    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                         THE UNFOLDING CRISIS IN BURMA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 4, 2021

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-33

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                                docs.house.gov,
                           or http://www.govinfo.gov

                               ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    44-451              WASHINGTON : 2021

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                      GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, Chairman

    BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey                  Member
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    KAREN BASS, California               JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts       SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island        DARRELL ISSA, California
    AMI BERA, California                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas                LEE ZELDIN, New York
    DINA TITUS, Nevada                   ANN WAGNER, Missouri
    TED LIEU, California                 BRIAN MAST, Florida
    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota             KEN BUCK, Colorado
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
    COLIN ALLRED, Texas                  MARK GREEN, Tennessee
    ANDY LEVIN, Michigan                 ANDY BARR, Kentucky
    ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia         GREG STEUBE, Florida
    CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey           CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
    ANDY KIM, New Jersey                 AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
    SARA JACOBS, California              PETER MEIJER, Michigan
    KATHY MANNING, North Carolina        NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
    JIM COSTA, California                RONNY JACKSON, Texas
    JUAN VARGAS, California              YOUNG KIM, California
    VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas              MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida
    BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois

                        Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director

                   Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Tun, His Excellency Kyaw Moe, Permanent Representative of Myanmar
      to the United Nations..........................................     8
    Ohmar, Khin, Founder and Chairperson of the Advisory Board,
      Progressive Voice..............................................    18
    Currie, The Honorable Kelley E. Former Ambassador-at-Large for
      Global Women's Issues..........................................    27

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    77
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    78
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    79

                            STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD

    Statement for the record from Representative Connolly............    80

                         THE UNFOLDING CRISIS IN BURMA

                              Tuesday, May 4, 2021

                              House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., via
    WebEx, Hon. Gregory Meeks (Chairman of the committee)
    presiding.
        Chairman Meeks. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come
    to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the committee at any point and all Members will have
    5 days to submit statements, extraneous materials, and
    questions for the record subject to the length limitations in
    the rules.
        To insert something into the record, please have your staff
    email the previously mentioned address or contact full
    committee staff.
        As a reminder to Members, please keep your video function
    on at all times, even when you are not recognized by the Chair.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
        Consistent with House rules, staff will only mute Members
    as appropriate when they are not under recognition to eliminate
    background noise.
        I see that we have a quorum and I now recognize myself for
    opening remarks.
        Pursuant to the notice, we meet today to hear from
    distinguished witnesses to examine the February 1st coup in
    Burma and the Burmese military's violent response to pro-
    democracy protesters demonstrating against the military's
    undoing of the election and the will of the people.
        The coup has resulted in an ongoing crisis in Burma that
    has claimed the lives of hundreds of peaceful protestors. On
    February 1st, Burma's military, the Tatmadaw, seized control of
    the union government, detained democratically elected political
    leaders, including its president, Win Myint and Aung San Suu
    Kyi, reversing years of reform and upending Burma's fragile
    transition to democracy.
        As we often see in the face of injustice, an informal and
    leaderless civil disobedience movement has emerged to protest
    the military's power grab. Almost immediately after the coup,
    the Burmese people took to the streets in historic numbers to
    express opposition to the coup and support for democracy.
        The military responded with brutal force. The military has
    suppressed the fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly,
    association, and the press in an effort to silence the Burmese
    people's desire for democracy.
        But we should not be surprised by these actions. We have
    known for years who the Tatmadaw are. They showed us before the
    democratic opening in 2015 and again in 2017 when they led a
    genocide against the Rohingya people, and now in 2021 with the
    coup and their response to popular opposition to it.
        The military has, again, turned on its citizens, responding
    to protests with senseless and brutal violence. Thousands have
    been beaten or injured. More than 750 people have been killed
    and over 3,400 have been detained nationwide since the coup
    began.
        The junta's indiscriminate and lethal violence has even
    claimed the lives of more than 50 children, the youngest being
    just 6 years old, a girl killed in front of her father during a
    raid of their home in the city of Mandalay.
        In response to the military's subversions of Burma's
    elected government and democratic transition, some lawmakers
    formed a committee representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, or the
    CRPH, to restore a democratically elected civilian role.
        Working with leaders from the civil disobedience movement
    and Burma's ethnic communities, the CRPH recently formed a
    national unity government to represent the will of the Burmese
    people who have persevered through the military brutality and
    finding evermore creative ways to resist its rule.
        To support the efforts of the Burmese people, the United
    States has already taken action to reprimand and pressure the
    Tatmadaw, and we have done this through working with partners
    and other like-minded countries and through the implementation
    of sanctions, including on the Burmese military leaders who
    directed the coup and their military-owned conglomerates in
    addition to placing export control restrictions on Burma and
    freezing, roughly, $1 billion in assets.
        This very body also passed legislation to empower and
    protect the Burmese people, and we continue to work with
    partners around the world to build a more unified response to
    the coup.
        My time in Congress has taught me that nothing we do alone
    will ever be as effective as the coordinated action that we
    take alongside like-minded partners.
        It is critical that we enlist Burma neighbors, the ASEAN
    and our partners and allies around the world to place
    additional pressure on the military junta.
        We must send a clear message that we stand in solidarity
    with the Burmese people. I look forward to hearing our
    witnesses speak on the ongoing crisis in Burma so that we can
    better understand the situation on the ground, determine what
    additional steps might need to be taken by the U.S. Government
    to pressure the Burmese military to immediately cease its
    repression and violence, and secure the release of all detained
    political leaders and activists.
        This is, indeed, a challenging time for the people of
    Burma, who have seen far too much violence and oppression. Now
    a new generation of Burmese look to the world for hope. We must
    answer their call and support their campaign for dignity,
    democracy, and freedom.
        Let me now recognize my friend, the Ranking Member, Mr.
    McCaul of Texas, for any remarks he might have.
        [No response.]
        Chairman Meeks. Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. Okay, can you hear me now, Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Meeks. Now I hear you.
        Mr. McCaul. We just had a little technical glitch. But I
    want to thank you for calling this important hearing today and
    staying on focus on Burma and these horrific acts in the
    aftermath of the latest coup.
        This committee has always stood with the Burmese people in
    their struggle to free themselves from military rule, to
    protect their human rights, and to secure democracy.
        I'm grateful that we have continued that spirit of
    bipartisanship by passing multiple pieces of legislation
    already this year, and I look forward to taking more action to
    hold the Burmese military accountable, not as Republicans or
    Democrats but as Americans conducting a foreign policy
    consistent with our values.
        Just a few months ago, the people of Burma had a flawed but
    functioning democracy. Today, they live under a reign of
    terror, with their democratic freedoms being stolen away.
        And since this latest coup on February 1st, we have seen
    what can only be described as a military committing mass murder
    against its own people it's supposed to protect. The latest
    estimates place the death toll at well over 700 civilians
    killed throughout Burma.
        In addition to this violence, the Burmese people are
    suffering through mass arrests, nighttime raids, communication
    blackouts, and widespread intimidation of the press.
        It's all designed to crush their spirits and their will to
    resist. Incredibly, it's not working. The people of Burma
    continue to take to the streets, inspiring the world with their
    resolve to regain the democracy and their military--that their
    military stole.
        The United States will continue to stand with them, and
    today's hearing will guide our next steps. To begin, we need to
    tighten our sanctions against the regime, against the military
    for their brutal human rights violations during this coup, as
    well as their prior genocide against the Rohingya.
        In addition, if we want to achieve any meaningful purpose
    at the United Nations, we need to understand the motivations of
    Russia, which is drawing closer to the Burmese military, and we
    need to understand the motivations of the Chinese Communist
    Party, which wants to extend its Belt and Road Initiative
    through Burma to the Indian Ocean.
        And most of all, we need to make sure we're doing all we
    can for the brave people of Burma who are risking their lives
    to stand up for their rights, people like in Burma's--like
    Burma's Ambassador to the United Nations, who has spoken out
    against the regime that has taken over his country's
    government. It is at a huge risk to himself and his family.
        So, Mr. Ambassador, it's quite an honor to have you with us
    here today and your bravery inspires us all. I'd like to thank
    Ambassador Currie and Ms. Ohmar for joining us today to discuss
    our next steps to respond to this horrible coup.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back. And I'd now like
    to turn to Mr. Bera, the Chair of the Asia Subcommittee. I
    yield 1 minute to you.
        Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking
    Member for holding this incredibly important hearing. I'll keep
    my comments short.
        I'm proud of the work that we have done in a bipartisan
    way, both on the subcommittee as well as the full committee,
    and in a bicameral way, as well as the steps that the Biden
    Administration has taken both to implement sanctions on the
    military but also to show support for the Burmese people.
        And now that this coup has gone from days to weeks to
    months, the resolve of the Burmese people is something to be
    admired. Up to 90 percent of the country is on a general
    strike, shutting things down, sending a clear message that the
    Burmese people do not want to backslide on this coup.
        Everything we can do as a committee and as a country and
    internationally to support the Burmese people in their rights
    and their freedoms is something that we ought to be doing. So,
    again, thank you for hosting this hearing.
        The message to the Burmese people is the American people
    and the American Congress are with you.
        Thank you, and I will yield back.
        Chairman Meeks. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        I now yield 1 minute to the Ranking Member, Mr. Chabot, for
    1 minute.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As the current Ranking Member of the Asia and Pacific
    Subcommittee and having Chaired that committee several
    Congresses back, I've followed events in Burma very closely for
    quite a few years now, and the February 1st coup was a
    shameless assault on Burma's fledgling democracy that, once
    again, demonstrated to the world who really runs that country
    and that's the Tatmadaw, the military.
        This time around, though, the people of Burma have
    courageously rejected the coup and are demanding their God-
    given right to freedom and self-government as
        And the situation keeps getting darker as the Tatmadaw
    arrests, tortures, murders more innocent people every day. In
    light of this, the Biden Administration must rally
    international support for a tougher response against the
    Tatmadaw.
        We need a concerted response that would bring this coup to
    an end and place Burma on a permanent path to a stable Federal
    democracy.
        Thank you for holding this hearing. Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back.
        Chairman Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.
        Now I'll introduce our witnesses.
        Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun began serving as the Permanent
    Representative of Myanmar to the United Nations on October
    2020.
        Since joining the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1993, he
    has held a number of diplomatic posts, including Myanmar's
    Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva,
    Permanent Representative to the World Trade Organization,
    Permanent Representative to the Organization of the Prohibition
    of Chemical Weapons in The Hague, as well as Myanmar's
    Ambassador to Switzerland.
        Ms. Khin Ohmar is a Burmese human rights and democracy
    activist, and currently serves as the Chairperson of the
    Advisory Board of Progressive Voice. She was involved in
    organizing the historical general strike or August the 8th,
    1988.
        Following the Burmese's military crackdown on
    demonstrators, she was forced to leave her home and was granted
    political refuge in the United States.
        She has continued to campaign for democracy in Burma
    internationally and regionally as the founder of a number of
    civil society organizations, including Women's League of Burma,
    Burma Partnership, and Progressive Voice.
        Ambassador Kelley Currie served as the U.S. Ambassador-at-
    Large for Global Women's Issues and the U.S. Representative at
    the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.
        Prior to her appointment, she led the Department of State's
    Office on Global Criminal Justice and served as the United
    States Representative to the U.N. Economic and Social Council
    and Alternative Representative to the U.N. General Assembly
    from 2017 to 2018.
        Throughout her career in foreign policy, Ambassador Currie
    has specialized in human rights, political reform, development
    and humanitarian issues, with a focus on the Asia Pacific
    region.
        So, without objection, all the witnesses' prepared
    testimony will be made part of the record, and I'll now
    recognize the witnesses for 5 minutes each to summarize their
    testimony.
        We'll start with Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun. You're now
    recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF KYAW MOE TUN, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF MYANMAR
                         TO THE UNITED NATIONS

        Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member,
    Members of the committee.
        Good afternoon. Mingalar par. I thank you all for holding
    this important hearing on the serious situation of my country,
    and thank you for all the strong encouraging remarks.
        Due to time constraint, I will be delivering the shorter
    version of my statement, and the true version has been
    submitted to the esteemed committee. I will focus more on what
    action the United States should take.
        Mr. Chairman, the situation in Myanmar is, indeed, an
    unfolding tragedy that continues to escalate over time. The
    people in Myanmar are seriously suffering from the military
    brutality and inhumane acts day and night. Fear tends to be the
    order of the day and we all are living under fear.
        Our free and fair general elections were successfully held
    on 8 November 2020, which is a significant milestone in our
    history. The NUG won their landslide victory at the elections.
    Total ignorance of the people's desire, the military staged a
    coup on 1st February and unlawfully detained the State
    councilor, the president, other leaders and the
    parliamentarians, as well as several activists.
        In wake of the military coup, millions of people came out
    on the streets to protest against the military. Subsequently,
    the military terrorist group has cracked down the peaceful
    protests in a brutal and inhumane manner and committed serious
    human rights violations, including brutal killing, arbitrary
    arrests, and torture.
        More than 756 civilians have already been murdered by the
    military. The majority of victims are young people who are the
    future of the country. They even kill children as young as 6
    years old.
        The people of Myanmar are resilient and unprecedentedly
    united in fighting against the military and calling for release
    of all unlawful detainees, for return of the State power to the
    people, and for restoration of democracy and for building a
    Federal democratic union. The three pillars, namely, the
    peaceful protests, CDM, and CRPH are working hand in hand in
    this regard.
        Federal Democracy Charter was announced on 31st March with
    the ultimate goal of drafting a new Federal constitution. The
    Charter outlines an eight-step political roadmap toward
    building a new Federal democratic union of Myanmar.
        Accordingly, NUG was formed by the CRPH. The formation of
    the NUG was overwhelmingly welcomed by the people of Myanmar.
        In line with the people's will, the international
    community's recognition and engagement with the NUG is a
    critical step to take and it could pave the way to end the
    violence, to save lives of innocent civilians, and protect them
    from the military brutal and inhumane acts, to restore
    democracy in Myanmar and provide humanitarian assistance to the
    people in need.
        Mr. Chair, I wish to stress that Myanmar is not just
    witnessing another major setback to democracy but also the
    crisis is threatening the regional peace and security.
        In line with the principle that a State has the
    responsibility to protect its own people from crimes against
    humanity, the NUG, together with the people, have taken all
    possible ways and means to defend our own people from the
    military's inhumane and brutal acts.
        We ask the international community to adhere to the
    principle and to take the responsibility to protect the people
    of Myanmar from the possible crimes against humanity committed
    by the military terrorist group.
        Taking this opportunity on behalf of the NUG and the people
    of Myanmar, I would like to thank the United States for your
    continued support. However, we need the United States to take a
    decisive leadership role in helping resolve the Myanmar crisis.
        On behalf of the NUG and people of Myanmar, I wish to
    appeal to you and the House of Representatives as follows.
        To save lives of innocent civilians, protection should be
    immediately extended to the people of Myanmar. Humanitarian
    assistance should be urgently provided to the people in need.
        Necessary shelters should be provided to those seeking
    refuge in neighboring countries and elsewhere. No-fly zones
    should be declared in relevant areas in Myanmar. Global arms
    embargoes should be imposed immediately.
        Targeted, coordinated, and tougher sanctions should be
    applied against the military. Myawaddy Bank, Innwa Bank, MFTB,
    and MOGE should be immediately added in the targeted sanction
    list. Bank accounts associated with the military and their
    Members should be frozen and financial inflow into the military
    regime and its associates should be cutoff immediately.
        Foreign direct investment should be suspended. NUG should
    be recognized as the legitimate government. Any visa should not
    be issued to any diplomats appointed by State administrative
    council.
        NUG should be allowed to use the Myanmar funds put in
    freeze in the U.S. for benefit of the people of Myanmar.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chair, we are confident that ending the
    murderous military regime will pave a way to finding
    sustainable solutions to the challenges we face related to
    effective protection and permissions of rights of ethnic,
    religious, and all other minorities and equality for all.
        The people of Myanmar are resolute to achieve this goal.
    Time is of the essence for the people of Myanmar, who feel
    helpless. As such, the United States and the international
    community must act now decisively in a collective, concrete,
    and timely manner to avoid further killing of innocent
    civilians and further bloodshed in Myanmar.
        Please do not let killing continue. Please act now. We will
    always remember the help and support of the United States.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Tun follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
        I now recognize Ms. Khin Ohmar for 5 minutes.

