had hearings
and been shown photos of what has happened to those students
and religious leaders who have called for religious liberty or
freedom of speech.
Supervisor Nguyen--you are in a unique position of speaking
with people from Vietnam. A lot of people have family back in
Vietnam.
Do they see the trend lines in Vietnam? What do they share
with you about their hopes, aspirations, what they think is
happening? Maybe you could just give us the insight from the
community.
Ms. Janet Nguyen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Because of what is going on with China, there has been more
and more willingness to come out and speak against China.
However, the country of Vietnam has not been very
supportive of that. So there is a greater mix of concerns
within Vietnam that freedom and democracy are not going to
change.
In the United States, with your leadership and this
committee, we need to force the country of Vietnam to allow the
freedom of speech.
Chairman Royce. How do you see efforts in Congress, such as
H.R. 4254, the Vietnam Human Rights Sanctions Act, trying to
target or list those who are involved specifically in human
rights abuses--how do you see that impacting change in Vietnam?
Ms. Janet Nguyen. It will have a great impact, Mr.
Chairman, because H.R. 4254 particularly targets individuals,
not the country of Vietnam, but the individual who imposes
these violations.
Whether they are judges, elected officials, police
officers, or chiefs of police, these individuals will now have
a responsibility and have to think twice before taking any kind
of actions against individuals and citizens of Vietnam. If not,
they will not be allowed in our great country or be able to use
our financial institution.
And so now we are looking at targeting individuals, and,
hopefully, this will make them think twice, three times before
they impose actions against individuals.
Chairman Royce. Targeting those who use the truncheons or
those that order the beatings----
Ms. Janet Nguyen. Yes.
Chairman Royce [continuing]. Or order the arrests of
people, young bloggers, for simply talking about an issue like
freedom of speech.
Ms. Janet Nguyen. Yes. And not only that, Mr. Chairman,
but, also, individuals such as judges who do not allow the
court system to be fair.
Chairman Royce. Right. Right. Right.
Okay. Let me ask Mr. Craner.
Lorne, I was going to ask you about Cambodia. I have been
speaking to our Ambassador there and our undersecretary about
the situation that exists with respect to violence directed at
the political opposition and the sense of fear and, again, you
know, the amount of violence and the lack of respect for the
political process, for the democratic process, by the
government in power, to say nothing of the land grabbing or
whatever you want to call the process whereby land is routinely
taken from people in the countryside and turned over to those
who are politically well connected to the government or to
generals.
What can be done in terms of additional pressure to call
international attention to this and end this egregious process?
Because it is affecting families all over Cambodia today.
Mr. Craner. I think a couple of things beyond the measures
that I outlined. And I think one thing that we all have in
common is a belief that the United States should not extend
courtesies, recognition, by meetings and other methods, to
governments like this, and I think in the particular case of
Hun Sen.
I think in this case, also, we need to bring in our
European allies and our regional allies, Australia and ASEAN,
in trying to put pressure on the Cambodian Government to begin
to open up the system.
It is one thing if the U.S. is pushing for that. It is
another thing if we can get other countries engaged. But we
need to recognize, I think, as long as Hun Sen is in control in
Cambodia, very little is going to change.
And he is saying that he intends to stay until he is 74
years old, which is another 13 years. So we also need to be
engaged, as I outlined, in trying to make the democratic system
better there.
Chairman Royce. So his intention would be violence against
protesters calling for fair elections, continue to subvert the
elections, as he has, for the next 13 years?
Mr. Craner. The CPP has learned that they either hang
together or they hang apart. And for all the years since 1991,
they have been a very cohesive group.
Until there is more political openness and the possibility
of political change in Cambodia, that is not going to--that is
not going to change.
Chairman Royce. Yeah. The problem is that, with the
opposition, candidates can't even go into these areas to
campaign because the police and ruling party supporters come
out and block passage and beat people.
And so, you know, you don't have an opportunity to conduct
a fair election----
Mr. Craner. And that is why----
Chairman Royce [continuing]. To say nothing of the ballot
count, which is truly preposterous.
Mr. Craner. Yes. That is why all of the countries--Europe,
the United States, Australia, Japan and others--and, hopefully,
people in the region--countries in the region need to be
engaged before the next election.
And it is especially important that, as the rules are drawn
up in terms of the National Election Commission for the next
election, that all of these countries remain engaged to try and
make it a better system.
Chairman Royce. Yeah.
Let me go to Mr. Engel of New York.
Thank you, Lorne.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Why don't I start with you, Mr. Craner. I believe that the
promotion of human rights and democracy and the rule of law
cannot be separated from our foreign policy toward the Asia-
Pacific region.
Would you agree with that statement? And how can we improve
our efforts to ensure that the respect for human rights is part
of our larger Asia pivot strategy?
