[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 211 (Friday, December 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S19306-S19308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. D'Amato, and Mr. 
        Leahy):
  S. 1511. A bill to impose sanctions on Burma; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


              The Burma Freedom and Democracy Act of 1995

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Moynihan, 
D'Amato, and Leahy to introduce the Burma Freedom And Democracy Act of 
1995.
  Early in December, prospects for democracy in Burma took a turn for 
the 

[[Page S19307]]
worse. In a remarkable act of courage, Aung San Suu Kyi and her 
colleagues in the National League for Democracy decided not to 
participate in the National Convention orchestrated by the State Law 
and Order Restoration Council. In announcing her decision she said, ``A 
country which is drawing up a constitution that will decide the future 
of the state should have the confidence of the people.'' This is a 
standard that SLORC cannot meet.
  Burma is not one step closer to democracy today than it was in the 
immediate aftermath of the crackdown in 1988. Indeed, in Aung San Suu 
Kyi's own words, ``I have been released, that is all.''
  In fact, the situation continues to deteriorate. A recent report 
filed by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Burma, Dr. Yokota, is a fresh, 
sharp reminder of the level of despair and the brutality suffered by 
the people of Burma at the hands of SLORC.
  In lengthy remarks on December 8, I reviewed for my colleagues in 
detail the Yokota report. Let me take a moment to briefly review its 
most recent conclusions.
  Virtually no improvements have occurred since the spring report of 
the Special Rapporteur. Dr. Yokota reported that the National 
Convention ``is not heading towards restoration of democracy'' and 
criticized SLORC for not affording him the opportunity to meet with 
convention participants free from SLORC supervision.
  But, those criticisms were mild compared to his determinations with 
regard to human rights and the quality of life for the average Burmese 
citizen.
  A complex array of security laws are used to harass, intimidate, and 
afford SLORC soldiers sweeping powers of arrest and detention. He 
charged the military with carrying out arbitrary killings, rape, 
torture, forced porterage, forced labor, forced relocations, and 
confiscation of private property. He substantiated many refugee claims 
that this pattern of abuse continues most frequently ``in border areas 
where the Army is engaged military operations or where regional 
development projects are taking place.'' He added, ``many of the 
victims of such atrocious acts belong to ethnic national populations, 
especially women, peasants, daily wage earners and other peaceful 
civilians who do not have enough money to avoid mistreatment by 
bribing.''
  If anyone had any doubts about the ruthless nature of the SLORC 
regime, I encourage them to take a few minutes to read this report.
  SLORC has now turned its attention to the rising influence of Suu Kyi 
and her supporters. SLORC has cynically used the fact of her release to 
attempt to demonstrate they are relaxing their grip on power. 
Unfortunately, it is a sadistic charade.
  Although Suu Kyi has repeatedly called for a dialog to reconcile the 
nation, SLORC has rejected every attempt to include her or the NLD in a 
credible political process. Last week Suu Kyi was personally attacked 
in the official newspapers as a ``traitor'' who should be 
``annihilated.'' When the NLD announced they would not participate in 
the National Convention, senior officials woke up to find their homes 
surrounded by soldiers and their movements shadowed by military thugs.
  In response to this assault on democracy and democratic activities, 
members of the business community have made two arguments. First, the 
allegations are exaggerations of the conditions. And, second, trade, 
investment, and economic improvements will yield political progress 
just as it has in China and Vietnam.
  Mr. President, I urge the business community to read Dr. Yokota's 
recent report and then consider an important difference in Burma. In 
1990 elections were held and the nation spoke with a strong voice. Suu 
Kyi's National League for Democracy swept the elections only to find 
the results brutally rejected by SLORC. We cannot pretend those 
elections did not occur. We cannot turn our back on the legitimate 
Government of Burma. We should not trade democracy for dollars in the 
pockets of a few companies interested in investing in Burma.
  Suu Kyi has been absolutely clear. She will welcome foreign 
investment in her country just as soon as it makes real progress toward 
democracy.
  The United States must take the lead in supporting not only her 
courage but her objective which is nothing short of Burma's liberty. It 
is clear U.N. Ambassador Albright understands the importance of our 
role and the responsibilities of United States leadership in securing 
democracy for Burma. In responding to the U.N. Rapporteur's report and 
the subsequent General Assembly resolution she spelled out the 
alternatives for SLORC: They must--there must be prompt and meaningful 
progress in political reforms including a transition to an elected 
Government or Burma will face further international isolation.
  Mr. President, I agree with the Ambassador's conclusions. However, it 
is a position that the administration has expressed for more than a 
year. My definition of prompt differs from the administration's 
timetable. SLORC has had ample time and opportunity to demonstrate 
their intent to in effect return to the barracks and leave the 
governing of the country to democratically elected civilians. Burma 
waited for decades to vote for the National League for Democracy. They 
have waited for the past five years to benefit from the results of that 
election. Burma has waited for its freedom long enough.