        STATEMENT OF KHIN OHMAR, FOUNDER AND CHAIRPERSON OF THE
                   ADVISORY BOARD, PROGRESSIVE VOICE

        Ms. Ohmar. Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee Members,
    thank you for inviting me to speak to you on the tragic events
    unfolding in my home country, Burma, and for holding today's
    hearing.
        I would like to thank the U.S. Government for your ongoing
    support to realize our long-fought aspiration for a Federal
    democracy. The following is a summary of my full statement.
        I'm here to share the realities on the ground, the untold
    suffering of the people, and appeal for swift action against
    the brutal Burmese military junta.
        I appeal to you as a survivor of 1988's brutal coup led by
    the same military responsible for today's coup, and as someone
    who still yearns for a true Federal democracy in her homeland.
        In 1995, I testified before the U.S. Senate detailing the
    fatal crackdowns in 1988. I come before you today nearly 30
    years later to describe yet another dark and devastating
    chapter in Burma's history.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, since February
    1st, millions of people from all walks of life across Burma,
    including police and soldiers, have come together to reject the
    military's unlawful coup attempt.
        The civil disobedience movement has effectively prevented
    the military from controlling the administration of government,
    banks, hospitals, and other sectors. We can thus say that the
    attempted coup is failing.
        In response, the junta has launched a nationwide campaign
    of terror attempting to force people into submission using any
    means necessary. Peaceful protest has been met with murderous
    and indiscriminate violence, including execution-style killings
    and the use of heavy military weaponry.
        The deadliest single day of bloodshed occurred on March
    27th with the mass murder of 169 unarmed civilians. Every day
    the violence and death continue. At least 766 people have been
    killed and over 4,600 arbitrarily arrested.
        All of this is conducted with complete impunity. The junta
    has also added new laws to criminalize protesters, including
    sentencing 19 protesters to death. They're also deliberately
    destroying the evidence of their crimes, such as by removing
    bullets from those they have killed before stitching them back
    together.
        Often cash is demanded from the victim's family in exchange
    for the bodies to be returned. And they're not just taking
    lives. They are destroying houses, private property, and food
    stores at random and robbing people of their cell phones,
    computers, and motorcycles.
        Torture and beatings in detention are commonplace, with no
    access to legal representation or contact with families. For
    women and LGBTIQ, the situation is far worse with reports of
    rape, sexual violence, and psychological abuse.
        Sexual and gender-based violence has long been used by the
    Burma military as a weapon of war against ethnic nationalities
    to terrorize them into submission. They have murdered at least
    51 children, including those in their homes and playing in the
    streets.
        Abduction and torture of family Members, including children
    as young as two, are increasing. Since the end of March,
    they've launched air strikes in Karen and Kachin States.
        In the last week of April alone, there were 68 air strikes.
    This has led to the displacement of over 45,000 people and
    killing of at least 20. Furthermore, people are fleeing into
    ethnic areas, exacerbating a humanitarian crisis that was
    already teetering toward catastrophe before the coup.
        The U.N. warns of a slow-burning food crisis. Severe
    restrictions on freedom of movement and information are being
    imposed, including nationwide internet cuts and declaration of
    martial law in some townships, sending Burma back into
    darkness.
        Mr. Chairman, in spite of such brute force and violence,
    the people of Burma continue with their daily protest, standing
    firm in their defiance against this illegitimate military junta
    and in their support for--in their support of their legitimate
    government, the National Unity Government.
        They ask for the international community, including this
    legislative body, to do all they can to recognize and support
    the NUG.
        I appeal to this Congress and the Biden Administration to
    stop the flow of oil and gas revenues from Chevron to this
    unlawful military junta, impose a comprehensive embargo on the
    transfer or sale of military arms and equipment, including
    dual-use goods, continue to impose and enforce targeted
    sanctions aimed at the military and their business interests,
    and support efforts to hold the military to account under
    international law for their atrocity crimes, including for the
    Rohingya genocide in 2017.
        Mr. Chairman, I'd like to, once again, thank you and the
    Members of the committee for allowing me to testify today. I'll
    close my statement with this. Today's violence and atrocities
    are only possible because of a lack of accountability for the
    past crimes.
        There can be no democratic and peaceful Burma unless this
    military is held to account and placed under total civilian
    control.
        I've spent the past 32 years trying to bring about
    democratic change in Burma. I'll continue to fight for the
    people.
        But drawing on my decades of experience, I know that the
    people of Burma need concrete actions from you and the broader
    international community. There's this unprecedented window of
    opportunity that the people of Burma, so many of them young,
    have created by sacrificing their lives to topple this military
    junta once and for all.
        We must not allow it to slip through our fingers. I look
    forward to your concrete and swift action and answering your
    questions today. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Ohmar follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Meeks. Thank you, Ms. Khin Ohmar.
        I now recognize Ambassador Currie for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF KELLEY CURRIE, FORMER AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE FOR
                         GLOBAL WOMEN'S ISSUES