Mr. Craner. You have a critical role in doing that, both in
terms of the resolutions that you offer, in terms of the aid
decisions that you make, in terms of visits by all of you to
these countries.
But most of all--and I can tell you, having been in the
bureaucracy a couple of times--there is nothing like a hearing
to focus the mind of an executive branch diplomat on what
should be happening.
And if every time somebody--the Assistant Secretary for
Asia or DAS from Asia comes up here they are questioned
intensely by you on human rights, I can guarantee you they will
return to the State Department and say, ``We really need to
look into this because I don't want to be up there again 3
months from now getting hammered on this issue.''
So you have a critical role to play in that. Absent that,
the incentive in the executive branch is to get along with a
country, good, bad or ugly.
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much.
Mr. Andrews, the Constitution forbids Aung San Suu Kyi from
running for President next year.
Given the popularity, what impact will this provision have
on the elections or stability in Burma?
Mr. Andrews. Well, Congressman Engel, first of all, let me
thank you for your leadership and concern on what is happening
in Burma on a full range of issues. But the one that you
mentioned is a very important one.
Burma is not a democracy. Let's be very clear about that.
The military of Burma have a guarantee of 25 percent of the
seats in the Government of Burma. They are not going to give
that up. They have a guarantied veto over any changes to the
Constitution in Burma.
In order for Aung San Suu Kyi to be eligible to run for
President, that constitution is going to have to change, and
there has been absolutely no indications if they are going to
allow that to happen.
So many of the repressive policies and practices in Burma
are being driven by a very unbalanced political system, a very
unfair political system.
And, really, those that were responsible for many of the
atrocities that we have discussed and many of those that
existed before this major reform are still there.
They might have changed their clothes. They may no longer
have their uniforms on. But they are still in control, and that
remains the fundamental problem.
Mr. Engel. Let me ask you another question about Burma. We
mentioned--I mentioned it in my opening statement.
Can you explain why the government is instigating violence
against the Rohingya and why does the government apparently
feel it is to their benefit to do so.
Mr. Andrews. It is a very good question, Congressman Engel,
and I have asked of that many people.
There is a variety of reasons. But one of them relates to
your first question, and that is this idea that the military
likes to discuss what they call disciplined democracy, that if
you allow too much freedom, too much democracy, that things can
get out of hand, there can be violence, and, therefore, a
justification for an increased role and a strong role for the
military and a further excuse not to move forward with these
reforms.
This is not the first country in the world in which
politicians have appealed to the darker nature of human beings,
to bigotry, to racism, to fear, and that is very much in
effect.
And what my deep concern is is that this is going to
continue and intensify as we move forward to the 2015 elections
and political leaders and military leaders feel that they need
to continue to use that card as those elections get closer.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Let me ask Ms. Nguyen or Mr. Nguyen questions about
Vietnam. Two things.
Does worsening China-Vietnam ties present an opportunity to
the United States to fully engage with the Vietnamese
Government on human rights issues?
They are actually appealing to us to side with them against
China. China's being very aggressive in the South China Sea,
and both Vietnam and the Philippines have been besieging us to
help them.
Does this present an opportunity for us to say, ``Okay. You
want our help, we want to see an improvement on your human
rights abuses''?
Ms. Janet Nguyen. Congressman, absolutely. This is the
opportunity to tell the country of Vietnam and the Government
of Vietnam that, ``We are here to help and support your cause
and to protect the Pacific Rim, but you also need to honor our
own liberty and our rights and everybody's rights.'' And so,
yes.
Mr. Engel. Mr. Nguyen, would you agree with that?
Mr. Thang Nguyen. Yes. I fully agree with the assessment of
Supervisor Nguyen. And I think there are two reasons why this
is a golden opportunity for this country to demand a certain
minimum standard of human rights as a contingency for Vietnam
to expand ties with the U.S.
One is that, for a long time, there has been an opinion
among some decision-makers in our own Government that, if we
are too strong on Vietnam in terms of human rights and
democracy, then that might push Vietnam further into the orbit
of China. That argument or opinion no longer has a basis
because there is no way for Vietnam to come any closer to China
at this time.
Secondly, Vietnam now needs the U.S. not only because its
economy is in shambles, but also because Vietnam needs
legitimacy, needs recognition by the U.S. and the free world as
it faces China. So this is a great time for us to demand that
Vietnam makes real and irreversible concessions on human
rights.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Let me ask one final question on Vietnam. Because I am old
enough to remember the Vietnam war, and I think that it is
ironic that China and Vietnam are clashing and that Vietnam is
now looking for protection from the United States for China. I
think there is a lot of irony in there.
But we keep getting reports of increased infighting within
the Communist Party of Vietnam. And would any of you care to
comment on the tensions? And with this infighting, will it have
any effect on human rights issues?
Ms. Janet Nguyen. I believe so, Congressman. One other
thing that we should ask of Vietnam: To immediately release the
people who have been speaking out against China's aggression
the last 2 years.
They have been put in prison by the Government of Vietnam
just for those reasons, trying to protect their own homeland.
So the Government of Vietnam ought to--the very first step is
to release those whom they have imprisoned for protecting their
own country. That is the first step. And we need to take this
opportunity.
The infighting within the Vietnam Government and the people
of Vietnam is rising, but they need the support of the United
States.
It is our opportunity to say, ``We will help, but only, and
only, when you start setting the stage for releasing
individuals for exercising their basic human rights and allow
the people of Vietnam to enjoy what we enjoy in the United
States.''
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Thang Nguyen. Yes. My take is that there might be
internal differences among the members of the Politburo.
However, they still act as one block. They make decisions
together.
However, there are very few options left for the leadership
of Vietnam these days. They cannot lean on China anymore, and
the only option is to come closer with the U.S.
And, therefore, this is the time for us to shift the entire
block of the Politburo membership toward the west. And we have
seen some movement in that direction. Now we need to expedite
that process further.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
I know my time is up. I just--not asking a question. I just
want to say that we are in the process of negotiating with
them, with Vietnam and other countries, the TPP, the Free Trade
Agreement. I personally think this is also a good time to put
pressure on them because they really want this agreement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask--and maybe start with Dr. Thang--four basic
questions and then go from my right to left.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom's
report on Vietnam couldn't be clearer. They say the Vietnamese
Government continues to imprison individuals for religious
activity or religious advocacy.
They talk about the fact that the situation remains poor
for all human rights, including religious freedom, and has
deteriorated, it is going in the wrong direction.
They make a very strong recommendation that the Country of
Particular Concern designation be applied to Vietnam.
After the bilateral agreement where there was undue
euphoria that somehow things would matriculate from
dictatorship and repression to an openness and it absolutely
has not happened. It has gotten worse. And some of the worst of
the worst offenders have gotten richer and now have large bank
accounts because of that.
So CPC, your thoughts on that.
Secondly, on human trafficking, a few weeks ago the TIP
Report came out, and I applaud much of what is in the TIP
Report. I think Secretary Kerry has done a wonderful job with
regard to most countries.
I disagreed with China, but also with Vietnam, which was
designated as Tier 2, even though the narrative makes very
clear that NGOs report that trafficking-related corruption
continues to occur and there is minimal progress in prosecuting
labor trafficking.
Even though they cite the new law and very often the law
becomes a pretext for easing up on designations, it is all
about implementation.
They signed U.N. covenants. They passed laws. Certainly
their Constitution looks a lot like ours in terms of respect
for fundamental human rights, but that is the old Soviet game.
You put it on paper. It is a paper promise that does not have
meaning.
I have visited many of the people who are now in prison,
many of whom are under pagoda or house arrest, on one of many
trips to Vietnam: The Venerable Thich Quang Do, he was under
pagoda arrest; Father Loi, under house arrest in Hue; and
Father Ly.
And Father Ly, as we all know, was re-arrested and has been
subjected to unbelievably cruel and harsh treatment just for
speaking out. And he submitted testimony to this Congress
several years back--an unbelievably brave move--and for that he
gets more prison time as part of a cumulating, ever-worsening
situation for him vis-a-vis the Government of Vietnam.
So Tier 2, do you believe it ought to be Tier 3, as I do?
I wrote the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The minimum
standards prescribed in that act couldn't be clearer:
Government complicity. It is government complicity and then
some.
We have had several hearings. Dr. Thang testified at one
and was very eloquent at pointing out both sex and especially
labor trafficking, how things have actually gotten worse there.
Third, the Senate vote on the Vietnam Human Rights Act, we
have asked with deep respect to Senator Reid. Just post it for
a vote. Your thoughts on that.
And, finally, the Podesta Group I mentioned in my opening,
they are getting $30,000 per month to advise the government in
Vietnam and the Embassy here on how to handle these issues.
And I believe they are icing the puck over on the Senate
side. Just don't bring it up. There is no vote. And that will
be the end of it.
So your thoughts, Dr. Thang.
Mr. Thang Nguyen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
address the first two questions first and go to the others if
there is still time. About the CPC designation, I think that
Vietnam clearly deserves to be redesignated as a Country of
Particular Concern. Clearly, the atrocities against the
communities of faith have exceeded the threshold for
designation. We talk about the forced renunciation of faith; we
talk about torture, sometimes leading to death; we talk about
the wiping out of entire religious communities, such as the Con
Dau Parish or the Hmong villages or Christian villages in the
northern western region of Vietnam.
So clearly, however, I think that our own State Department
has been duped into believing that the increase in the number
of registration of religious organizations is a good benchmark.