        Ms. Currie. Thank you, Chairman Meeks, Ranking Member
    McCaul, and the rest of the committee for the opportunity to
    appear before you today with my distinguished co-panelists.
        In the midst of all the devastation and cruelty that you've
    heard about from the previous speakers, Burma's spring
    revolution has actually been characterized by this incredible
    optimism, creativity, public spiritedness, and this amazing
    inclusiveness that's, largely, been lacking in previous
    movements.
        And it's this dynamic that I want to speak to a little bit
    today, because the way that the CDM and protest movements have
    cut across class, geographic, ethnic, religious, and
    generational distinctions in unprecedented ways gives me a lot
    of hope for where things are actually headed if we can break
    the circuit on violence that's currently accelerating across
    the country.
        The ethnic nationalities of women who have played
    increasingly critical and leadership roles in this movement
    have opened up long suppressed dialogs on key societal issues
    at the same time they're fighting a military junta.
        This is really unprecedented, and it's this increased
    awareness of and empathy for the situation of the ethnic people
    among the majority Bamar protesters that's one of the most
    important features of what is happening today and one that I
    think we need to look at as a critical element, going forward,
    as we analyze our own policy prescriptions.
        You've heard from my colleagues about the unprecedented
    combination of persistent nationwide protests and
    nonparticipation through the civil disobedience movement and
    how this has tested the junta's ability to retain effective
    control of the country.
        And I think this is also important, especially as we look
    at what the young people are doing, how their savvy digital
    native kind of behavior has allowed the whole movement to stay
    a half step ahead of the junta as they cutoff internet access
    and tried to censor content.
        Instead, these groups have been able to keep the content
    flowing into the global and regional media, and they've been
    really connected with regional activists and to the Milk Tea
    Alliance, and have created this--have been part of this very
    creative regional network. That is another thing that we can
    build on with our own policy approaches.
        As we pass the 3-month mark, though, I think that we are
    seeing that the conflict is starting to morph into a new phase
    and we need to be very conscious of this.
        In recent weeks, as my colleagues mentioned, we have seen
    this effort by the democratic and ethnic nationality forces to
    come together to disavow the military-drafted 2008
    constitution, to issue a new Federal Democratic Charter, to
    appoint a new National Unity Government that is among the most
    diverse cabinet in the country's history.
        There's also a lot of anecdotal evidence, however, that
    young people are giving up on nonviolent struggle and are
    joining up with the ethnic armed organizations with the intent
    to form the basis of a new Federal army to support the National
    Unity Government, and the National Unity Government itself has
    been very open about its intentions there and what they want to
    do.
        The Tatmadaw has, of course, responded with more violence,
    and so we see this increasingly likely scenario of
    Balkanization and State failure, especially when you understand
    that there are so many well-armed groups in the country and
    that have never operated under effective State control.
        And this is a really critical element, again, as we think
    about what U.S. policy should be, going forward, and how we
    should respond.
        We have seen that the international community, instead of
    reacting appropriately to the situation, has delegated the
    international response to one of the weakest regional
    organizations in the world, the Association of Southeast Asian
    States, ASEAN, and left to its own devices, we saw what
    happened with that where the five-point consensus that came out
    of a special summit in Jakarta recently has utterly failed. The
    junta had disavowed it and violated it before Min Aung Hlaing
    even returned back to Burma from Jakarta.
        And the United Nations has been no better, frankly. The
    Security Council has absolutely failed in its responsibilities
    to support international--to protect and promote international
    peace and security.
        As the penholder on Burma, the United Kingdom has been
    reluctant to table a resolution, reportedly out of fear of
    joint Chinese and Russian vetoes, and frustration with the
    Council on the ground is growing as well as within the ranks of
    the United Nations, who are looking at alternatives to the
    Security Council.
        So I think that there are a number of things that--in my
    last minute here that we can highlight and I'm happy to go into
    more detail on in the Q&A about where the U.S. can and should
    encourage its allies to take action around three key issues.
        One is around recognition and legitimacy, and things that
    we can do relatively low cost to support the National Unity
    Government, cutting off the junta's money supply, which you've
    heard from my colleagues about a little bit, and then moving on
    a Security Council, which would also include accountability
    issues.
        So, again, I'm happy to talk about more of those things
    during the Q&A and get into some of the details. They're also
    found in my written testimony, which has been submitted to the
    committee.
        Thank you, again, for the opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Currie follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Meeks. Thank you, Ambassador, and thank you all
    for your testimony today. Very enlightening.
        I now recognize Members for 5 minutes each, pursuant to the
    House rules, and all time is yielded for the purposes of
    questioning our witnesses.
        I'll recognize Members by committee seniority, alternating
    between Democrats and Republicans. If you miss your turn,
    please let our staff know and we'll come back to you. If you
    seek recognition, you must unmute your microphone and address
    the Chair verbally, and identify yourself so that we know who
    is speaking.
        I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
        Let me start with Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun. Again, thank you
    for appearing before us today and for your bravery in speaking
    out against the coup. I'd like to ask you about the National
    Unity Government and how representative is it for the vast
    diversity of your country?
        There has been, you know, a long simmering civil war in
    Burma and there are many ethnic groups there that are not just
    antagonistic toward the military but also dissatisfied with the
    lack of progress in the peace process under the NLD. So how is
    the National Unity Government working to date to reassure those
    ethnic groups? That's my first question.
        And second, then what vision does the CRPH and the National
    Unity Government have for the ethnic community in Burma?
        Mr. Ambassador, I believe you're on mute.
        Mr. Tun. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the
    question. As Ambassador Currie also rightly point out the, you
    know, the NUG how diverse it is and, you know, the composition,
    it's, you know, it's very unprecedented.
        It's composed of, you know, the Members from the different
    ethnic groups, including the ethnic organization. So it's quite
    diverse. It's also--it includes quite a number of women in the
    government. So that is why we see it's very encouraging.
        So this kind of, you know, the NUG it's, you know, come up
    with the close consultation among all the relevant
    stakeholders. So that is what we see. So it's very encouraging
    for us, I mean, the people of Myanmar, where how the NUG come
    up and how it will proceed with the--you know, the goal of
    building a Federal democratic union.
        That is, you know, the people all over the country give
    their overwhelming support to the NUG because of the--you know,
    the--its credibility, and it's because of the support from the
    people.
        So and the NUG and CRPH, you know, as the--as you know, the
    CRPH is, you know, it stands like a now the legislative body,
    or body. So the NUG as the executive body and the CRPH as a
    legislative body. So we are working hand in hand.
        NUG and CRPH working hand in hand so because what we are
    doing is that we are trying to control the area as much as
    possible together with ethnic organizations.
        You may notice that lately there are the, you know, fight
    between the ethnic organization and the military, the terrorist
    group because the ethnic organizations now stand with the
    people of Myanmar, providing all the support to the people and
    the people also supporting the organization.
        Now, as Ambassador Currie also mentioned, the young people
    who drive the protests now are taking some trainings under
    the--at an area controlled by the organization.
        So for us we do not want to go that much farther because of
    the, you know, we need to fight against the military. We still
    need to have the support from the international community, Mr.
    Chair.
        Chairman Meeks. Thank you so much.
        Let me ask Ambassador Currie real quick to followup on
    that, and also, what do you think the ASEAN should be doing?
    What more should they be doing that they're not doing right
    now?
        Ms. Currie. Well, I think that the National Unity
    Government is doing a good job of reaching out to ethnic
    nationalities. The biggest challenge right now, though, is that
    they continue to struggle on dealing with the kind of birth
    defects of Burma's independence and it's a very complicated
    dynamic around who has status as a recognized ethnic
    nationality, and it gets into a lot of very difficult issues.
        This is where the Rohingya, for instance, fall into a gap
    and have been able to--and have been subject to deep
    discrimination as a result.
        With regard to ASEAN, they are very poorly set up to deal
    with political problems like this. The best thing they could
    do, frankly, would be to ask the Security Council to take
    responsibility for the problem and hand it over to them instead
    of being an obstacle and a fig leaf that allows for Security
    Council inaction, in my opinion.
        Chairman Meeks. Thank you. My time has expired. You know,
    we try to get as many Members as we can, to hold all Members to
    the 5-minute rule.
        I now acknowledge Ranking Member McCaul for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        You have to unmute, Mr. McCaul.
        [No response.]
        Chairman Meeks. Office, can we unmute Mr. McCaul?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Chair, the next member is Mr. Chabot. Mr.
    McCaul had to drop off for a moment.
        Chairman Meeks. Very good. Mr. Chabot, you're now
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. I'll start with Ambassador
    Currie, if I could.
        Ambassador, you mentioned that the U.N. has, basically,
    totally failed in its effort, and my thinking when you
    mentioned that was so what else is new.
        But since February, Beijing and Moscow have blocked
    international efforts to restore stability in Burma, including
    blocking U.N. Security Council statement condemning the coup
    before eventually agreeing to a more limited statement that did
    not use the word ``coup.''
        How can the U.S. work with other nations on the Security
    Council, including India and Vietnam, for example, to coax
    China and Russia into being more helpful, although, as we know,
    that experience can be about as frustrating as anything on this
    globe, trying to get them to cooperate constructively on
    virtually anything? But I'd love to hear what you have to say,
    Madam Ambassador.
        Ms. Currie. Thank you, Mr. Chabot, and thank you for your
    historic leadership on Burma. It's deeply appreciated. In my
    experience working in the Security Council, China hates to be
    isolated. Russia does not. Russia is more tolerant of it and a
    little bit more risk tolerant and more of a chaos agent.
        But the Chinese have a lot of vested interests on the
    ground in Burma, and I think that to say that they've been
    blocking something is a little bit of a mischaracterization.
    The U.K. and the U.S. and other so-called like-minded countries
    haven't really tried to drag things out into the open and force
    the issue in a way that would force the Chinese to make choices
    that they currently are avoiding making and are very happy to
    avoid making.
        I believe that the best way to see progress in the U.N. is
    to actually force the issue and to start talking about tabling
    a resolution to actually accomplish some of the things, whether
    it's an arms embargo or a no-fly zone, that the Burmese have
    asked for, to have open meetings instead of closed ones where
    the Chinese and others can hide behind the process.
        But the more openness there is, the more I think that the
    like-minded countries can benefit and pressure the Chinese into
    being less obstructive.
        Mr. Chabot. Okay, thank you very much. And just to followup
    if I could, could you maybe expound a little bit upon what
    China is up to in Burma? What are their interests there?
        What are they doing behind the scenes? You know, what, if
    anything, can the United States do to, obviously, promote
    regional stability and democracy and, you know, push back on
    their malevolent, you know, desires, not only especially there
    but, really, throughout the region? Could you kind of discuss
    what China is really up to?
        Ms. Currie. I think that on Burma the Chinese have built up
    a lot of infrastructure. So they have sunk costs in Burma. They
    do not love dealing with the military there. They find them an
    unreliable partner but--and they had invested a lot in working
    with the democratically--elected government of Aung San Suu
    Kyi.
        And so they were quite comfortable having her imprimatur on
    their big economic Belt and Road China-Myanmar economic
    cooperation engagements in Burma and were willing to deal with
    a democratic government quite fine. Found it very comfortable
    for them.
        So there's no reason they cannot do that again. The problem
    is that they do not--they continue to hide behind this
    noninterference posture, which is part of a broader global
    issue, and so there is that.
        I think that if they were forced to choose that they
    would--it would improve the odds that they at least would have
    to make a choice toward the democratically elected government
    and move in that direction and show some favoritism.
        But they're not going to do it absent others who are more
    naturally inclined toward doing that and unless they feel boxed
    out. And so I think that that's the key for us. I think that
    cuts across everything in Southeast Asia, that we have got to
    stand on the side of democracy and human rights and these
    values in order to highlight the difference between what we
    offer the region and the model that the Chinese are offering
    them, which is very extractive, very narrowly self-interested.
        One example where we could do this, for instance, is if we
    were to work with the National Unity Government to help get
    vaccines cross border through trusted NGO's that have
    experience while China is giving vaccines to the junta and
    contrast that, for instance.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. My time is expired, Mr.
    Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Meeks. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I now
    recognize Mr. Sherman of California for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I want to point out that Congress
    provided about $135 million of assistance to Burma. USAID and
    State have redirected $42 million. I can see a use for our
    money in supporting anti-government democracy activists, press
    etc.
        But the USAID seems to be bent on spending money on general
    economic development which, while it might be good for people
    in Burma, is also good for the junta, and we should not
    evaluate whether these programs are good--some of them help
    people in need--but whether the best use for American foreign
    aid dollars, which could instead go to help India deal with
    COVID-19, allow us to do even more, and we're doing a lot--to
    do more for the Rohingya refugees or support political
    engagement and in Nigeria, or election observation in Benin or
    a host of other issues.
        That would be a better use than strengthening the economy
    of a country that is right now run by the junta.
        I want to focus on the Rohingya, and last month the--we saw
    the formation of this National Unity Government, which has said
    it will deliver justice for our Rohingya brothers and sisters.
        But it's a council of 27 people, none of whom are Rohingya.
    And so I know Your Excellency Mr. Tun is not officially part of
    the National Unity Government but I want to give him an
    opportunity.
        Should they add a twenty-eighth member to the council to
    represent the Rohingya community and is it important for this
    National Unity Government to declare that they will give
    citizenship documents to all Rohingya who were born in Burma or
    in the refugee camps?
        Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sherman, for the
    questions.
        So, you know, the NUG government and the CRPH make it very
    clear that, you know, now the common enemy of us is the
    military. So when we end the, you know, this murderous regime,
    as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, I said it's clear
    that, you know, we want it ending this kind of military regime.
    We are in the--a better position to promote and to protect the
    rights of the----
        Mr. Sherman. Sir, if I can interrupt. I think there's no
    doubt that the National Unity Government is better than the
    junta. But that's a very, very low standard.
        Will this government provide citizenship documents--do you
    want to urge them to provide citizenship documents to all
    Rohingya born in Burma or in refugee camps?
        Mr. Tun. Thank you. The point that you raised, of course,
    you know, as a government, we will--of course, we will be, you
    know, in line with the, you know, the existing law, but those
    existing laws may not be, you know, the standard.
        So we are of the view that those--the law that, for
    example, the 1982 citizenship law that need to be amended, that
    is what is clear. And then the--those who are in line with
    existing law, of course, they will be----
        Mr. Sherman. Sir, existing law deprived them of citizenship
    and set them up for murder. Before the coup, the government
    that appointed you committed genocide against the Rohingya.
        Can you call upon the National Unity Government to provide
    citizenship documents to those born in your country, including
    the Rohingya?
        Mr. Tun. Yes, of course, you know, we are very clear that,
    you know, the--those who ever are born in Myanmar and then
    those who have entitled they have to be. You know, according to
    their----
        Mr. Sherman. Under the law that existed, they're not
    entitled. There are laws that existed for decades saying that
    people whose grandparents were born in Burma are denied
    citizenship.
        And for you to say, we're going to carry out existing law
    would be like a post-Nazi government saying, we're going to
    carry out existing German law.
        Mr. Tun. I see it differently, sir. Because, you know, they
    are the same difficulty that, you know, the previous NLD
    government had. If we go according with--strictly according
    with the law, they are there--a lot a--lot of Rohingya are
    entitled to become a citizen. Very clear. That is, you know----
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Sherman. My time has expired. Thank you.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize Mr. Wilson from South Carolina, who is the
    Ranking Member of the Subcommittee of the Middle East, North
    Africa, and Global Counterterrorism, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for calling this important hearing. And we appreciate so
    much the witnesses who are appearing here today on behalf of
    the freedom and liberty of the people of Burma.
        I actually grew up with an appreciation of the people of
    the region, and then my father served in the Flying Tigers,
    China, Burma, India. And we know that the United States had
    such a positive role of liberating and keeping free the people
    of the region.
        With this in mind, Ambassador Currie, the United Nations
    estimates that approximately 20,000 people have fled their
    homes and remain displaced within Burma, while almost 10,000
    have fled to neighboring countries.
        How does the current crisis in Burma inundate the already
    stretched thin resources available in the region that are being
    used to assist Rohingya refugees?
        Ms. Currie. Thank you for that question because it is very
    important. Most of those people are fleeing either internally
    up north and east away from the area affected by the Rohingya
    crisis, more toward Thailand and China, and so the population
    movements have been in different directions.
        In the past, the United States and other donors operated
    very robust cross border assistance, humanitarian assistance,
    into some of these areas. But most of those channels have been
    allowed to atrophy over the past decade as we moved more
    humanitarian assistance through channels through the government
    of Burma.
        Now we need to really look at widening and reopening and
    reinvigorating a lot of those cross border channels in order to
    reach those populations who cannot be reached through
    humanitarian assistance, which has been--access to those areas
    has been cut by the junta as part of their attacks on these
    areas and on the civilians living within them, sir.
        Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you very much for your insight.
        And Representative Tun, how incredible your courage to
    speak out on behalf of the people of your home country.
        And with that in mind, U.S. trade with Burma is limited
    and, therefore, the United States has little financial leverage
    over the military.
        What can the United States do to encourage countries in the
    region to put real financial pressure on Burma to isolate the
    military and to restrict foreign financial flows benefiting the
    military junta?
        Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
        I think because the role of United States is very important
    influencing the, you know, regional countries, because many
    bank accounts and the financial flows coming through the
    countries in the region.
        So I think it's very, very--very, very important that if
    you put, you know, sanctions on the, you know, some additional
    entities like the MFTB, MOGE, and the Myawaddy Bank, Innwa
    Bank, so that, you know, the financial flow where we, you know,
    cutoff, and that is--will make a lot of pressure on the
    military.
        So what we want is that we want the military to--back to
    the table to discuss to restore the democracy in Myanmar. That
    is the role that United States can play a very influential role
    to put pressure on the military.
        Mr. Wilson. And, again, thank you for your personal
    courage.
        And final question, again, for Representative Tun, although
    China has strong incentives to avoid chaos in the region, it,
    sadly, also views the country as a battleground for preventing
    the encroachment of democratic values and Western interests in
    its backyard.
        How can the United States engage with civil society leaders
    in Burma, Myanmar, to fortify the democratic values and
    institutions of the country?
        Mr. Tun. Well, what I see is that please continue to
    support the--you know, the--all the--that you continue support
    to the, you know, the civil society as well as, you know, if I
    may, please support the NUG, the National Unity Government, and
    recognize them.
        So that's the way we can put a lot of pressure not only to
    the military but also to China so that, you know, China will
    turn to--turn to, you know, engage with the NUG.
        So that is very important that, you know, please continue
    support to the CSOs as well as the National Unity Government,