It is not, for one good reason: These organizations that have
been registered by the government in Vietnam to officially
operate are usually those set up by the Government of Vietnam
itself as instruments to control the independent groups. And
therefore, with Decree 92, these independent religious
communities may not even conduct activities at home, in their
own privacy at home.
So they have only two choices: Either to join the
government-sanctioned and registered churches or they have to
go out of existence. So that is not freedom of religion. That
is controlled religion. So we are asking Vietnam to increase
its control of religion. So we are asking the wrong question.
And therefore I would propose that we demand that Decree 92 be
abolished. And, two, we should present Vietnam with a list of
genuine religious organizations, and we would want to see those
and only those to be registered.
In terms of human trafficking, thanks to the ranking of
Russia in Tier 3 last year, the Government of Russia stepped up
its crackdown on a number of sweatshops owned by Vietnamese
around Moscow in the last 4 months of 2013. The Government of
Russia raided almost 60 sweatshops owned by Vietnamese in
Moscow, liberating almost 6,000 Vietnamese workers held in
slavery.
And we are talking about slavery, because many of these
victims had never seen sunlight for 2 or 3 years. They are kept
in captivity underground. And yet, none of them has been--and
all of them have been repatriated--and none of them has been
recognized by the Vietnamese Government as a victim of labor
trafficking. No labor export company has been investigated, let
alone prosecuted. So clearly Vietnam hasn't done its job at all
to fight human trafficking.
Ms. Janet Nguyen. Congressman, thank you for your
questions. I have been an advocate for years, have asked our
Government to put Vietnam back on the CPC. Violation of human
rights, religious rights, and also human trafficking, as you
have stated, have increased. They have not decreased. They need
to be placed back on the CPC. We need to put the human
trafficking issue at Tier 3. H.R. 4254 seeks to achieve
specific targeted goals to achieve greater human rights in
Vietnam and does not interfere with our Nation's bigger
strategic concerns. We need to put these individuals who
violate the human rights and religious freedom of the people of
Vietnam on target--tell them you will not be allowed in the
United States, nor will you be allowed to use our financial
system.
And with regards to human trafficking, it is not just human
trafficking for labor, but children are exploited for tourism,
for sex slavery. So many, it is incredible. I have two young
children. I cannot fathom the idea that anything could happen
to my children or any children in the world to be used in these
ways. So we need to protect those children, give them a future,
give them a life.
Chairman Royce. Well, Mr. Smith, if I could explain a
point. You are raising this issue in terms of people
registering, but the problem, for example, the Buddhist text,
the head of the Hoa Hoa Church, as well as Thich Quang Do, both
showed me copies. Their Buddhist texts don't match up well with
the Communist Manifesto. And so the problem was the party
rewrote the text, and so as a consequence they feel that their
faith dictates that they keep their historical text. And so as
a consequence, they can't be registered.
So this is not really religious freedom. And for our
Government to be talking about the fact that, look how they
have signed up, we have got these different religious leaders
that the party is putting forward, the recognized leaders of
both of those churches are not on the list because they are in
prison, as you visited them both.
We will go now to Mr. David Cicilline of Rhode Island.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the witnesses for this very important
testimony.
I would like to first ask you, Mr. Andrews, and Mr. Craner,
there has obviously been a lot of reporting about the human
rights and democratization reforms in Burma and that they have
stalled and there has been significant backsliding. And, in
fact, a former U.N. Special Rapporteur for Human Rights said
that there was an element of genocide in the attacks against
the Rohingya population.
So I want to ask you whether you think that is an accurate
assessment, and what can we do as a country to effectively
encourage the Burmese Government to stop engaging this kind of
mistreatment of a very vulnerable population?
Mr. Andrews. Well, thank you, Congressman. Let me go first.
I have in my testimony and certainly will be happy to
discuss with you further the report that we issued after one of
my trips, ``Marching to Genocide in Burma.'' The people in
Burma, the Muslim minorities and others, they are being
targeted not because of anything that they have done, but
because who they are, their ethnicity and the God that they
pray to. And because of that, all the things that we have
described have been inflicted upon them, and that is not simply
a matter of inter-ethnic tensions or religious tension. This is
being done systemically with the support of the government. And
that is where I think the United States needs to play a role.
The Government of Burma needs to be held accountable.
President Thein Sein of Burma made 11 specific pledges to
President Obama back in November 2012. He has come through with
only 1 of those 11 commitments, including the commitment to
allow the U.N. Office of High Commissioner to have free access
to the areas that are under siege, to restore the healthcare
services to Rakhine State that we just mentioned, to allow
credible independent investigations into these areas.
And by the way, people that told me about the problem of
having Doctors Without Borders thrown out, they said it is not
just that. It is these independent eyes that have now been
expelled from those very areas where this violence is
continuing.
So it is incredibly important that we establish those
standards and then take action. I mean, there are various tools
that we have at our disposal. We mentioned them. I mentioned
them very specifically in my testimony. Specially Designated
Nationals list needs to be identified, whether or not you
qualified for the General System of Preferences.
Having standards for the military-to-military relations and
not allowing it to go further unless those standards are met,
for example, the Burma Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2014.
Congressman Chabot is the sponsor of that. H.R. 4377 outlined
specifically the conditions that we would set in order for
there to be continued relations between the two militaries. All
of these things could help to move us in a better direction.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
In addition to the concerns that this hearing has raised
with respect to Burma and Vietnam, I also want to focus for a
moment on another human rights situation in the region, that is
in Thailand. I am particularly concerned about the prevalence
of human trafficking in that country. In the State Department's
most recent TIP report it downgraded Thailand to Tier 3. It was
reported that there is a significant portion of labor
trafficking victims within Thailand, that they are exploited in
commercial fishing, fishing-related industries, low-end
garment-production factories and domestic work. And many of
these workers are coming from other countries in the region,
such as Vietnam and Burma.
American consumers should not be incentivizing this
horrendous behavior. And so I would like to know whether you
think we are currently doing enough to ensure that goods that
are produced by forced labor or even trafficked labor are not
available on the U.S. market. That is for anyone who has a view
on that.
Mr. Thang Nguyen. Well, we have operations in Malaysia and
Thailand and Taiwan to fight human trafficking. We do not have
the full expertise on human trafficking in Thailand, however.
But we know in cases that we have worked on in Malaysia where
Thai fishing vessels have been intercepted and very young boys,
underage, Cambodians, have been kept for years on those
vessels, and we rescued them.
Yes, there are some adults from Cambodia and other
countries, the Philippines and Vietnam, who are on those
vessels. And I think, I am guessing, that there is a lot more
of those incidents that haven't been caught.
So that is an area that is very murky because we don't know
which country has jurisdiction, and therefore we really need to
step up, and there ought to be a region-wide effort to fight
that form of trafficking on fishing vessels.
Mr. Cicilline. Yeah. And also we need to be doing more to
make sure that we are not making those products available in
the U.S. markets.
I just want to, with my few seconds left, ask one remaining
question. I recently introduced H.R. 4907, the Global Respect
Act, which would ban entry into the United States of those who
commit serious human rights violations against members of the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. And while
the region has a good deal of positive news, a number of
countries, such as Malaysia, Indonesia, and particularly
Brunei, are moving in the wrong direction. And I am
particularly concerned about efforts in Brunei to further
criminalize same-sex relations and possibly to include the
death penalty.
And I wonder if the witnesses could share whether or not
you think we as a government and this body as the Congress are
doing enough to support the human rights and fundamental
freedoms of LGBT persons throughout the world and what more can
and should be done to protect basic human rights of people from
this community.
Ms. Janet Nguyen. Congressman, I just think in general our
country needs to do a lot more when we have trade partners
around the world. They need to also honor our liberty, our
rights, and human rights that we give to our people. And so
regardless of the individual, I think everybody deserves their
human rights and basic human freedom. And so I think that we
should demand more from these countries.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
We go now to the chairman of the Asia Subcommittee, Steve
Chabot from Ohio.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you very much for holding this important hearing. I really
think we are discussing an awful lot of very important issues,
and I want to thank the panel and you for that.
Earlier this year, I introduced bipartisan legislation,
which Mr. Andrews has referred to already, along with our
colleague Joe Crowley, H.R. 4377, the Burma Human Rights and
Democracy Act of 2014, to prohibit military assistance to the
Burmese Government and restrict engagement with the junta until
certain necessary reforms in that country are made.
Mr. Andrews, I want to thank you for your support of that
particular measure.
Engagement with the Burmese military ignores the fact that
the junta still has considerable leverage over the government,
is obstructing constitutional reforms, and is complicit in
human rights abuses against ethnic and religious minorities,
something that has not changed and unlikely, unfortunately, it
appears to change anytime in the near future.
Tom, in your testimony, you described in great detail the
abuses being committed against ethnic minorities, particularly
the Rohingya Muslims in Burma. Would you go into more detail
about the Burmese military's role in these abuses and what they
are doing to impede further democratic reforms? And also would
you comment on our military-to-military engagement with Burma
and perhaps give your thoughts about the legislation that we
have discussed as well?
Mr. Andrews. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that
I think that the legislation, 4377, is extremely important, and
I think it is important for all of us to recognize the
difference between the relationship between our Congress and
our military and what happens over in Burma. I used to serve on
the Armed Services Committee. And in Burma, the military is not
accountable to the Parliament; in fact, the military has veto
power over the constitution of the country. They have enormous
economic power. So they are not being held accountable.