    all stakeholders who are fighting for the democracy. Please do
    support us. Thank you.
        Mr. Wilson. Well, your insight and courage, again, is so
    inspiring and I just appreciate the efforts of Chairman Meeks
    to bring this to the attention of the world. I yield back.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia,
    who is a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    your leadership on this critical issue and insisting that the
    U.S. Congress bring attention to what is happening in Myanmar,
    and I thank you for your leadership.
        And I echo Joe Wilson--Congressman Joe Wilson on that. It's
    vital that we elevate this issue in the Congress because we can
    save lives.
        I have two questions I want to put to the whole panel and
    I'll start with you, Ambassador Currie, if you do not mind. One
    is when we think back about the U.S. sort of loosening up its
    restrictions--travel restriction sanctions and the like
    starting around 2012, are there things, in retrospect, we could
    have, should have, insisted on that might have prevented or
    mitigated the coup that happened 9 years later?
        And, second, what role will the military have to play, if
    any, in a government post-coup that, presumably, favors the
    pro-democratic forces, but, I mean, the military--Tatmadaw is
    there whether we like it or not, and what role are they going
    to insist on and what role should we accept?
        And if I can put that question to all three of you and
    start with you, Madam Ambassador.
        Ms. Currie. Thank you, sir.
        With regard to 2012, we should not have lifted sanctions on
    the military-owned enterprises at that time and should have
    been more clear that those were not going to be lifted until
    and unless the military moved forward with more reforms to the
    constitution that address issues of civilian control of the
    military and began a glide path toward removing the military
    from political institutions.
        I do not think anybody in the--in the democratic forces, at
    least not prior to February, would have advocated for the
    dissolution of the Tatmadaw, but that it should be under
    democratic control--under democratic civilian control in a
    democracy is kind of a sine qua non and it never happened.
        And that was a mistake for the international community not
    to insist that that be part of the package.
        On the--on the--and so I think that that also gets to the
    role that the Tatmadaw should play in a democratic Federal
    union is that it needs to be reformed.
        It needs to be heavily reformed, including by changing its
    force posture, its makeup, its structure, and most critically,
    putting it under legitimate and seriously strong civilian
    controls over.
        Mr. Connolly. Yes, because it's--culturally, isn't it
    they're creating a culture that's entirely separate from the
    rest of the country. What could go wrong with that? Thank you.
        Mr. Ambassador, those two questions, and then Khin Ohmar.
        Mr. Tun. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. I think it's very
    important. You know, our aim is to end the military regime. The
    military should not be in politics, should not be in economy no
    longer.
        That's the way we can bring them--the, you know, military
    under the civilian government. Otherwise, you know, it's where,
    you know, this vicious cycle we were faced, you know, again and
    again.
        So this is the time that we have to make it or not. You
    know, we have to do or die. This is the time that we have to do
    it. So within the country, we have the full strength, but at
    the same time we need help from the international community,
    especially like the country like United States. We need a lot
    of help from you.
        Please continue put pressure on the military, whatever way
    that we can. That is the--that is, our top priority now is
    saving lives of innocent civilians, and then also providing
    humanitarian assistance at this point.
        And then once the Federal democratic union form and the
    Federal army were established, then the military has to be
    under the civilian government. That is what I think.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, and I
    want to give Ms. Ohmar a chance to respond as well.
        Ms. Ohmar. Thank you, Congressman Connolly. To respond to
    your question on the--like, whether the--you know, the
    restrictions--I'm sorry, the sanctions in 2012 whether it was--
    in responding to your question, I want to recall my
    conversations and meetings with the officers from the State
    Department that I--that I was actually appealing to the State
    Department not to let go of all of these measures because we
    know so well of how this military mind set is, and we do not we
    do not have the confidence enough yet.
        Yes, of course, there was--there were cautious optimism.
    But also we know that we cannot take confidence in that yet. So
    I was actually appealing to the State Department to have the
    plan B and also go through step by step calculations of lifting
    of, you know, like, the measures depending on what are we
    getting from this, you know, like, the military-guided, quote/
    unquote, civil--the disciplined democracy.
        So I think it was quite too early to have lifted all of
    those measures. So I would like to respond for this question.
    But coming to the question on, like, what do we do with this
    military, you're right. Of course, the military will be there.
        But I think we need to ensure that they must go back to the
    barracks and under civilian control. And also, most
    importantly, we need to address the transition to justice.
    Without the justice and healing, we will not be able to have a
    way to move forward. Thank you.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
    recognize Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Perry. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Without my--but good
    to see everybody. Ambassador Currie, you know, I got to tell
    you, I look at this situation in Burma and I'm not sure what
    the best position for the United States to be.
        I mean, obviously, we do not support the junta or the coup.
    But Suu Kyi, of course, you know, was no friend of the
    Rohingyas and, you know, most of us in this committee, if not
    all of us, voted to characterize that as a genocide against the
    Rohingya.
        I do not know if the administration has taken that up yet
    or plans to, but it does not seem like a great outcome. I mean,
    the Chinese military, I think, is probably sending arms to
    the--to the military right there to oppress the people, and
    even if it were to work out with Suu Kyi, it would not work out
    for the Rohingya.
        So maybe my question--first of all, my question would be,
    at a minimum, why would not we sanction the State-owned oil--
    the energy company there? I think it's MOE or something like
    that.
        And then--and then next would be, what can the United
    States do unilaterally--unilaterally to advance our efforts in
    Burma vis-a-vis China? How about--how about those two
    questions?
        Ms. Currie. So I do agree that we should have already put
    sanctions on the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise, MOGE. That is
    the main recipient of royalties and funds related to the oil
    and gas extractive industries in Burma.
        And I hope that the administration will do that soon,
    together with other countries, and put pressure on the
    multinational oil and gas industry partners that are continuing
    to pay royalties to the junta to put those funds into escrow
    accounts and keep them from going into the hands of the junta.
        Yes, China and Russia, of course, are selling weapons and
    providing some political support to the military junta. But the
    Chinese above all want stability in Burma and want an
    environment where they can do business and a permissive
    business environment for them.
        That is not what they have right now. So this has not
    exactly worked out well for them. I believe that there is a
    path where we need to make sure that they--well, we can do
    things as a country that put a thumb on the side of democracy,
    human rights, and the values that we care about as the
    preferred outcome here, not the ones that the Chinese care
    about, which are antithetical to those.
        And I believe that if we can work with the National Unity
    Government and the forces that have emerged that are far more
    progressive than what we saw from the last NLD government, to
    be quite frank, even, you know, especially at the grassroots
    level, they're much more progressive and much more diverse and
    open minded, and Khin Ohmar can speak to this more fluidly than
    I can.
        But there is an opportunity here to empower a better path
    for this country. But we have got to lean into it a bit more
    than we have been doing up to now. We have been taking a very
    cautious and incremental approach up to now and there are a
    number of steps we can take that would help move us forward--
    most of them pretty low cost and low risk, frankly.
        Mr. Perry. Well, I appreciate your answer and I appreciate
    the caution as well. However, we have been talking about the
    Rohingya issue--I mean, I'm actually surprised there are any
    Rohingya left at this point.
        But that having been said, what would be in the National
    Unity Government--what would--what would be the position or
    where would Suu Kyi be in such a--in such an arrangement that
    the United States would support it?
        I, certainly, do not want to see the United States kind of
    go from the pan into the fire, so to speak.
        Ms. Currie. I would actually love to have Khin Ohmar answer
    that question because she works a lot with these issues----
        Mr. Perry. Okay.
        Ms. Currie [continuing]. Of how to address this problem
    within Bamar politics.
        Mr. Perry. All right.
        Ms. Ohmar. Thank you. Is it okay--can I get the question
    again, please? I'm sorry.
        Mr. Perry. Yes. You know, what position would Suu Kyi have
    in a National Unity Government that the United States would
    support? What would be her influence? What would be her
    position?
        Would she have no influence, no--because we're,
    essentially--we're essentially talking about potentially
    supporting someone who is antithetical to our--to our efforts
    regarding the Rohingya. So we just need to know what we're
    getting into here.
        Ms. Ohmar. Thank you. Thank you for the question.
        Just for us as our organization, Progressive Voice, and our
    partners who work to advance the human rights agenda and as
    well as for the protection of the vulnerable communities,
    including the Rohingya community, for us, we are putting forth
    our suggestions to the National Unity Government that they must
    actually come up with a clear policy and our stand on the issue
    for the Rohingya peoples and the protection and how the
    government will actually take on this issue without waiting
    for, like, anyone like Aung San Suu Kyi.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Ohmar. Oh, sorry.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize Representative Ted Deutch of Florida, who
    is the Chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, North
    Africa, and Global Counterterrorism, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Deutch. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
    the witnesses for appearing before the committee today and for
    that important testimony from all of you.
        It seems to have become a hallmark of our work on this
    committee to hear, unfortunately, again and again about the
    constant relentless threat authoritarianism poses to
    democracies and democratic values, and as with anti-democratic
    backsliding elsewhere, the struggle in Burma is one that we
    cannot ignore. I'm really grateful for today's hearing.
        I've said before the battle lines in the fight to protect
    democratic values and human rights transcend State boundaries
    and peoples, and it's imperative that those who stand for
    democracy everywhere, including here in the United States,
    recognize one another as partners in that struggle.
        So in that vein, I've been encouraged by many of the
    administration's actions to pressure the Tatmadaw to support
    the Burmese people, including economic, diplomatic, and
    humanitarian measures.
        But it's clear that, as we have discussed, that more can
    and should be done. I'm disappointed that ASEAN did not include
    releasing political prisoners among its five points of
    consensus.
        Troubled, as we have been discussing, the Tatmadaw has
    failed to heed ASEAN's call for ending violence, and I hope
    that coming out of here there will be even greater urgency
    beyond this committee to resolve the crisis of Burma and fuel
    positive momentum behind the legitimate demands of its people,
    including the Rohingya community and other persecuted
    minorities who have suffered so much in recent years.
        And I want to actually talk about the ethnic minority
    inclusion in the resistance, and, Ambassador Currie, you note
    in your testimony that increased awareness of and empathy for
    the situation of ethnic people among Bamar protesters has been
    one of the most remarkable and important features.
        But we have also heard that there's a strong feeling among
    some ethnic groups, including the Rohingya community, that the
    National Unity Government, the Federal Democracy Charter, need
    to be more inclusive. We have talked about that here today.
        What more can our government--can the U.S. Government and
    like-minded partners do really to promote inclusion and full
    representation of all ethnic communities in Burma and help the
    credibility of the National Unity Government, which--where
    that's sorely lacking?
        Ms. Currie. I think that's a great question. First, we
    cannot solve this problem for the Burmese people. The solutions
    for it do have to come from within Burma because it is--these
    are problems that predate the founding of the country.
        Just as in our own country, we have had to struggle with
    the issues that came into our society through the founding of
    our country with slavery and racism and all of these things.
        The same challenges are there in Burma, and they've spent
    the past 70 years since independence more or less under
    authoritarian and very racist and chauvinistic governments that
    have not allowed any of those conversations to take place.
        So some of those conversations are, essentially, frozen in
    1960, or 1950. So if you think about our own experience and
    where we were back at that time and our own discussions around
    racism, you can understand how far they have to go and how
    quickly they have to move to catch up to what the modern world
    expects from a country in terms of how it treats its ethnic
    nationalities or minority communities and vulnerable
    communities.
        I think what Khin Ohmar said is right. The groups that are
    pushing within Burmese politics to change this dynamic are
    critical to it, and will continue to be.
        We have to continue to empower those voices and reflect
    them in our own engagement with the National Unity Government,
    and then use what leverage we do have.
        Again, we want to support the National Unity Government.
    It's, obviously, better than the coup, as Mr. Chairman said.
        But that's not good enough. I think we do have to hold them
    to a standard of expecting them to acknowledge and do better on
    Rohingya than the NLD did in the past.
        I've seen some movement in that way. It's not fast enough.
    It's not far enough. But I think it is in the right direction
    overall, and we need to do the things we can to facilitate it.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Ohmar, if I could just ask you about your concerns with
    respect to the treatment of refugees in the border regions.
    What--and again, what more can the United States and the
    international community do to ensure that their basic human
    rights are protected when they flee Burma to neighboring
    countries?
        Ms. Ohmar. Thank you very much, Representative Deutch. So
    for now, this challenge that people are having is the
    neighboring countries' government, such as Thailand, are not
    allowing the people to--like, those who are fleeing from the
    air strikes to come across the border to their country, while
    also there are no free passage or the humanitarian corridors
    are not allowed to open to reach to those most needy ones
    across the border back in Burma.
        So I think we would like to really see your support in your
    communication and advocating to the Thai government, in
    particular, to help open those humanitarian aid corridors.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize Representative Ann Wagner of Missouri,
    who's the Vice Ranking Member of the full committee, for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Wagner. I thank--thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for organizing this very important hearing. What is
    happening in Burma is a tragedy and my heart breaks for the
    Rohingya who continue to suffer unimaginable atrocities at the
    hands of the genocidal Burmese military, or Tatmadaw, and for
    the courageous protesters braving the brutal crackdown as they
    fight for democracy.
        The United States must continue to support the people of
    Burma as they stand up to the military junta and to bring to
    justice those responsible for egregious human rights violations
    and crimes against humanity.
        I'm very proud that Congress has never hesitated to call
    the violence against Rohingya what it is--genocide. The United
    States has now at last recognized the Uighur and Armenian
    genocides but has not yet recognized the Rohingya genocide.
        Ambassador Currie, why has the United States neglected to
    make a formal determination on Rohingya genocide?
        Ms. Currie. I believe that a lot of it goes back to this
    kind of tradeoff that we have bounced around a little bit here,
    which is this belief that we had to protect the--Burma's
    democratic transition and we were trying in the past to protect
    Aung San Suu Kyi and not destabilize the country and promote or
    encourage or trigger a coup by the military.
        But I think the lesson we should learn from the past 4
    years of refusing to call things by their right name, and
    you're right, it meets all the criteria for genocide----
        Mrs. Wagner. Yes.
        Ms. Currie [continuing]. And the U.S. has done--the State
    Department did an investigation, has compiled the data. It's
    all there to--for anybody who wants to see it.
        But and I think now that we have seen that trying to
    tradeoff the rights of a vulnerable minority to protect a very
    fragile and flawed democratic process, you end up with both
    getting stomped all over.
        And so I think that we should be true and call things by
    their right name. I totally agree with you.
        Mrs. Wagner. It's time. It is----
        Ms. Currie. Agreed.
        Mrs. Wagner [continuing]. It is past time. The
    International Court of Justice, or ICJ, has ordered Burma to
    take action to prevent further acts of genocide as it
    investigates the atrocities committed against the Rohingya.
        Yet, human rights groups report the regime continues to
    actively destroy evidence and engage in acts of genocide.
        Ambassador Currie, how should the United States lead
    international efforts to pressure Burma into compliance with
    the ICJ's order?
        Ms. Currie. Again, I think this is an area where we can
    work with the National Unity Government to set out some
    benchmarks for cooperation with the ICJ investigation, too.
        They are very interested in having the ICJ investigate also
    the post-coup activities. We have also been supporting the
    international investigative mechanism on Myanmar, the IIMM at
    the--in Geneva under U.N. auspices.
        It's headed by a wonderful American lawyer named Nick
    Koumjian, who does a great job, and is also expanding their
    remit to include events since the coup.
        And so I think that there is an opportunity to take a more
    holistic look at accountability and transitional justice, as
    Khin Ohmar has said, and really bring all of these things into
    a rubric that allows for a meaningful conversation about
    accountability with the Tatmadaw, whether it's in the ICJ
    context, the ICC, or through other mechanisms, including local
    mechanisms that the NUG could start to set up themselves with
    support from donors.
        Mrs. Wagner. And to that point, Ms. Ohmar, Burma's civil
    society organizations have formed kind of the backbone of the
    opposition movement for protesting the coup, with the Tatmadaw,
    working to isolate Burmans from the international community and
    resist the flow of information.
        How can the United States strengthen these civil society
    groups, Ms. Ohmar?
        Ms. Ohmar. Thank you. Thank you. At this point, for the
    last 10 years of all of the great work our civil society
    partners have done on the ground building the blocks for the
    like, you know, like democracy, now, with this military coup,
    it's been very challenging.
        Everything that we have built seems like it's we're losing
    at the moment. So yes, we need desperate help. We desperately
    need your help and support.
        My first is also--I will--I will make it very practical.
    Like the USAID--for example, the USAID grants can make it
    flexible to the civil society organizations who are losing
    their ground in the country to be able to have access from the
    cross border, for example, you know, which is not something
    that we have seen the U.S. aid has been able to do. So that
    kind of flexibility.
        Thank you.
        Mrs. Wagner. Thank you. My time has expired.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank
    you.
        Chairman Meeks. Thank you.
        I now recognize Representative Bill Keating of
    Massachusetts, and the Chair of the Subcommittee on Europe,
    Energy, and the Environment and Cyber for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank
    you and the Ranking Member for holding this meeting. I think my
    question will be directed at Khin Ohmar and maybe a secondary
    question to Ambassador Currie.
        The Burmese military is notorious for its use of sexual and
    gender-based violence as a weapon of war, and it still seems to
    be holding true, as seen with the relentless perpetrated acts
    of violence, you know, by security forces against protesters.
        And despite this, the women that are involved in this, in
    particular, they're risking their lives and playing a central
    role in this nonviolent action of protest to bring about
    democracy.
        So my question is, what's your view of the status of their
    involvement right now, the risks they're taking, which we have
    seen so many brave women around the world in leadership roles
    at protests in countries like Belarus, and what can we do to
    support their actions in particular?
        Ms. Ohmar. Thank you, Congressman Keating. Yes, you're very
    right. Even compared to our time back in 1988 democracy
    movement, this movement has seen much more young women, in
    particular, at the forefront leading the movement.
        But now, many of them are in prison and detention and also
    facing the sexual and gender-based violence--sexual assault. So
    it's very worrying for me, personally. I have met so many
    survivors of the military rape from the different ethnic
    communities for the last 20 years at least.
        And now, knowing that there are so many young women are
    even missing, that we do not know where they are, so it's very
    worrying for us to think of, like, you know, what could have
    happened or will be happening.
        So many of them already are in hiding at the moment, and
    many of them fled into the ethnic areas at the moment. So while
    we need so much support also, like, I think, like, the U.S.,
    you know, including the mission in Yangon will be able to help
    support, for example, like hiding places, which is the
    practical support that we need, and as well as also
    establishing their secure communications equipment.
        Again, that is also something that we need in our effort,
    including those young women and women in the movement to be
    able to access or communicate to the outside world. So these
    are the practical support that we need, along with the other