And one of the key provisions of your legislation is the
demand that there be constitutional reforms so that there is
accountability of this military and it does come under the
government and the Parliament, much as our military functions
here in the United States. It is extremely important. And the
role that they play in all of these various areas is multiple.
Mandalay, last week, the violence in Mandalay, I got calls
and emails from Mandalay. As you know, there was religious
violence there. Wirathu had one of his rallies. He posted on
his Facebook page that there was a jihad that was happening, a
Muslim jihad right then and there and they were out to destroy
all of the Buddhists. Mobs formed and violence ensued. One of
the people who I knew and worked with there was killed on his
way to a mosque.
What I heard was, was that the security forces, while they
eventually came in and had a curfew, it took them quite a
while. They were very close by to where this violence occurred.
It took them quite a while to appear, and that is the pattern
that we have seen in many other places.
But perhaps one of the most egregious examples is in Kachin
State where I visited a few years ago. I mean, literally, these
villages, I went into villages that were completely wiped out,
not a single person to be seen. I mean, there were literally
shells falling while I was in Kachin State. And the attacks on
these villages by the military and the systematic use of rape
as a means of intimidation and control continue to this day. So
it is an out-of-control institution that has too much power,
and we have got to address it directly or we are not going to
see the kind of changes that we want.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Mr. Craner.
Mr. Craner. It is way premature to be having relations with
the Burmese military. I noticed that there was a senior U.S.
delegation through Yangon about 2 weeks ago, including I
believe it was the Chief of Staff for the CINCPAC, and some
State Department officials paving the way for U.S. military
training of the Burmese military, which I just think at this
point is, as I said, extremely premature. We have already
frontloaded this Burmese process, trying to have a
rapproachment with them. We don't need to keep adding to it.
Mr. Royce referred earlier to a Human Rights Watch report.
There is another one on what are called the Angkor Sentinel
Exercises, which are joint U.S.-Cambodian exercises, that I
think is worth your looking at. Their congress imposed
restrictions, saying that the training could only be about
human rights, democracy, et cetera. And Brad Smith of Human
Rights Watch has shown that that is not what is going on in our
training of the Cambodian military. That is a cautionary tale
for working with Burma's military.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. Thank you very much.
We go now to Mr. Alan Lowenthal of California.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You know, Mr. Chair, you mentioned earlier the importance
of broadcasting in alternative views into countries that have
great human rights violations. And I want to raise to either
Secretary Craner or Supervisor Nguyen or Dr. Nguyen, the
Broadcasting Board of Governors recently issued numerous cuts
to shortwave broadcasting across the globe, including the
cessation of all shortwave into Vietnam.
Do you think this was a wise decision, and do you think
shortwave as a medium for disseminating independent information
is important at this time? The issue is, how important is this?
We have just received this notice. I would like to be able to
respond to that. And so I would like to hear if there are any
points of view on the cessation of shortwave broadcasting into
Vietnam.
Mr. Thang Nguyen. I believe that that decision was made on
the assumption that now the Internet is widespread everywhere,
but that is not the case at all. For the Hmong Protestants, for
instance, that we are talking about, all the way up in the
mountains, the northwestern region of Vietnam, for the
Montagnard Christians in the Central Highlands, or the Khmer
Krom all the way down south, in remote areas, they don't have
access to the Internet. So shortwave radio is the only windows
to the outside world. So I think it is very imperative that
Radio Free Asia, for instance, continues to broadcast into
Vietnam. And not only in Vietnam, but in other countries in
Southeast Asia.
I would like to take this opportunity to again commend the
chairman and the committee members here for holding this
hearing at this time. This is very critical time, because
countries in Southeast Asia, 11 countries are taking steps to
come together as one single bloc in the model of the European
Union. So this is the time for us to really influence and
promote human rights and democracy, so that we will see one day
a stable, trustworthy, democratic bloc being our ally in the
region instead of seeing the entire region descending into the
darkness of dictatorship and chaos.
Mr. Lowenthal. Supervisor.
Ms. Janet Nguyen. Thank you, Congressman.
Limiting any kind of broadcasting limits the freedom of
speech and views. So I absolutely agree that we need to allow
shortwave radios across the country because that is when we
allow the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press to be
able to give different opinions to the people of Vietnam. And
so we need to support allowing that.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
I have a question for Secretary Craner. You mentioned the
numerous flaws in Cambodia's recent elections and some of the
issues. And the question I would like to know is, what specific
actions--and you talked about what we might do--but what
specific actions do you think the United States at this moment
can do to promote free and fair elections in Cambodia, and what
are the options, and do you think the prospects for
international monitors in future elections?
Mr. Craner. International monitors had visited past
Cambodian elections. The reason they didn't visit this most
recent election in 2013 was that the U.S. and the Europeans
both said there is no point in going. This process is already
so flawed because of the voter registration list, the
intimidation of the opposition, that even if the election day
looks good, it is an illegitimate process.