    material and financial support as well.
        Mr. Keating. And how important is it, hopefully, in a
    democracy, going forward, to have women included in that
    government and in the administration of government in the
    country?
        Ms. Ohmar. Being a longtime women's rights activist I will
    be very practical with you. It's still a long way to go.
    However, I'm encouraged to see that NUG--this NUG government
    has included many women, including the young women also from
    the ethnic communities are already included in the ministry
    positions, which I take it as a very historical step, which I
    hope that they will actually carry on, you know, by the time
    when the democracy comes back there for us to really, like,
    establish the full democracy.
        I hope that women will not be left out or marginalized when
    everything comes back to the--in the place. For now, we still
    have a long way to go. Yes.
        Mr. Keating. Okay. We are seeing authoritarian governments
    trying to press themselves around the world. But it's
    comforting to know we're seeing so many women and young women
    rising up for democracy and standing up for that.
        Thank you for your comments.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Meeks. Representative yields back. Representative
    Keating yields back.
        I now recognize Representative Tim Burchett of Tennessee
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the guests.
    I have a couple of questions. I'll just throw it out to the
    panel.
        Does China really have a dog in this fight or will the
    Chinese Communist Party simply back the side it thinks will
    win?
        Ms. Currie. I will go ahead and take that.
        China definitely has had a dog in the fight in Burma for
    since before--since--for decades, really. The Chinese Communist
    Party helped to create the Communist Party of Burma, armed it,
    and led to instability in Burma since the 1960's, which is one
    of the reasons that there's been military government in Burma
    since the 1960's is because of Chinese interference in Burmese
    internal affairs and attempts to shape and mold the country and
    make it malleable.
        China seeks a Burma that's dependent, weak, internally
    divided, and easy for it to get what it wants out of, which
    right now primarily consists of passage to the Indian Ocean,
    because Burma cuts--Burma, the--China's path to the Indian
    Ocean cuts directly through Burma, and so they want that very
    much.
        They are very--they have strategic interests. They have
    economic interests. They're--they, and as--you know, they,
    obviously--I think, ideologically, they're neutral They've
    shown they'll work with whatever kind of government does come
    along.
        So I do not think those things are mutually exclusive. But
    they do want a government that's willing to work with them.
    They do want to keep us out. They especially want to keep us
    out of upper Burma, where they are involved with a lot of the
    ethnic armed organizations and are playing both sides of the
    street in Burma.
        It's a very--they have strategic depth in Burma in a way
    that the United States does not. But that also means that
    they've got--they've been tagged with a nasty history of doing
    things in Burma that the United States has not, and that can
    redound against them if we are standing on the side of the
    people in the country.
        Mr. Burchett. Anybody else on that or is that pretty much
    it? Okay, good. If the Western companies end up leaving due to
    the unrest, do you think that China would end up taking over
    the Western assets?
        Ms. Currie. Ms. Ohmar, do you want to take that?
        Ms. Ohmar. Please go ahead, Kelley. Thank you.
        Ms. Currie. I think that, you know, it's a possibility. But
    the other thing you have to remember about the Tatmadaw--we
    talked a lot about what the Chinese want, but the Tatmadaw are
    also quite anti-Chinese themselves. They aren't--you know,
    they're not just anti--they're kind of anti-everybody.
        They're quite xenophobic and nationalistic. So I think that
    there is a limit to which they will allow Chinese incursion
    into the country. When they did open up the country back in
    2010, it was, largely, because they felt they had become too
    dependent on China in the preceding years and wanted to--and
    did not--and they do not want to be that dependent on the
    Chinese again.
        So they will seek to retain independence of operation and
    will not--and they'll look for other partners, whether it's
    other Asian partners or, more likely, the Singaporeans.
        Even the Japanese and South Koreans have been more amenable
    to working with military-led governments than the United States
    and some of the European partners.
        Mr. Burchett. All right. What are the implications for the
    instability in Burma, more on a broader, I guess, regional
    security issue? Anybody?
        Ms. Ohmar. I will--I will say the regional security issue
    there are actually different--quite a few, I will say. First is
    the spillover effects into the neighboring countries,
    particularly the people who are actually fleeing from the
    military violence as we see now. But also, traditionally, in
    the past decades, people have been fleeing Burma for all kind
    of reasons across the border, including as the migrant
    laborers.
        So there is this regional--there is an impact on the
    regional stability from that aspect that comes with the other,
    like the health as well, especially now during the COVID-the
    pandemic time.
        You can imagine of how also the neighboring countries might
    be thinking at the moment. But the reality is Myanmar people,
    Burma people really need to flee for their security. So that's
    one.
        The other is we have this drug problem where the military
    themselves have been involved and implicit--complicit in that,
    along with their militias that they have set up.
        And so these are also the issues that the region,
    especially for the ASEAN, have been dealing and need to deal
    with, which we feel quite frustrated that ASEAN is not able to
    see that they need to focus the solution for Burma based on the
    people instead of based on this military.
        Chairman Meeks. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Another excellent
    meeting.
        Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Ami Bera of
    California, who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Asia, the
    Pacific, Central Asia, and Nonproliferation, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you for
    this timely hearing.
        You know, as I think about, you know, the resolve of the
    Burmese people, it's quite remarkable. I've heard up to 90
    percent of the country is currently shut down with, you know,
    essentially, a general strike, which it probably is the largest
    general strike that I can recall in my lifetime and it does not
    seem like that resolve is shifting. If nothing else, it seems
    like the Burmese people are digging in, even with the hardship,
    you know, electricity shut down, water shut down, food markets,
    everything, shut down.
        At the same time, when I listen to the Tatmadaw, it also
    does not seem like their resolve is changing as well, even as,
    you know, we put in sanctions, increased sanctions, you know,
    perhaps, you know, consider secondary sanctions and the like to
    continue to isolate them.
        I guess a question for any of the witnesses, within the
    military, you know, the generals, certainly, seem to not care
    about what's happening to the civilians, but within the rank
    and file military, as they exert violence against their own
    fellow citizens and others, are we seeing any erosion of that
    and folks defecting and, you know, et cetera?
        Ambassador Currie?
        Ms. Ohmar. Yes, I'll take the question. Yes.
        So, yes, there are actually many hundreds and perhaps even
    a few thousand of police have joined the civil disobedience
    movement, as well as those from the army are also joining. We
    have some level, like, including the police chief, for example,
    position as well as those who are the captain level from the
    military are also joining.
        But, of course, we do not see into the point of, like, the
    large scale or the large number. I think that the problem is
    also that because the military already cut down within--like,
    they are also living themselves in the open prison.
        There have been an internal cut to the military and
    military family Members. So that a lot of these measures and
    restrictions are already imposed. What worse for them is, like,
    if they are found to be, you know, like suspicious of even
    joining the people's movement, they will be immediately put in
    jail and face a lot of harsh punishment.
        So I think we are having to--that situation. But I have to
    say, though, that there are so many that we know--there are so
    many, including the high levels, who want to join the civil
    disobedience movement or who just disagree with the military
    coup.
        Ms. Currie. I can add to that. There have been some
    defections. What we're also seeing is a lack of will to fight
    on the front lines, because you have to remember that even
    before the coup there was a civil war going on in Burma and had
    been since 1948.
        And what we're hearing from some of the ethnic armed
    organizations is that they are seeing people just running away
    from the front lines, abandonment of posts and bases on a scale
    that they're not used to seeing. And so there is some question
    about whether--you know, about order and discipline within the
    ranks. I think that there is a--that is a potential point of
    exploitation.
        Mr. Bera. Great, and are there any specific steps that, you
    know, we ought to be thinking about as Congress to, again,
    support, you know, both the people, but also, I think, if the
    rank and file starts that--the morale of the rank and file
    military starts to erode, the longer this goes on, I think,
    then you can get to an endpoint perhaps.
        Ms. Currie. If Congress can--if Congress can authorize
    cross border assistance at scale and make it very flexible so
    that it can be used to support, you know, deserters who leave
    the military, some DDR, and things that are going on to
    demobilize people, that would be helpful, because there are
    groups within the--in the cross border space that could carry
    out that mission, and I think that's something that would be
    helpful.
        The other thing that the United States can do is really
    make sure that we are leaning heavily on the side of the NUG
    and against the junta on things--like, on, really, technical
    things like not giving to diplomats that the junta tries to
    send to the United States or to other countries--we can all
    refuse that--and to extend visas for diplomats who are loyal
    and for others who are loyal to the--to the NUG.
        Chairman Meeks. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        I now recognize Representative Andy Barr of Kentucky for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I join my colleagues
    in condemning the junta and the Tatmadaw's military coup, the
    unlawful detention of the State councilor, declaration of
    martial law and the human rights abuses against civil
    disobedience and peaceful protesters.
        This is, clearly, obviously a major setback for democracy
    in Burma. But I want to return, Ambassador Currie, to the
    important strategic implications and the considerations that we
    have to give to China's malign influence in the region. You did
    a good job painting the picture for us in terms of China's
    long-standing interest in Burma.
        But can you--can you elaborate a little bit on what ties
    exist between the CCP and the Tatmadaw? And, obviously, I heard
    your testimony that the Tatmadaw was skeptical of Chinese
    investment in Burma and that Burma's prior civilian government
    was, perhaps, closer to the Chinese Communist Party.
        But given the current state of affairs and the coup, what
    inroads are the CCP making with the current military
    leadership?
        Ms. Currie. I think that the situation is never quite black
    and white. I do not--it's not--you know, it's not a zero sum
    game, in many ways.
        I think that what we're seeing is that the Tatmadaw will
    never want to be dependent on the CCP, and the people of Burma
    will never accept a government that's completely dependent on
    the CCP.
        This isn't Cambodia, for instance, where you can get away
    with that sort of thing, like Hun Sen has been able to get away
    with it in Cambodia.
        The other thing that I think that more than--more than
    democracy the Chinese Communist Party does not want State
    failure at its border there. It shares a border with Burma, and
    there are ethnic groups that straddle that border that--and we
    have seen in recent days that they've put up heavy fencing and
    cameras to try to reinforce their border with Burma to keep
    refugee flows out. They--and they also are cognizant that
    there's a lot of crime and illicit activity that goes on across
    that border, that it can be a vector for disease and
    criminality as well.
        If there is State failure and breakdown on the Burma side
    of the border, it negatively impacts China's aspirations in
    southwest China to improve the economic and--economic situation
    in Sichuan province and in that area.
        So they do not want that. They will try to work this--they
    will navigate the situation as best they can and do--you know,
    they'll play all sides. They do not--they're not--they have no
    moral compunction about working with anybody. I mean, let's be
    very clear. Whereas, we do. We do have a limiting principle.
        Mr. Barr. Understood.
        Ms. Currie. They do not. That's the main difference.
        Mr. Barr. I understand, Ambassador.
        Let me--let me just ask you to kind of comment on the fact
    that Beijing, along with Moscow, have blocked the U.N. Security
    Council statement condemning the coup. Your testimony was
    pretty rich about the failure of the Security Council.
        I mean, if China is a big player in blocking the
    condemnation of the coup at the Security Council level, what do
    you read into that? What is going on? What is the CCP trying to
    accomplish there?
        Ms. Currie. Well, China typically tries to block things
    like this at the Security Council. It's not necessarily Burma
    specific. They have a whole excuse matrix that they will,
    basically, have to be worked through in order to get to them
    being willing to abstain on any resolution that would involve
    insertion in what they consider to be a matter of internal
    affairs of a country.
        And they and Russia both still consider the coup to be a
    matter--an internal matter for Burma and, therefore, not
    actually a matter of international peace and security.
        Now, what we need to do is put them on the spot a little
    bit more, I believe, and I think that if--up to now because all
    the meetings in the Council have taken place behind closed
    doors, all the negotiations on statements have taken place
    behind closed doors, they've been able to hide behind all of
    that.
        If we push some of this more out into the public, then they
    have to be more accountable for what they're doing in the
    council. Right now, they haven't blocked anything because the
    U.K. has not brought forward a resolution. So there's been
    nothing for them to really block except for statements.
        Mr. Barr. In my remaining time, just really quickly--and I
    did not get a chance to ask about Chinese vaccine diplomacy in
    Burma--but, broadly, how can the U.S. prevent Chinese malign
    influence in Burma?
        Ms. Currie. By associating ourselves with the people and
    the positive aspects of this movement that have such broad
    popular support.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you. Yield back.
        Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Joaquin
    Castro of Texas, the Chair of the Subcommittee on International
    Development, International Organizations, and Global Social
    Impact, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman. I joined Rep. Tenney in
    introducing a resolution urging the United Nations Security
    Council to impose an arms embargo on the Burmese military.
    Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun, I know you've also been urging for the
    same action.
        So, Ambassador, can you explain the dynamics at the U.N.
    Security Council around imposing such an embargo? What
    countries are preventing this action and what can we in
    Congress do to help?
        Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Castro.
        In the Security Council, you know, so I approached the--
    China. We have got to--we'd like to have, you know, stronger
    action from the Security Council.
        But China, clearly, stated to me that whatever resolution
    that include a sanction regime they will not accept it. But for
    us, we need really strong action from Security Council.
        So that is why I fully agree with Kelley that, you know, we
    make it--things open--open settings. So that's the way we can
    push harder and handle, and I also wish that the United States,
    together with the United Kingdom, to push harder in the
    Security Council.
        That's the way we can get something from the Security
    Council, not--it is the press statement--the Presidential
    statement is not really enough for the people of Myanmar
    because what we are facing at this time is saving lives of
    innocent civilians.
        So that is why we need stronger action from the U.N.
    Security Council. So we need to push it further ahead. But the
    difficult thing that we hear in the Security Council is,
    basically, is that COVID setting, because, you know, those--you
    know, the agenda, there is no consensus, that this will be
    difficult to have an open debate on the--in the particular
    issue.
        That is the--you know, I always have the feedback from our
    colleague from the U.N. Security Council. But we need to push
    harder and harder to have something from the U.N. Security
    Council for the--for sake of the people of Myanmar. Thank you.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you.
        And, Ambassador, many of us in Congress have spoken out
    strongly against the coup and urge for stronger actions like
    sanctions against the military. We're in agreement that the
    military should restore democracy and return back power to the
    civilian government, which you represent.
        But if we're honest with ourselves, when the civilian
    government was nominally in charge of the country, things
    weren't exactly peaceful. Most notably, what many have called
    genocide occurred against the Rohingya.
        Obviously, the civilian government had only limited power
    and the violence was done by the military. However, the
    civilian government was not critical of these actions and was,
    in many ways, supportive.
        Was this a mistake on the part of the civilian government?
    And if the civilian government is restored, will it take
    actions to allow for the voluntary and safe return of the
    Rohingya people?
        Mr. Tun. I think, as I said, the NUG is very clear that,
    you know, we respect the--you know, the agreement, the
    bilateral agreement that we have with country concerns like
    Bangladesh and that also we will pursue, address the issue with
    the international norms and standards as well as human rights
    norms and standards.
        That is what we are--definitely we are going to pursue it.
    So the NUG is the interim government, so that we are going to
    do it once the--you know, the full blown--the government is
    being established. So we will address the issue with the
    international norms and standards.
        So those who have a--have the, you know, the right, we have
    to respect it. So for those whoever inside--in the country we
    have to respect it. Equality should be respected so that, you
    know, those who are now in the Bangladeshi side we are always
    welcome them back to Myanmar.
        So we will definitely pursue with the--you know, the
    agreement that we work with with Bangladesh. So we work on them
    to live together with us in the peace and harmony. That is what
    we are looking for.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you. I yield back, Chairman.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize Representative Claudia Tenney of New York,
    Vice Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on International
    Development, International Organizations, and Global Corporate
    Social Impact for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    having this important meeting, as well--along with the Ranking
    Member, and I also want to say thank you to my colleague,
    Representative Castro, for being the lead on this with me, and
    so many other Members who have joined on.
        And why this is so important to me, in my district I have
    over 4,000, maybe 5,000 Burmese refugees, many who have become
    citizens and outstanding Members of our community. They've been
    coming to our community for many, many years.
        They've been vigilant and diligent in protecting the rights
    of their family Members and friends, and marching peacefully
    throughout our community to defend the democratic principles in
    Burma, and so we are doing everything we can support them.
        And Mr. Castro actually kind of took my question, but I
    thought I'd maybe give the Ambassador, you know, another chance
    to take a look at it. I just wanted to maybe pose it in a
    different way.
        When we're discussing the--you know, the bill that we put
    in in our U.N. Security Council arms embargo that we proposed,
    do you think--and I know this is--this is going to be directed
    to Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun--do you think that the--that,
    obviously, we're going to be struggling to get this through
    China and to Russia because they control so much in the
    Security Council, and you indicated you're keeping in touch,
    how--do you think that the possibility of working with India,
    Vietnam, and other Members to pressure them in a public way as
    we're trying to do would have any impact on them and bring them
    to understand the human rights violations and the issues that
    we're--and trying to restore the democratically elected
    government back in Burma?
        Ambassador?
        Mr. Tun. Thanks. Thank you, Ms. Claudia. I think this is
    very important that, you know, the--we need to put pressure on
    the--some Members of the Security Council, you know, through
    all from different channels, you know, through India, through
    Vietnam, and the others in the Europe and the Latin America and
    the Africa.
        We need to do it from all channels. But the most important
    thing is we need to point out that this is saving lives, not--
    nothing else. So this is the humanitarian crisis that we are
    facing.
        So without intervention from the U.N. Security Council, the
    people in Myanmar will be killed more and more, and if you wait
    for a minute, an hour, a day, the more people will be killed.
        So that, you know, that is, immediate action from the U.N.
    security is very, very needed, and then the intervention from
    the U.N. Security Council and international community is
    needed.
        So we--better to put it the way that, you know, saving
    lives. That is humanitarian. Saving lives, and it is the noble
    task for the human being. So that is what we really need from
    the international community and that we need the leadership of
    the United States in this program.
        Ms. Tenney. Thank you.
        Do you think the U.S. should consider secondary type
    sanctions to target other countries, maybe, who have more
    extensive trade with Burma? And I'm thinking things like
    limiting not just the arms trade but, possibly, expanded to
    commercial trade, investment in gems, timber, energy resources,
    obviously, very important revenue for the Tatmadaw leadership.
        Is that something that we could possibly do as a unit in
    America--a unified front from America.
        Mr. Tun. Yes. You know, getting a resolution that involves
    a sanction from the U.N. Security Council may take time. But
    time is really of the essence for the--for us. So what we need
    is some sort of, you know, targeted coordinated sanction for a
    group of country, like, a group of like-minded countries
    imposed on this kind of, you know, sanction.
        Then this will definitely have the impact on the military
    as well as those in the region. So that is what we need. So
    it's that coordinated targeted tougher sanction from a group of
    country is, you know, this can do it, you know, very quickly
    manner. And because while we are waiting the--any action from
    the Security Council, we can do it as a coordinated manner.
        Ms. Tenney. I know you may have answered this question. I
    just wanted to run it by you again. Do you think that it was a
    mistake that the ASEAN agreement to recognize or acknowledge
    the junta leader, Min Aung Hlaing, as Burma's representative?
    Do you think that was a mistake?
        Mr. Tun. It's a--it's very difficult to say, but it's a--
    one, it's the outcome from the ASEAN leaders meeting. It is--to
    me, it is very disappointing. Thank you.
        Ms. Tenney. Oka. Do you think that the five-point--we're
    missing anything in the five-point consensus from the ASEAN
    leaders summit that----
        Mr. Tun. Of course, this is very--they missed a very
    important point. They should at the--you know, calling the
    release of, you know, the leaders, Aung San Suu Kyi, president,
    Win Myint, and unlawful detaining unconditionally and
    immediately. It is very, very much important point that they
    are missing because, you know, this is linked to the meaningful
    dialog among the relevant stakeholders.
        Without release of them, there will not be any meaningful
    dialog among the relevant stakeholders. This is very important.
        Ms. Tenney. Do you think those leaders in exile----
        Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Tenney. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for taking----
        Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Dina Titus
    of Nevada for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Ambassador Tun, I just tell you how much we respect your
    courage for being with us today and speaking out about the
    terrible things happening in your country.
        I'd like to ask you and Ms. Ohmar about the humanitarian
    side of things, if you could comment on just the struggles that
    everyday people are facing in their lives from shelter to food
    to just living essentials.
        The U.N. has reported that more than 2 million people are
    facing growing food insecurity due to the political crisis but
    compounded by COVID, and they are expected to right--scale up
    their program to provide nutrition assistance in Burma.
        I wonder if you could talk to us about what the daily life
    is like, how the U.S. might work with other agencies through
    the U.N. or other countries to provide some of the supplies
    that might be needed, and what we can do to guarantee that
    those supplies actually get to the people who need them the
    most.
        Ms. Ohmar. May I go ahead with this?
        Ms. Titus. Please.
        Ms. Ohmar. Thank you very much. So thank you for this
    question.
        Right now, the humanitarian challenge is really immense.
    It's actually getting quite widespread across the country for--
    first of all, is also because this military junta is, like I
    was saying in the statement, they are--they are, in fact,
    destroying the people's food storage.
        At the same time, they are trying to actually steal even
    the people from the--like, the rice as a result like that. But
    the other problem is those as civil servants and public and
    private sector workers who have joined this movement, there
    are, like, tens of thousands of them and across the country,
    and they do not--they do not get their salary for the last 3
    months already, and you can imagine how desperate their family
    situation will be.
        And many of them were even kicked out of their public
    housing by this junta at gunpoint and also now, like, you know,
    now, right now, the civil servants are now being forced to the
    point that they were--some of them were at gunpoint but some of
    them were actually told that they have to return the past 2
    months' salary if they do not come and walk right now.
        So that's where the challenges they're facing. The civil
    society also where there are many people depend on, the civil
    society organizations are being raided, and their bank accounts
    that the donors are supporting them are now sort of, like, you
    know, more or less seized by the military, because if you go to
    get the money from the bank, you will be asked so many
    questions to the point that you--like, you know, they will end
    up being arrested. Many of them are very worried about that.
        So they do not have access to the money and they're not
    getting salary either. So that's why we are having so much
    problem, and many of the factories are also closed. So now the
    people are not having this regular income for the last 3
    months.
        So, yes, it is a very serious situation. The banks are
    almost bankrupt. I'm sorry, banks are also collapse. So they're
    having a very serious situation at the moment. Yes.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. Thank you. I was afraid that that was
    the case.
        Ambassador Tun, do you want to add to that? I know there
    were some of the USAID folks were there working with some of
    the civil society, but I'm sure all of that's gone now.
        Mr. Tun. Yes, I agree with Ms. Khin Ohmar with regard to
    what she responds to your question. So because, you know, it is
    really--we are now in the humanitarian crisis because you know,
    the economy, according to the U.N. it's going to collapse.
        So that is the serious situation that we are having, so we
    cannot prolong this kind of crisis for the--for our future. So
    we need to take action as quick as possible. People--now people
    are really in a dire situation. I definitely can--coming, you
    know, months it's a more difficult situation that, you know,
    people will be facing.
        So that is why we always trust that we need immediate
    action from the international community to stop the situation
    that we are facing.
        Ms. Titus. You know, the United Nations High Commissioner
    on Human Rights said in late March that Burma may be headed for
    full-blown conflict like you're seeing in Syria. Is your
    assessment of it that dire and that immediate?
        Mr. Tun. Thank you. May I take this question? I think that
    that is what we want to avoid. But the situation that we are--
    we are facing----
        Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        I now recognize Representative Peter Meijer of Michigan for
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Titus. I yield back.
        [No response.]
        Chairman Meeks. Representative Meijer, unmute.
        [No response.]
        Chairman Meeks. Representative Meijer?
        [No response.]
        Chairman Meeks. We will come back to Representative Meijer.
        I now recognize Representative Young Kim of California, the
    Vice Ranking Member of California and Asia, the Pacific,
    Central Asia, and Nonproliferation for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman Meeks, and
    thank you, Ranking Member McCaul.
        You know, we had this briefing our committee first held on
    the situation in Myanmar in February. Since then, my office has
    received calls and requests from the small but very significant
    number of Burmese Americans to meet with them and participate
    in the rallies that they organized to raise awareness of the
    ongoing human rights situation. So I greatly appreciate our
    committee taking the time to discuss this ongoing crisis in
    Myanmar.
        This has really resulted in a deteriorating civil and human
    rights situation, the murdering of unarmed civilians and
    continued persecution of ethnic minorities, all at the hands of
    a brutal military junta that unilaterally seized power in a
    coup against Myanmar's democratically elected government in
    February.
        However, Myanmar is no stranger to conflict and strife.
    Over the past few decades, the ethnic minorities of Myanmar
    have been subjected to targeted violence from the military and
    militias, as well as larger-scale ethnic cleansing campaigns,
    stimulating widespread unrest and forcing hundreds of thousands
    to flee their homes into refugee camps in neighboring
    countries.
        With the coup in February, these trends are likely to
    worsen further. So a question to you, Ambassador Currie. What
    new challenges may rise in the weeks and months ahead,
    including the possibility of new refugee flows to neighboring
    countries or the deepening of the country's decades-long civil
    war?
        So how should the United States seek to avoid such
    scenarios and what could Congress do to guide the U.S. policy?
        Ms. Currie. Thank you, Congresswoman Kim.
        I believe that the biggest threat right now is complete
    State collapse and State failure with the economy going just
    completely in free fall. The governance structures that the
    junta relies on to govern the country have collapsed in many
    places or are only being held up through martial law and at the
    point of a gun.
        You're really looking at a State failure scenario if the
    trends continue at the levels of violence and the level of
    noncooperation from the population continues. You just--they
    are on a collision course right now.
        And yes, this will inevitably lead to greater refugee
    outflows across the region and will really--and lead to
    increased criminality, increased narcotics trafficking, just
    all sorts of ill effects across the region.
        I think that what the U.S. Congress can do is, as I
    mentioned in previous--mentioned previously, explicitly
    authorize cross border assistance that will allow U.S.
    humanitarian assistance, including assistance provided through
    U.N. agencies, funds, and programs to reach those who are
    fleeing into what are called liberated or safe areas that are
    under the control of ethnic nationality arms group--armed
    groups, and be willing to deal with those local authorities;
    also by reinforcing, strengthening, and working directly with
    the National Unity Government and helping it to stand up
    structures that can govern the country, that can distribute
    humanitarian assistance, that can reach people in need we can
    help the Burmese people and make our assistance to them more
    effective and avoid some of the unintended consequences if we
    were to, for instance, continue to use existing channels that
    flow through ministries that are nominally under the control of
    the junta.
        We do not want to subject our assistance to misuse or abuse
    by the military junta. So we need to go back to our past
    practice of using parallel and cross border structures to
    deliver assistance to the people.
        Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you very much. Those are
    great suggestions. We should take--very much take heed of your
    advice. You know, I would also like to highlight the role of
    ASEAN that it has played in attempting to mediate the crisis in
    Myanmar.
        Although ASEAN acted in unison to hold a summit with its
    Members in the months following the February coup and released,
    like, a five-point plan to resolve the crisis.
        Multiple missteps have been made along the way that
    seriously jeopardize the effectiveness of their influence and
    response. So, in particular, the summit was jeopardized from
    the start by inviting a representative of the militia junta to
    represent Myanmar in negotiations but excluded any
    representation from the National Unity Government.
        You know, ASEAN's capacity to mediate Myanmar's crisis
    further when, after specifically calling for an end to the
    violence, Myanmar's military continued to quash dissent and
    protest violently by openly attacking and killing its own
    people.
        So, Ambassador Currie----
        Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
    gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mrs. Kim of California. Okay. Well, thank you. I hope I can
    continue this if there is time. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Ted Lieu of
    California for 5 minutes.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Levin. You're muted, Ted.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chairman Meeks, for calling this
    important hearing.
        I'd like to followup on the line of questioning from
    Representative Brad Sherman.
        So Ambassador Tun, is there a representative from the
    Rohingya?
        Mr. Tun. So I--could you repeat the question again, because
    I missed----
        Mr. Lieu. In the National Unity Government that was
    recently formed does it include a representative of the
    Rohingya people?
        Mr. Tun. So, so far there is no representative from
    Rohingya in the NUG.
        Mr. Lieu. So let me--let me just tell you the problem
    there. There was a article in Time magazine dated March 8th,
    2018, that estimates more than 43,000 Rohingya parents have
    been reported lost, presumed dead. Other reports estimate about
    25,000 Rohingya may have been killed.
        There was a study in January 2018 that estimated that there
    are also an additional 18,000 acts of sexual violence against
    women and girls, and it's estimated that 116,000 Rohingya were
    beaten and 36,000 were thrown into fires.
        In a recent New York Times article--I'm just going to quote
    from it--states that, ``rather than condemn the systematic
    executions, rapes, and village burnings, Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi,
    a Nobel Prize Laureate, defended the generals. There was little
    outcry in Myanmar over the brutal persecution of ethnic
    minorities.
        Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi defended the military at The Hague,
    where Myanmar was accused of genocide against Rohingya.
    Myanmar's diplomats, including Mr. Kyaw Moe Tun, fell in line,
    earning the country's international scorn.''
        So how can we trust that the Rohingya aren't going to be
    continued to be killed if we support the National Unity
    Government? Why should we support you?
        Mr. Tun. Thank you. You know, because, you know, as I
    mentioned earlier, now we are fighting the common enemy. So all
    the issues that happened in Myanmar are because of the
    military. So we--first, we need to focus on the common enemy
    first.
        Then, you know, as I mentioned earlier, the NUG government
    addressed the issue in line with the, you know, international
    norms and standards, in line with the, you know, the
    international human rights--human rights law and international
    humanitarian law, and then also what we--what we believe is
    that NUG is the interim government.
        And then when it's come to the, you know, the permanent
    one, we were the--you know, because we believe in engagement,
    we believe in dialog, so all the outstanding issue that we
    faced, definitely, we can resolve it through the dialog or with
    the participation from the--all relevant stakeholders and this
    kind of inclusive dialog will find a way to get the--you know,
    to solve the problem.
        That is what we believe is that, you know, that is what we
    need, the support from the international community toward the
    National Unity Government.
        Mr. Lieu. Let me ask you another question. Can the Rohingya
    people get citizenship in your country?
        Mr. Tun. Yes, of course. Of course. Those who are in the--
    you know, that is why we--I want to point out is that, you
    know, those we--the NUG government will pursue in accordance
    with the international norms and standards. Those who are
    entitled they were the--get the citizenship and those whoever
    get their citizenship they were enjoying the fundamental rights
    that the others like.
        So that is what we believe. We believe in the democracy. We
    believe in the human rights. That is why I am in favor inside
    the country they have to enshrine the right, same like the
    others. That is what I believe.
        Mr. Lieu. So thank you. I'm going to reclaim my time.
        So the military coup is unacceptable, and I would hope that
    the military would stop killing people and we need to reverse
    the coup. At the same time, I do not see any change in the
    National Unity Government when you cannot even include a
    representative of the Rohingya people.
        The U.N. has said that the government of which you were a
    part of had genocidal intent and ethnic cleansing of the
    Rohingya people, and you still cannot even manage to have a
    representative of the Rohingya people in the Unity Government.
        So I cannot support your National Unity Government and I
    will oppose efforts for the United States to support the
    National Unity Government until you commit to having at least a
    representative from the Rohingya people and you commit to
    stopping the genocide of the Rohingya people.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Meeks. Time has expired. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        I now recognize Representative Meijer of Michigan for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for
    holding this hearing today and to our guests who are joining us
    to share their wisdom and their experience.
        Like Ms. Tenney, I also have a significant Burmese
    population in my district. There are over 4,000 Burmese and
    Burmese Americans in west Michigan, many of whom were--fled
    during the 1988 coup, which I know that both Ambassador Tun and
    Ms. Ohmar, you know, lived through, right, experienced
    firsthand.
        I think of the earlier comments just about how, initially,
    when the kind of green shoots of democracy were first occurring
    when Aung San Suu Kyi kind of burst onto the scene and then the
    Nobel Prize--the Nobel Peace Prize and all these positive
    efforts how much excitement there was that after decades of
    kind of brutal repression and military dictatorships and coups
    that the Tatmadaw were finally starting to relinquish some of
    their grasp.
        I think it's pretty clear to us right now that that was, as
    Ms. Currie mentioned, that that relinquishment was a bit in
    name only, and I think they have sought to take the best
    benefits of that cooling--or that warming of relations, that
    thawing of tensions with the rest of the world and the Western
    world in particular, and turn that into being able to line
    their own pockets and do what they can to further cement their
    hold on the country, and the coup on February 1st, I think,
    made that very clear.
        I'm, obviously, very sympathetic to the tension between the
    recognition of the genocide against the Rohingya and the plight
    that they're in, you know, in balancing how we can achieve
    stability and peace and prosperity in the region in the short
    term.
        But I guess I'm very concerned about the way that the kind
    of--the peaceful urban protesters and some of the existing
    fighting organizations like the Kachin Independence Army, which
    I think just a day and a half ago shot down a helicopter of the
    junta regime.
        You know, I wanted to ask Ambassador Tun, I guess, first
    and foremost, while I see the benefit of kind of a rainbow
    coalition of various ethnic groups kind of coming together who
    had traditionally been just aligned against the government but
    now have common cause in kind of bringing--or gets aligned
    against the Tatmadaw and now have common cause in establishing
    a unity government, are--do you think that that can be a
    sustainable balance in the long term, especially when you
    have--when we have seen evidence in the past of when long-
    running armed conflicts then try to implement the more
    reformist democratic mind set individuals and how they can
    quickly result in the people who have the guns having the say?
    Could you speak to that, Ambassador Tun?
        Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Meijer.
        It is true that, you know, the situation that we are
    having, especially, you know, unprecedented unity that we are
    having at this point, as analysts pointed out that it is over
    20 years we do not have this kind of unity among different
    players, different organizations. It is the time that we have
    unprecedented unity.
        So for sustainability, that is, of course, we also have the
    consent, you know, because now we are fighting against a common
    enemy. Once we over this kind of enemy, we still need to talk.
    That is why we are aiming to help the Federal democratic union.
        So because we want to bring all relevant stakeholders in
    the equal footing in the work together or for the country,
    because their Federal democratic union, their constitution,
    will give them the way to bring everyone together again.
        So that is the hope. So we always hope for the best. But,
    of course, you know, we prepare for the worst. Of course, we
    have to believe very positive points on this regard.
        Mr. Meijer. Yes, thank you, Mr. Ambassador. I think we have
    spoken to the failures of ASEAN, more broadly, to try to tackle
    and kind of have a hard framework. So I hope that partners in
    the region step up.
        But just finally, Ms. Currie, can you speak to the fact
    that if we were to implement sanctions and cutoff some of that
    funding, specifically, Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise, do you
    think that that would really have an operative impact on the
    Tatmadaw's survival?
        Ms. Currie. I think it would definitely clip their wings.
    They rely on the revenue from oil and gas substantially for a
    lot of what they do. The other thing that I think that we could
    definitely do is put some more pressure on Singapore.
        The junta is, clearly, having some challenges with access
    to hard currency, and they hold accounts in Singapore that
    continue to be able to participate in purchases and dollar
    auctions. We need to do more to cutoff their access to hard
    currency, and putting sanctions on MOGE would, certainly, put a
    big chunk of pressure on them, yes.
        Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Bera [presiding]. Thank you. Let me go ahead and
    recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I really want to thank Chairman
    Meeks and Ranking Member McCaul for this really important
    hearing.
        I had the fortune of traveling to Myanmar and to meet the
    Burmese people and to see a nation struggling, and one that
    really has attempted to persevere under the weight of
    successive military dictatorships.
        But I also had the opportunity to visit the Rohingya in
    Bangladesh in the camps, and my first question is really to
    Ambassador Tun. Three quarters of a million Rohingya refugees
    were forced from Myanmar into Bangladesh at the direction of
    the Tatmadaw.
        Roughly, 600,000 remain in Myanmar and there is justifiable
    concern for their well-being and their safety. So what is the
    current state of Myanmar's remaining Rohingya? How likely are
    they to be--remain safe and what is the status of the Rohingya
    refugees?
        Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline. To be very
    frank, under the military government we all are the same. You
    know, we are--we--the human rights violations, atrocity taking
    place everywhere in the country. So we have a concern with each
    and everyone, including those Rohingya in the camps in Rakhine
    State.
        So, of course, we do not know exactly. To me, I do not know
    exactly the situation. But, of course, we have the concern
    because they already have the difficulties. So their situation
    because of the--you know, the coup and compounded the
    challenges that they already faced.
        So that is why we keep telling the international community
    that, you know, please end this military coup. Please support
    us to end the military coup. That is that what we really want.
        So then the next step where we will, you know, we work
    together to solve the problem, find a sustainable solution with
    regard to this matter. You know, that is very important for us.
        Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Ambassador, thank you.
        You know, I've heard your responses to Mr. Lieu and Mr.
    Sherman, and I can tell you I met with Members of the Rohingya
    community who were Members of the elected government and no
    longer have citizenship.
        So this issue about making the Rohingya a Stateless people
    is a serious one. Democracy means more than uttering the words.
    It means respecting the basic human rights of all of your
    citizens.
        And so I hope you hear the message loudly and clearly that