What can we do to help----
Mr. Lowenthal. What can we do, specifically?
Mr. Craner. What can we do to help make it better? There is
no reason for any country these days not to have a technically
good election. And here again pressure needs to come, more
pressure from the United States, but also pressure from Europe
and pressure from countries within the region to say there
needs to be a decent election in Cambodia. There hasn't been a
good election in Cambodia since 1993.
Mr. Lowenthal. Should we be calling for an earlier
election?
Mr. Craner. No. That is between the, I would say, between
the opposition and the government to decide in their current
negotiations. But as I said, there shouldn't be any high-level
contact with Cambodia until those negotiations are resolved
well.
Mr. Lowenthal. I would also like to ask Supervisor Nguyen
and Dr. Nguyen, we talked about trade relations between the
United States, and I think Ranking Member Engel brought up the
TPP. What would you like to see this Congress do in terms of
the TPP negotiations between Vietnam as one of the 13 nations
in the TPP? Would you like us to take a statement on that?
Mr. Thang Nguyen. Yes.
Mr. Lowenthal. Either one.
Mr. Thang Nguyen. Yes, yes, definitely. This is the time
for Congress to come out and make a very strong statement,
unmistakably clear to Vietnam, and also to our own
administration, that human rights concessions to the extent
that they should be irreversible be considered as a condition,
precondition for any further approachment with Vietnam on TPP,
and it should be part of the ongoing negotiations with Vietnam.
For instance, the basic, fundamental rights of Vietnamese
people must be respected. That is the freedom of expression,
the freedom of peaceful assembly, and the freedom of
association. And also, there should be benchmarks. For
instance, the release of all prisoners of conscience or the
vast majority of the prisoners of conscience before Vietnam be
admitted into TPP.
The abolition of all instruments of violence and force that
have been used by the Government of Vietnam to repress, arrest
and imprison dissidents must be in effect. In November of this
year, the National Assembly of Vietnam will convene and that
would be a great opportunity for them to revisit all these laws
that, by the way, are now out of line with their new
constitution. And clearly, they should respect the full freedom
of all workers to form their own free and independent labor
unions.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
I have used up my time, so, Supervisor Nguyen, do you just
want to briefly respond to that?
Ms. Janet Nguyen. Yes. I agree, as well. We need to make
Vietnam accountable. In order for them to enjoy the trade with
our great Nation, they have to also honor our liberty and give
the people of Vietnam basic rights and release the prisoners.
Mr. Lowenthal. So if you were looking at the actions by the
Congress, you would not support a fast tracking of this
agreement unless there were definite changes in their human
rights?
Ms. Janet Nguyen. Yes.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal.
We go now to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank you for the leadership you have provided. When we are
talking about broadcasting, we are actually talking about Ed
Royce over there. I mean, he came to Congress with the idea we
are going to make sure that we broadcast the word of freedom to
the people of the world, especially Southeast Asia. So he put a
lot of time and effort into that, and we are very grateful to
him for it.
In terms of Burma, and, Mr. Andrews, thank you for your
testimony today. I think it is really significant that we have
Muslims and Christians being attacked. This is a military
attack on the Christians, I understand that, and perhaps with
the Muslims what we have is the government standing back and
letting mobs of people murder Muslims. We need to make sure
that message gets through to the Government of Burma that they
are now not considered a government in transition to freedom as
long as these murders are taking place. And I have been
watching this very closely. Thank you for your testimony today.
Let us hope the people of Cambodia understand they are not
being forgotten, as well, today, because what we have had in
Cambodia is a regime that actually exploits the tyranny on its
own borders because people then come there and are exploited by
people who are in a clique with Hun Sen, and Hun Sen has run
that government as his own personal clique for a long time.
The fact is there isn't democracy in Thailand today, and we
want the people of Thailand to understand that is of grave
concern to us that they are in a state where the military now
is controlling their government and that we are watching that
very, very closely and care about it. Thailand was such a
wonderful example of what could work for so many years.
And finally, about Vietnam, I find it fascinating that we
have this dedication to Marxism-Leninism that motivates these
people to murder and to suppress religious believers in that
country. Yet, they are not so dedicated to Marxism-Leninism
that they can't make deals with businessmen and set up
corporations in order to rip off people who aren't able to form
labor unions and to negotiate their contracts or to have
strikes or to even criticize the government or those
businesses.
So this type of hypocrisy that we see in Vietnam, I join
with you today in calling for the Government of Vietnam, at the
very least they should, if they no longer are committed to
Marxism-Leninism, which is clear by their economic policies,
let them step back from the part of Marxism and Leninism that
has motivated them to attack people's religious freedom. Let
religious freedom go off of their agenda. They have felt
compelled to force people to renounce their faith, as we heard
in testimony today. This is absurd for a government that is
permitting big business to come in and set up business in their
country.