    we expect the Rohingya to be repatriated to their own country
    and, obviously, be kept safe.
        But I want to turn now to a question about food security.
    The U.N. has reported more than 2 million people in Burma are
    facing growing food insecurity due to this crisis, and both the
    political crisis as well as the COVID-19 pandemic, with
    families being forced to skip meals, obviously, having less
    nutrition.
        The World Food Programme is scaling up its response in
    Burma to providing assistance to more than 3.3 million people
    in the coming months. What is the kind of current status of the
    humanitarian effort in Burma?
        I do not know, Ambassador Currie or Ambassador Tun, who is
    best prepared to answer that.
        Mr. Tun. May I--may I take it?
        Ms. Currie. Sure, Ambassador Tun. Please.
        Mr. Tun. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
        Because this is a really huge challenge that we are facing,
    because the one hand we do not want any country to recognize
    the military, to engage with the military.
        But at the same time, we pay attention for the humanitarian
    assistance. But this is why what we like to request the
    international community, including the United Nations and our
    government partners, whatever the assistance that you make
    please consult with the National Unity Government and go
    through the CSO and the other NGO's.
        That is what we'd like to request. The humanitarian
    assistance is very important for all of us at this point. I
    think that Ambassador Currie may have some more points to add.
        Mr. Cicilline. And, Ambassador Currie, if you can also
    respond to the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar.
    I know there's been some concern about evidence being
    destroyed, and is this an effort that we can provide additional
    resources to? This is, ultimately, about accountability.
        And Facebook, I know, the platform was used to spread hate
    speech against the Rohingya and the ability to kind of collect
    that information is going to be really critical.
        Ms. Currie. Thank you. I would add that right now is--it's
    rice harvesting season. It's the dry season. Rice harvest is
    taking place (audio interference) very critical that that be
    able to take (audio interference). Can you all hear me?
        Mr. Cicilline. Yes.
        Ms. Currie. And then on the IIMM, we need to increase U.S.
    contributions and also work within the Human Rights Council and
    within the General Assembly to extend the mandate of the IIMM
    to make sure that they can investigate all the atrocities that
    have taken place, not just the ones in the Rohingya areas, and
    they're already doing that, to some degree. But we can--we can
    support that more robustly. Thank you.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back.
        Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you. Let me go to recognize the
    gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pfluger.
        Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. (Audio
    interference) discuss this important issue and, obviously, take
    a look at the atrocities that have happened and make sure that
    we, as a country, are standing up for the ideals that have made
    America what it is, and that we continue to look around the
    world at ways to influence.
        And so I'd like to start, Ambassador Currie, by just kind
    of asking about the--some of the investments that have been
    made by some Western energy companies, whether it's Chevron or
    Total or some of the others, and how important has that
    infrastructure been to helping with the poverty, to helping
    with some of the quality of life throughout the country in the
    last couple of decades?
        Ms. Currie. I would say that, on balance, the investments
    in oil and gas infrastructure not just by Western countries but
    overall have, largely, enabled the military to avoid the
    consequences of its failure to use resources to invest in the
    people of the country and have allowed the military to purchase
    weapons to turn on its own people.
        The civilian government, ostensibly, gained control of
    those resources starting in 2010, 2012, and the NLD government
    controlled them starting in 2015 and started to institute
    policies under the Extractive and--the Extractive Industries
    Transparency Initiative and other ways to try to make them
    more--make those revenues go more toward the health and welfare
    of the Burmese people.
        But now that those revenues are flowing back into the
    pockets of the Tatmadaw they will, once again, be used to
    torment the Burmese people, not to support and help them.
        Mr. Pfluger. What are the chances and the threat of if they
    were abandoned and, you know, expropriated or, even worse, you
    know, is there a threat that the Chinese could somehow take
    over those assets and do something else with them? Can you kind
    of talk to that line of thinking?
        Ms. Currie. Well, it depends on the assets. You know, you
    have the offshore facilities that are in the Andaman Sea and
    then you have onshore facilities, including pipelines that cut
    across.
        The Chinese already have a substantial investment in the
    oil and gas industry in Burma, as does India and even Malaysia,
    the United States, others.
        The Yadana pipeline is servicing a mature field and it--
    they're--it's unlikely that it would be--that the impact of the
    U.S. withdrawal there would mean much.
        One of the challenges for the Burmese is that they have no
    refining capability. So even if they're able to export the oil
    and--or even if they're able to pump the oil and gas that they
    cannot refine it and sell it on the open market.
        So that's why the Yadana pipeline flows to Thailand, where
    the Petroleum Authority of Thailand actually refines it and
    then gives a portion of it back to Burma and then sells the
    rest on the stock market.
        So it's a--you know, they're the--what has--what I think
    there's a debatable proposition about whether shutting--whether
    pulling out U.S. investment will have much of an impact, I know
    that it will take some time for them to be able to replace the
    U.S. capabilities that are currently allowing the production to
    continue.
        And in that time, if we're also working on the financial
    side to cutoff the flow or to require that if U.S. entities
    stay involved that they put the funds into an escrow account
    instead of sending them to the military, that's another option
    where the U.S. companies and other multinationals do not have
    to withdraw. They just do not pay the royalties to the junta.
    They put them in an account that's set aside for the people.
        Mr. Pfluger. Ambassador, thank you very much for that
    explanation. Just very quickly, Ambassador Tun, in the
    remaining 40 seconds, do you agree with, you know, kind of the
    philosophy of making sure that the funds are going to be
    flowing in the right direction and that we do not have some
    secondary or tertiary effect that could be worse?
        Mr. Tun. At this time, our focus is to stop any money
    inflow into the military regime. So whatever way that you can
    cutoff, please do so. That is the quick question that I'd like
    to respond. Please cut the money inflow into the military
    regime.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I yield.
        Mr. Bera. Great, thank you. Let me go ahead and recognize
    the gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. Omar.
        Ms. Omar. Thank you, and thanks to our panel for joining us
    today for this really critical conversation.
        I wanted to chat a little bit with Ms. Ohmar. I know that
    you have previously been supportive of a U.N. Security Council
    referral to the situation in Burma to the International
    Criminal Court.
        Of course, the ICC has claimed some jurisdiction through
    the Bangladesh referral, and there's also an ongoing case at
    the ICJ regarding the Rohingya genocide.
        What would you like to see happen in terms of an
    investigation and prosecution for the atrocity crimes being
    committed this year, and do you see the ICC as the best venue?
    Should we be thinking about helping set up a hybrid court?
        Ms. Ohmar. Thank you, Congresswoman Omar.
        Yes, my stand and our organization's stand too was
    resistant on the support of the, you know, situation overall
    referral to the ICC, that we know that can only happen with the
    Security Council referral. So that's why we also are calling
    for the option--another option, if it is not possible, to set
    up an ad hoc international tribunal that can be commissioned as
    well.
        And if the Security Council will not move, that is another
    possibility through the General Assembly as well. So that's
    something that we have been calling for, and we know the
    current--the jurisdiction that ICC can exercise through the
    Bangladesh is very limited.
        It is not enough and it does not cover all these--all these
    violence the Rohingya community face before they fled into
    the--into Bangladesh.
        And we mean all of these crimes, including the sexual
    violence against women. All of these are--like, I met with many
    of these Rohingya sisters, you know, who are the rape survivors
    of this military regime--the military.
        So we need to address all of these crimes, but not only for
    the Rohingya people but also for all of the crimes across other
    ethnic areas as well as those crimes against humanity happening
    for the last 3 months.
        And only with the Security Council referral that we will be
    able to address all of these crimes at the ICC. So we would
    like for the U.S. Government to also just recognize the
    genocide definition and also support all our efforts to--at the
    Security Council either to refer to ICC or set up an
    independent ad hoc tribunal.
        That will be the best option. But we are also calling on
    the National Unity Government to actually sign the Rome Statute
    so that we will be able to have the ICC also look into the
    other crimes as well.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Omar. I know Currie wants to add something but let me
    pose this question and then I'll give you a minute to do that
    as well.
        Obviously, one of the barriers to establishing justice for
    the victims, both with the Rohingyas and the pro-democracy
    protesters, right now is destruction of evidence, and I know
    that you mentioned in your testimony that the Burmese military
    is covering up their gross humanitarian violations.
        So how can the United States be supportive in terms of
    documentation so that there are--there is sufficient evidence
    when the ability for prosecution can exist?
        Again, to Ms. Ohmar and then we'll let Currie chime in if
    we have a couple of seconds.
        Ms. Ohmar. Thank you for this question.
        For the last few decades since the previous military
    regime, the local organizations, local civil society
    organizations, when it comes to the rape and sexual violence,
    particularly, the ethnic women organizations, they've been the
    one who have been documenting and presenting to the United
    Nations and to the international community.
        I will come back to this--to them for this one as well,
    because they are well experienced, you know, how to document
    not only the human rights documentation but also the evidence
    collections.
        And, of course, it's very--extremely challenging now and
    with this military junta how to collect and preserve those
    evidences. But together with this--the IIMM, the United Nations
    established mechanisms, I think the local civil society
    organizations, women's organizations, are in--they are placed
    best to collaborate with the international mechanisms to work
    together, and we need all your support for that to happen.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Bera. Ms. Currie, if you could keep your answer short.
        Ms. Omar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Currie. Very, very short.
        Just that there is also the possibility without signing the
    Rome Statute for the National Unity Government to do a self-
    referral under the ICC statute under Article 12. So they can
    just refer themselves--refer Burma themselves to the ICC.
        Mr. Bera. Great. Let me go----
        Mr. Tun. We have already engaged with the ICC. We are
    already engaged with that.
        Mr. Bera. Let me go and recognize the gentleman from
    Michigan, Mr. Levin, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, I want to, first, say that I stand with Mr. Lieu
    and other colleagues in that any simple return to the status
    quo ante before the coup is not acceptable, and I want to
    explore with you whether there's real hope of a new day between
    the Bamar majority and the various ethnic majority--ethnic
    minorities, not just the Rohingya but the Karen, Kachin, Mon,
    and others who make up 30 percent of the population of Burma
    all around the periphery.
        My first trip as a Member of Congress was to Bangladesh,
    including Cox's Bazar and the Rohingya refugee camps. I will
    not belabor the point of the horror of that. But, you know,
    Ambassador Tun, we--it is simply unacceptable that we are still
    where we are in talking about the lack of citizenship, the lack
    of safe return, and on and on.
        But my question is with the Rohingya and others, I've seen
    increasing reports about dialog between different minority
    groups and hope for a different future. You know, Burma was
    basically a State created--that's a child of colonialism. You
    know, a State whose boundaries were kind of imposed by European
    powers.
        It's never cohered yet to this day as an inclusive
    democracy. And, Ms. Ohmar, you know, I'm a scholar of Buddhism.
    I was supposed to get a Ph.D. and be a professor of Asian
    religions, but I realized I should come and hang out with you
    all instead and talk about policy.
        So I'm not shy to say that the Burmese majority, the
    Buddhist majority, has been unable to see the humanity and the
    citizenship of others.
        I feel like you might be a leader in this regard. Is there
    new hope in this horrible moment of repression from the
    Tatmadaw in a different future for Burma and how can we get
    there?
        Ms. Ohmar. I think that--the question is directed to me, is
    it? Sorry, I'm----
        Mr. Levin. Yes. Yes, ma'am. Yes.
        Ms. Ohmar. With--in the past 3 months, I see--I see a ray
    of hope because I see the different ethnic communities coming
    together while I also see, particularly from the Buddhists,
    Brahma majority, are showing their sympathy and understanding--
    empathy to the other ethnic communities such as, like, you
    know, Karen and Kachin, who face the--this kind this kind of
    abhorrent violence from the military for many generations.
        Mr. Levin. Yes.
        Ms. Ohmar. They are publicly writing on the social media
    and also they are publicly apologizing to the ethnic
    communities, including to the Rohingya people. Even,
    Congressman, I received a public apology to my direct messages
    or, like, writing, for--like they have assaulted and threatened
    and harassment me for my support and standing for the Rohingya
    people.
        So I think this----
        Mr. Levin. So this--so let me just ask--I'm so glad to hear
    that. But this Unity Government, obviously, isn't the big
    vehicle here.
        What can we do as the Congress and as the United States to
    support authentic bottom-up dialog and, you know, democracy
    building amongst the Bamar majority and the different minority
    groups? And I--you know, Ambassador Currie as well, or if you
    have more to say about that, Ms. Ohmar.
        Ms. Ohmar. Yes, thank you. I will say that, first of all,
    Burma never had a chance to process a nation building. But with
    this current moment, this is the best chance and the best
    time--I mean, the first time that I've ever seen the opening
    opportunity.
        I would like you to help and facilitate and support us by
    bringing these communities together, and in that what we really
    need is, like, you know, I look into the NUG and there is a
    potential because within the NUG there are different ministers
    who already has taken the stand on the universality of--
    universality of human rights as well as, like, supporting the
    Rohingya community as well.
        So we need to encourage these elements within the NUG to be
    able to go up to the level of holding such dialogs among the
    different communities and with your support.
        Of course, you know, like, we will--we will have to hold
    the NUG accountable for the human rights. We will have to hold
    the NUG accountable for the--for the Rohingya people as well.
        Make sure that Rohingya people are also included in the
    process of the NUG and the leadership. But at the same time,
    NUG needs your support to be able to get to that point.
        So I think this is our proposal to the U.S. Government is
    support the NUG but make sure that we all--we all hold the NUG
    to account for what they have to stand on the principles of
    human rights and as well as the protection of the ethnic and
    religious minorities, particularly the Rohingya people, that--
    as they are the most persecuted.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Levin. Well, I guess my time has expired, Mr. Chairman,
    so I better yield back. Thank you. Beautiful statement. Well,
    I--we'll be here to support that dialog one way or another,
    whatever is most appropriate. Thanks.
        Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you. Let me go ahead and recognize
    the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Houlahan.
        Ms. Houlahan. Hi, and thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you
    so much to everybody for your really thoughtful conversation. I
    have also had the opportunity to go to Burma more than once and
    it's a beautiful country, and I'm devastated by what's
    happening there.
        I am fortunate enough that I'm on the Foreign Affairs
    Committee, but specifically on the Asia Subcommittee and
    another one that's new that's called the Foreign Affairs
    Committee on International Development, International
    Organizations, and Global Social Impact--its global corporate
    social impact, importantly.
        And so I was hoping that I might ask the both Ambassadors
    if they could speak a little bit about the role that the U.S.
    and our allies, businesses, for-profit businesses, could have
    if we stayed in country rather than imposing sanctions.
        I'm not specifically talking about no oil, gas, those kinds
    of, you know, meanies or baddies that we've all been talking
    about but I'm talking about other businesses that may be
    helping or not negatively impacting the Burmese people
    themselves and allowing them to continue to have, potentially,
    jobs and otherwise.
        So if maybe I could start with Ambassador Tun to ask if
    there's any value at all to maintaining some aspects of our
    businesses and our allies' businesses in Burma.
        Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Houlahan. I think it's
    very difficult, you know, if we keep the--you know, the
    business as usual, then it's a benefit to the military. So my
    short answer is that do not do any business under this
    military. That is what we--we need to change their behavior. So
    if we go like this, definitely, they will be surviving. So we
    need to stop that. Thank you.
        Ms. Houlahan. And, Ambassador Currie, would you--Currie,
    would you be able to add to that? Is it your opinion that no
    business at all--all business being barred from the U.S. and
    our allies would be their best course of action?
        Ms. Currie. I think that the key is to avoid doing business
    with the military. Sorry, my dog just started barking. I do not
    know if you hear. The perils of working at home.
        But I think the key is to avoid working with the junta,
    avoid dealing with military on businesses as well as the crony
    businesses that support the military.
        Unfortunately, right now due to the situation and,
    basically, the economic collapse or the country--of the country
    under the civil disobedience movement and the work stoppages
    that are going on, there's not a whole lot of economic activity
    taking place.
        What we do need to do is try to find those mechanisms.
    There are projects that do work on small-scale income
    generation for IDP women, for instance. Those activities can
    continue and should--we should continue to lean into that sort
    of thing.
        But that's not what's going to--that's incredibly different
    from the Chevron investment in the Yadana pipeline. I'm
    thinking about things like Turquoise Mountain's work with
    Rakhine IDP weavers on--in peri-urban areas of Yangon to
    produce woven fabrics for--that then get sold into high-end----
        Ms. Houlahan. But not all of those are NGO driven. Some of
    those are actually for-profit driven.
        Ms. Currie. They are--they are joint public-private
    partnerships.
        Ms. Houlahan. Right.
        Ms. Currie. And so I think that right now, if we can look
    primarily in areas where there are joint public-private
    partnerships available and where we can ensure that companies
    are engaging, either whether in their--if they're extractive
    industries they need to be strictly adhering to EITI standards.
        If they're not in extractive industries they need to have
    very high awareness around who their partners are on the
    ground. That's the key is being able to know your partner and
    being able to have confidence that they are not feeding into
    the military.
        And also, you know, looking at things like tax revenue and
    where your tax revenue is going.
        Ms. Houlahan. Yes, exactly. And my next question--my last
    question is in a similar kind of should we stay or should we go
    line, which is in light of the coup and the very clear
    uncertainty of the future and when, if at any point, this will
    all clear up, what should the U.S. assistance to Burma look
    like in the near term?
        What should it look like as we move forward? And I would
    love to know from Ambassador Currie and Ms. Ohmar, if you would
    not mind answering that question for me.
        Ms. Currie. So I'll very quickly reiterate. In the past,
    the United States was able to push assistance into Burma
    through parallel channels and through--and through cross border
    channels that avoided the military and military-run enterprises
    and ministries.
        We can go back to that model, and we have seen this happen
    in other countries and other contexts where the government is
    not trusted or capable.
        Ms. Houlahan. Ohmar? Ms. Ohmar?
        Ms. Ohmar. I will say again, Ambassador Currie as well, I
    think what we really need is the assistance to be able to reach
    to all the most vulnerable and needy communities across the
    country.
        In light of the coup, this is why the situation is. So we
    also need, like I said in the earlier, we need your support and
    your engagement with the Thai government, for example, to help
    to--for the Thai government to agree to open the humanitarian
    aid corridors along the border areas. That goes to the Indian
    government as well.
        So if you could help us do that, then we will be able to
    save a lot of lives by all kinds of means, and our civil
    society is very resilient and also very vibrant with so much
    capacity among the--also the--among the ethnic community. So we
    will appreciate that. Thank you.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Bera. Thank you. Let me go ahead and recognize the
    gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Malinowski.
        Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much, Mr. Bera. Hello to all
    of our--all of our witnesses. I want to just start actually by
    saying a few words. I have--I have good friends on this panel,
    but particularly to Ms. Ohmar.
        Members of the committee heard a little bit about her
    story, how she was a refugee from the 1988 protest movement
    against the military government.
        You all should know that she was actually one of the first,
    I think, three or four Burmese refugees to come to the United
    States at that time, and I know because I was there and knew
    her as a slightly younger woman, college student at Simon's
    Rock College up in upState New York.
        And I saw you grow from those young confusing days into a
    leader and a leader in what turned out to be a multi-decades
    struggle to return democracy to Burma.
        You mentioned you testified to Congress 20 years ago, 25
    years ago, making very similar points as you are today about
    the Burmese military and, you know, I worry a little bit that
    you may feel that it was all in vain, that you're right back
    where you started. And I just want to tell you that that is not
    the case.
        Thanks to you and your generation, Burma does have a civil
    society now. It had 10 years of not true democracy but relative
    freedom, during which people had a chance to begin to have
    these kinds of conversations.
        Thanks to you and your generation, there is a younger
    generation in Burma now who really understands what it means to
    exercise the responsibilities of democratic citizenship.
        And we have heard in this hearing just how extraordinary
    this movement is. It's completely different from what we saw in
    past Burmese democratic uprisings in its sophistication, its
    level of organization, its determination, its skill, and that
    is the product of the work that you and many others did over
    the years.
        I believe the military has much less legitimacy today. Back
    in the 1990's when we were working on this for the first time,
    all the nations of Asia, basically, dealt with the military
    junta as the government of Burma that had always been the
    government of Burma. That's a little bit different right now.
        You know, we heard from Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun today and
    everyone should remember he is speaking to us as the Permanent
    Representative of the country of Burma to the United Nations,
    recognized by the United Nations.
        He's not speaking for some exile government or some
    nongovernmental group. He is the recognized representative of
    his country, and that complicates matters for the Burmese
    military junta in a very, very serious way.
        And I also think that although the U.S. has always been on
    the side of the Burmese people, this is now a much higher
    priority for the U.S. Government than it ever has been.
        I think the Biden Administration's response--there's more
    that can be done and we have heard great ideas here. But I
    think it has been exemplary in the first two or 3 months of
    this administration, from the freezing of over a billion
    dollars of funds held by this junta in the American financial
    system, to, I think, a very sophisticated sanctions policy that
    we have seen unfold, and I expect more to come.
        So you should feel a sense of accomplishment, as terrible
    as the situation is today.
        A couple of quick questions. Ambassador Currie, you gave us
    a really interesting and, I think, insightful assessment of
    China's complicated role, more complicated than some might
    imagine, based on just the fact that China, ideologically, is
    not going to be in favor of democracy in Burma.
        We have heard a little bit less in this hearing about
    Russia, which seems to me actually at the United Nations to be
    a much more unvarnished supporter of the Burmese junta. There's
    a military-to-military relationship. Could you say a little bit
    more about that?
        Ms. Currie. Sure. Russia is primarily the arms dealer for
    the Tatmadaw and they have no bones about it and they, as you
    said, have been more unvarnished in their willingness to accept
    the coup just as they were--you know, just as they are
    unvarnished in their support for Assad in Syria.
        They are completely amoral about all of this and they do
    not care. They do not care about democracy and they, certainly,
    do not care about any of that, the human rights considerations
    here. They will--they like their client.
        That said, if they are--if they lose China in resistance to
    U.N. Security Council action, I find it hard to see them acting
    alone on this. This isn't Syria.
        They do not have as much strategic input in Burma. It's
    much more transactional for them and just an opportunity to be
    chaos agents, in my opinion. And I think that if we can move
    China to abstain, then Russia will follow them.
        Mr. Malinowski. Great. Thank you so much. I yield back.
        Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you. I see Ms. Manning's camera, but
    I do not see Ms. Manning. So let's go to the gentleman from
    California, Mr. Vargas, and then we'll come back to Ms.
    Manning.
        Mr. Vargas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank
    the committee for holding this hearing and especially the
    witnesses today. Since I guess I'm not last but almost last,
    I've been privileged to hear most of the discussion here and
    many of the questions that I had have been answered.
        I do want to comment, however, that I, too, have great
    concern over the Rohingya and the situation that they face
    outside of the country and inside the country, and hope that
    they will be respected and cared for and I look forward to that
    happening.
        I do have one question that I thought Mr. Malinowski was
    going to followup on and that is China, and we have heard quite
    a bit about it.
        But I'm surprised that they're not meddling more in this
    situation, not only because, obviously, it's on the border but,
    as Mr. Wilson very appropriately and proudly mentioned, and his
    father was a Flying Tiger, the United States has a very long
    history with Burma, a very proud history, and that's why I
    would think that the Chinese would want to meddle more in the
    situation in Myanmar.
        But they haven't. Why is that? Ambassador Currie, why do
    not you handle that one?
        Ms. Currie. Well, I think that--I think they're meddling a
    lot, actually. I think they're trying to shore up their own
    interest, which is what they do best in these situations, from
    their own perspective.
        But their interests are very narrowly cast and so they are
    doing things that are not helping them, and when they have
    taken an action in one way or the other, it has set off
    protests against them and put them in uncomfortable positions.
        I think they are in an uncomfortable position and they're
    not quite sure what to do because this has gone on and has
    unfolded in a way that they're not really comfortable with.
        I think the thing that makes them probably most
    uncomfortable is the way that the protesters in Burma have
    linked up with protesters across the region, several of whom
    also are agitating against the Chinese, whether it's the
    Chinese Communist Party, whether it's the ones in Taiwan or the
    protesters in Hong Kong as part of the Milk Tea Alliance.
        But I think that has really got them off balance. I think
    they, frankly, are a little off balance. They've resorted to
    their usual tools but they aren't working very well.
        Mr. Vargas. But I guess I would ask that--or comment that
    the Chinese oftentimes are uncomfortable and they seem to act
    anyway, and I see them with their Belt and Road acting in
    places where it's uncomfortable but they continue to act. And
    that's why the off balance sort of catches me off balance.
        I do not understand why they aren't more active here. I
    mean, it's right on there--obviously, it's on their border. You
    would think that they'd be much more engaged.
        Ms. Currie. Their preference is to see what happens and
    then deal with whoever comes out on top, and because nobody is
    on top right now and there's not a clear outcome, I think that
    they are continuing to hold that.
        And by keeping things like Security Council deliberations
    private and not holding them in the public eye more, we're
    allowing them space to continue to hold back and withhold
    until--and not have to put their chips on a number, that they
    can kind of keep their cards close to the vest. I'm sorry, I'm
    mixing gambling metaphors.
        Mr. Vargas. That's OK. But I do not--I do not understand
    why they do not want to force or influence who comes out on
    top. I mean, you mentioned they're going to sit back and wait.
    You would think that they would be more involved in pushing to
    see who does come out on top.
        Ms. Currie. I think they're outcome neutral here, actually.
    I mean, they just want an outcome. That's what they want. They
    want somebody to deal with that they can make deals with.
        Mr. Vargas. Okay.
        Ms. Currie. And they do not really care who it is because
    they've found over the past 5 years that they can deal with the
    NLD just fine. They have no problem manipulating the NLD and
    cutting deals with them.
        It worked out great for them the past 5 years, in fact,
    better than dealing with the junta because they had more
    legitimacy because they were dealing with a more legitimate
    government. So they would rather just wait and see and not be
    forced to make a choice. That's their preference.
        Mr. Vargas. Okay. I heard today and I've read, of course,
    about the potential 2 million people that have food insecurity.
    I have to tell you, I have great faith in the United Nations
    World Food Programme and, in particular, the leader there--the
    new leader that they've had for a few years, David Beasley.
        I always tell him if he was Catholic, we'd make him a
    saint. But I think he's done great things around the world.
    He's worked very hard. And, again, how can we help and how can
    the United Nations World Food Programme help more? Maybe tie it
    in with what we should do helping people with Taiwan because I
    know Taiwan also has, obviously, a lot of opportunity to help
    and has not really done much.
        Senator Currie? I mean--Senator Currie--Ambassador Currie?
        Ms. Currie. Thanks for the promotion, but I'll stick with
    Ambassador.
        Mr. Vargas. I'm not sure--yes, I'm not sure it is.
        Ms. Currie. All right. I'm a House girl. I've worked on the
    House side. So I hear you.
        I would say that, you know, the WFP does do amazing work
    and David Beasley is a wonderful leader there. But I think that
    the key is to give the U.N. agencies the flexibility to do more
    cross border.
        Again, I'm, like, a one-trick pony here--cross border,
    cross border, cross border, parallel systems. Allow them--you
    know, encourage and allow them to go around the blockages with
    the government or with the--I'm sorry, with the--with the junta
    that would keep the assistance from getting directly to the
    people who need it and the most vulnerable people in the
    country.
        Mr. Vargas. Okay, thank you very much. I have 23 seconds
    left, so I will not force a question upon anyone, that I just,
    again, want to thank everyone for being here. Appreciate it,
    and hopefully we can be more involved.
        But it's also a little tricky for us too because we do
    believe in the human rights aspect so deeply, and it's
    troubling, the former government.
        But anyway, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you, and I still see Ms. Manning's
    camera but do not see Representative Manning.
        So let me go over to--recognize the gentleman from
    Illinois, Representative Schneider, and I'll be passing the
    gavel off to the vice Chair of the full committee, Mr.
    Malinowski. Thank you.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Chairman Bera and Vice Chairman
    Malinowski, and I want to thank all the witnesses for sharing
    your perspectives today. So it's good to be here and I have
    what may or may not be the final question.
        But, you know, speaking of perspective, one of the things
    that has always struck me I like looking at maps in different
    ways, and if you look at the map of the Indian Ocean as the
    center of the map rather than the Atlantic Ocean, it's very
    clear to see the importance of Burma.
        It's wedged between China and India. It's--you know, the
    Indian Ocean, it's Africa, it's the Middle East, it's the
    Indian subcontinent, it's Australia and Indonesia. It's a
    rather important area and a lot of people have interest, and I
    know we have talked about those today.
        And maybe, Ambassador Currie, I'll start with you. But, you
    know, we have talked about China and Russia and India and their
    respective interests, but these interests intersect with each
    other and there's an interplay, and how does that affect the
    decisionmaking we should be doing in Congress and as the United
    States?
        Ms. Currie. Well, all of Burma's neighbors as well as
    countries that have an interest in it, including Japan, the
    United States, you know, we are all pursuing our own interests
    in Burma and that's to be expected.
        I think that we also have to account for the agency of the
    Burmese people here, that they're not just a pawn in our great
    game. They have agency and in the past, past Burmese
    governments have proven very good and very resilient at
    managing great power competition over and around their
    interests and playing powers off of each other, whether it's
    the U.S. and China or India or ASEAN.
        They are quite good at manipulating and the military junta,
    in particular, because they do not care about the people of the
    country except as they represent a resource for them to
    exploit.
        So they're perfectly willing to sacrifice the well-being of
    their own people in order to gain leverage with others,
    including the United States and other parties. So I think that
    we have to be mindful that this, you know, like other places is
    a--it's a complicated situation, and while we're pursuing our
    interests in this context we have to be mindful that their
    interests, their agency, people with agency on the ground, that
    this is not a tabula rasa blank slate, that nothing's going on
    there and we cannot just shape the events of this country to
    our will.
        So I think that's the first step is to really have a very
    kind of humble--and then to the extent that we can align our
    interests and our policies with what the desires and the clear
    desires of the people of the country are, we're long term going
    to be better off.
        And we saw this that even after people in the country were
    quite angry with the United States or critical or unhappy when
    we took the side--when we spoke out in favor of the Rohingya or
    to defend the Rohingya or criticize what had happened during
    the Rohingya genocide, there was still a very strong reservoir
    of support for the United States that underlied this momentary,
    you know, popular irritation.
        And so I think that there's still a strong desire for these
    things--for alignment with the United States and for what the--
    the kinds of values that we represent, that we have an enduring
    appeal in Burma that we can rely on, even though we're not a
    neighbor and cannot rely on the strategic reserves that the
    Chinese or the Indians necessarily have.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you. And if I can turn to the
    Permanent Representative, and thank you for being with us here
    today.
        You're, I imagine, having conversations with the respective
    representatives from China and Russia at the U.N. Could you
    share a little bit about those conversations and how it might
    inform, again, the decisions we're trying to make here in the
    U.S. Congress?
        Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schneider.
        Not lately but before, like, three, 4 weeks ago, when I
    talked to the Chinese Permanent Representative and he--because
    they are worried about the--you know, the perception of the
    people vis-a-vis China because the perception of people toward
    China is very negative.
        So that is what they worry because, you know, I--the
    perception, that because in the people's eyes, China's always
    with the military. But China said they are not with the
    military. They like to see the country, like, stable and the
    prosperous Myanmar.
        But what I was struck is that, you know, this is very
    important time for China to demonstrate they are with the
    people of Myanmar, not with the--with the military.
        How they can show it, they can, you know, the--condemn the
    military coup, to condemn the violent act, demand the release
    of, you know, the--all the unlawful detainees including
    leaders, and then to stop, you know, doing business with the
    military.
        That's sort of the point that I expressed. But the point
    that they always make is that they do not want to get
    misunderstood from the people of Myanmar because they like to
    show that they are with the people of Myanmar. But in the eyes
    of people of Myanmar it's very, very difficult.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you. And Ms. Ohmar, I'm sorry, we're
    out of time. I would love to hear your perspective as well. But
    with that, I will yield back.
        Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you so much.
    And I see Representative Manning is back and I will yield 5
    minutes to her and then we'll close.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the
    witnesses for all your testimony and answering so many
    questions on this very difficult topic.
        Ambassador Currie, women continue to risk their lives and
    play central roles in nonviolence to bring about a true
    democracy in Burma, even as the Burmese military uses sexual
    and gender-based violence as a weapon of war.
        How can we best support women in the movement at this time?
        Ms. Currie. The United States has a long history, going
    back to the founding of the Women's League of Burma, where I--
    and I was proud to be there with Ohmar at the first conference
    of the Women's League of Burma, quietly sitting in a corner
    crying, watching this amazing event unfold. It was so beautiful
    to see, and to see the generations that have followed and how
    they've stepped up in this movement has been tremendous.
        At the same time, the dark side of it is the stories that I
    hear, the messages I get about young women taking Plan B birth
    control pills with them when they go out to protest because
    they fear being raped by the military. You know, just these
    heartbreaking stories of sexual assault and abuse and sexual
    violence.
        Because this is a, you know, pathology that is highly
    present within the Tatmadaw, and I think that the key is to
    work with the U.N. agencies that actually do work.
        There are a few parts of the U.N. that actually function
    well. One is the Office of Pramila Patten, who's the SG's
    Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict,
    and she is fantastic and does amazing work.
        She has an MOU with the government on this issue that came
    out of the Rohingya crisis that can now be more broadly
    applied, and to also continue to support the investigative
    mechanisms and the other accountability mechanisms and make
    sure that we're holding people accountable and that we are
    sanctioning individuals who are involved in sexual violence
    when we get information about that.
        I think that that's a critical thing that we can do. We
    have done that in other contexts where we have specifically
    sanctioned in South Sudan, for instance, individuals for sexual
    violence.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you. Some of those details are just
    horrific. But thank you for those--for your answer.
        Ms. Ohmar--and thank you for being with us today--what more
    can the U.S. and the international community do to ensure the
    basic human rights of refugees are protected in neighboring
    countries throughout what is--what is very likely to be a
    protracted displacement and what are some of your concerns with
    respect to the treatment of refugees in the border regions?
        Ms. Ohmar. Thank you very much for your question, Madam
    Congresswoman. The very needs at the moment is, as I was also
    mentioning earlier, we really need the Thai government to open
    their border but also allowing the humanitarian agencies to
    operate, because right now, I mean, the Thailand government has
    already said, you know, like, best examples are in the previous
    times for the people fleeing from Burma, and I think we need to
    get their support again.
        And I really hope that the U.S. Government and also the
    Congress will actually convince the Thai government that they
    are--this is also their--in their best interest to protect the
    people of Burma, as well as also, you know, like, to show their
    humanity side of the country, because Thai civil society has
    always been supporting our people and Thai government in the
    past has always been supporting, too, but only now that we are
    having some difficult times.
        So if you could actually get the Thai government on board
    for the humanitarian assistance to the refugees, not only those
    who are fleeing right now but also those who remain in the
    refugee camps who do not have--you know, who are surviving in
    the very minimum--minimum needs at the moment.
        And that we really need the cross border aid because many
    people in the ethnic revolutionary-controlled areas they really
    need their support and only through the cross border that we
    will be able to help them and get their needs reached to them.
    So thank you very much if you could take that. Yes.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you. Let me ask one last quick question.
    Do you expect that this COVID-19 pandemic will add a
    complicating factor to get the Thai people to assist?
        Ms. Ohmar. This is one of the very worry, locally,
    definitely. But also, this is also--I think this is also--
    COVID-19 can be the entry point for the Thai society, Thai
    communities, to feel confidence if the U.S. will, for example,
    like, support the Thai government with the COVID-19 vaccines,
    for example.
        And they need it so much. They need it so much. They are
    very worried or not willing to open the door to the Myanmar
    people, Burma people, leaving is because they worry about their
    own situation. So if you will actually support to the Thai
    government with the COVID-19 vaccines and other necessary--
    like, including the--like, you know, like, including the
    quarantine, testing, and monitoring and all of those other
    necessary elements of what is needed to be for the COVID-19
    situation, I think there is a very good chance that the U.S.--I
    mean, sorry, the Thai communities will come back to welcome the
    Burma people, will also--I think the Thai government will also
    come back to take the--take the--take back the--you know, the
    people like they have done all along in the past. Thank you.
        Ms. Manning. Thanks so much. My time has expired. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much, Representative Manning,
    and to all of our Members and, of course, most of all, to our
    distinguished witnesses, Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun, Ambassador
    Kelley Currie, and our friend, Ms. Khin Ohmar.
        I know the Chairman would also want me to recognize our
    friend and colleague, the Ranking Member of the committee, Mr.
    McCaul, for his partnership and in helping to put this hearing
    together, and in all of our bipartisan work together on the
    Foreign Affairs Committee.
        The situation in Burma is going to demand America's
    attention and this committee's attention for some time to come.
    This is not a challenge that the United States can meet alone.
        But I think it's important for all of us to remember that
    the United States has a unique historical relationship with
    Burma and with the people of Burma, having led the
    international effort for decades to bring Burma closer to
    democracy.
        We cannot do it alone, but there is--there is about zero
    chance that ASEAN or the United Nations or our allies in Europe
    or any other international body or institution would be doing
    the things that they are doing right now to help the Burmese
    people if not for intensive American engagement and leadership
    today and in the many years that have preceded this moment.
        That's going to demand continued oversight for this--from
    this committee as we figure out the best ways, the most
    effective ways, to stand with the Burmese people, and
    recognizing as well that how we respond to the crisis of
    democracy in Burma is going to be a test of how the United
    States responds to the crisis of democracy throughout the
    world, a test that we absolutely have to pass here and more
    broadly.
        So with that, thank you once again to all of the Members,
    to our distinguished witnesses, and this hearing is now
    adjourned. Striking the gavel.
        [Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]