And finally, Ms. Nguyen, Janet, your concept of making sure
that our very first demand on Vietnam is they let those,
especially young people go, who are doing nothing more than
standing up against Chinese aggression is a very significant
point that I share; I join you in that demand.
And finally, I just would like to say about the
Montagnards, because I spent some time in the Montagnards in
1967, and to hear that they are now being tortured and being
basically forced to renounce their faith is appalling. They are
wonderful people. These are basically native peoples to that
part of the world, friendly, and have a wonderful and positive
and peaceful culture. So I am sorry to hear that. And I hope
that we pay back some of the debts that we owe to the
Vietnamese people and to the Montagnards for what they did to
stand beside us in the battle against Communist tyranny when
the Cold War was at its hottest.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
I believe there was a follow-up. Two of the members of our
panel had been asked a question, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
Chairman Royce. And you wanted that question answered, I
think, by the other two.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
To Congressman Andrews and Secretary Craner, on the CPC for
Vietnam, secondly on trafficking, I believe it ought to be Tier
3. Your thoughts? The point that I brought out about the
Podesta Group getting $30,000 per month to kill the bill in the
Senate, the Vietnam Human Rights Act, your thoughts on that?
And then an appeal to Majority Leader Reid to just post it
for a vote. It has been since 2004. Republicans owned the
Senate then, so this is a bipartisan angst that I have had that
we have not been able to get this bill up for a vote in the
Senate, and it has been iced, and now we know the Podesta Group
is playing a key role. Your thoughts?
Mr. Craner. First of all, I never understood how Vietnam
got off CPC status. We had an Ambassador For Religious Freedom
at that point, as you will remember. I believe it happened in
about 2005, something like that. But I never understood how
they managed to get off.
Your TTIP bill was incredibly well constructed because it
actually has penalties if you are in Tier 3, as you know. And
so my observation, while I was in government, was that the
State Department and countries involved would do almost
anything to get out of Tier 3 and that by doing almost anything
they could get out of Tier 3. In other words, you don't have to
do much to get out of Tier 3, and I think that may be the
problem.
I don't think I ever saw as many cables go between here and
Uzbekistan as I saw one summer when they were threatened with
Tier 3 status. It was pretty amazing. So it was a well-
constructed bill, like I said. It is amazing to me that the
VHRA cannot get through the Senate, that it can't even be
brought up for a vote. I think that is stunning. And I would
hope there would be some people with good conscience over there
who would be willing to help out. Thank you.
Mr. Andrews. Congressman, I think, first of all, you are
right, I think Tier 3 is appropriate. But from my vantage
point, focusing on the case of Burma and the families who have
been trafficked, in fact I actually, when I was traveling in
the region, tracked down traffickers and talked to them about
how they make their living and the booming market that exists
for them, just horrendous.
I also believe, and I would encourage Congress to focus
also on the supply side of this, that the reason that this
trafficking has occurred and there is a significant increase
coming from places like Burma is precisely because of the
conditions in Burma. And when I sat down and met with some
families in Malaysia, for example, who by the grace of God made
it through and were safe, I said, how could you put your--and I
am sitting there with young children, a mother and a father who
put these kids on a boat and risked their entire family's life
to get out of the country. And they said, you know, we had a
family meeting about this. We knew we might die. But if we died
on the sea we would die together. We are dying in these camps
right now. It was a horrendous thing.
So if we can deal with the supply side, if we can confront
the conditions that are driving these people out of places like
Burma, we would be doing a major, major service and making
major strides in a very important issue that you that you have
championed, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. So nobody wants to raise the Podesta Group or
speak to that? Okay.
Mr. Thang Nguyen. Well, talking about Podesta Group I have
a tangential answer only.
To also add on to the answer to the question that was posed
by Mr. Chairman sometime ago about the two issues that are on
the mind of most Vietnamese-Americans these days are (1) the
acts of aggression of China in the South China Sea; and (2)
human rights in Vietnam, violations of human rights in Vietnam.
So those are the two major issues on the mind of most
Vietnamese-Americans. And next week there will be about 500
Vietnamese-Americans coming from across the country to walk the
halls of Congress and to meet with Members of Congress, and
that is our way to counter the Podesta Group.
Chairman Royce. I want to thank all our witnesses for
making the trip out here today to testify. And this committee
hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Note: Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Tom Andrews,
president and chief executive officer, United to End Genocide (former
United States Representative), titled ``Marching to Genocide in Burma:
Fueled by Government Action and a Systematic Campaign of Hate Aided and
Abetted by the Diverted Eyes of the Word,'' is not reprinted here but
is available in committee records.]
[all]