  In past statements of Burma I have devoted a good deal of my remarks 
to why a country so far away should matter to anyone here in the United 
States. It is not just a matter of upholding the principles of 
democracy and free markets--principles that define our history and 
national conscience. But, for many, those are ideals that are difficult 
to transplant--it is difficult to see why we should apply sanctions to 
further that cause.
  The reason it is in our direct interest to secure democracy in Burma 
relates to the surge in narcotics trafficking afflicting every 
community in this Nation. Burma is the source of more than 60 percent 
of the heroin coming into the United States. As the Assistant Secretary 
of State for Asian Affairs has testified, until there is a 
democratically elected government in Rangoon, committed to a similar 
set of values, we will not see the active cooperation necessary to 
bring a real halt to this problem. We may see episodic efforts 
designed--like Suu Kyi's release--to influence our perceptions of 
SLORC's intentions. But, we will not see a serious effort to eradicate 
opium production unless we can work with a government dedicated to our 
common agenda.
  The credibility of a counternarcotics program directly relates to the 
credibility of the government.
  Let me conclude by thanking Senators Moynihan, Leahy, and D'Amato for 
joining me in this legislation. I appreciate my colleague on the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations joining me in this important effort. 
I understand the Parliamentarian has decided that this will be referred 
to the Banking Committee, so I am grateful for the cosponsorship of the 
chairman, Senator D'Amato.
  But, I want to take a moment to single out Senator Moynihan and his 
long standing commitment to Suu Kyi's safe return to public life. When 
we were members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1992 
Senator Moynihan and I worked together to establish conditions which 
must be met prior to our dispatching a U.S. Ambassador to Burma. Then 
as now, he has been articulate champion for a noble cause.
 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky and I 
join together to propose a modest measure in response to a continued 
pattern of egregious abuses of power by the Burmese military junta, the 
State Law and Order Restoration Council [SLORC]. The members of SLORC 
have worked to thwart democracy at every turn. They continue to be 
implicated in drug trafficking, and they continue to abuse the people 
of Burma in a manner that can only be characterized as inhuman.
  This bill makes clear our intention that such a regime will no longer 
enjoy investments from the United States. Investments which so often 
supported--knowingly or unknowingly--its totalitarian and abusive rule. 
The bill also codifies our intention to withhold our support for loans 
to Burma from international financial institutions, to prevent direct 
assistance to the SLORC, and to exclude the members of SLORC from the 
United States.

[[Page S19308]]

  In 1988 the Burmese people took to the streets of Rangoon, to 
demand democracy for their country. Sadly, government forces turned 
peaceful protests into violent tragedy. In September of that year, 
thousands of unarmed demonstrators were killed by government troops.

  Since then, the SLORC has earned its reputation as one of the worst 
violators of human rights in the world. The Department of State and 
numerous human rights organizations document this. The SLORC maintains 
power through violence and intimidation. In effect, the military junta 
has waged war against its own people. But the will of the Burmese 
people cannot be squelched. As they continue their fight for democracy, 
support from the international community remains steadfast.
  The SLORC came to power through violence, but it must have cynically 
imagined that a rigged election would be the answer to its untenable 
political situation, and one was scheduled for May 1990. The National 
League for Democracy [NLD] party, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won that 
election while she was under house arrest. Yet the SLORC has never 
allowed the elected leaders of Burma to take office. Instead it has 
forced these leaders to flee their country to escape arrest and death.
  The U.S. Senate has spoken often in support of those brave Burmese 
democracy leaders. We have withheld aid and weapons to the military 
regime, and have provided some--albeit modest amounts--of assistance to 
the Burmese refugees who have fled the ruthless SLORC. Pro-democracy 
demonstrators were particularly vulnerable, yet having fled the country 
they found themselves denied political asylum by Western governments. 
In 1989, Senator Kennedy and I rose in support of the demonstrators and 
won passage of an amendment to the Immigration Act of 1990 requiring 
the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to define clearly the 
immigration policy of the United States toward Burmese pro-democracy 
demonstrators. Congress acted again on the Customs and Trade Act of 
1990 to adopt a provision I introduced requiring the President to 
impose appropriate economic sanctions on Burma. The Bush administration 
utilized this provision to sanction Burmese textiles. Unfortunately, 
these powers have never been exercised by the current administration.
  The Senate continued to press for stronger actions. On March 12, 
1992, the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously voted to adopt a 
report which Senator McConnell and I submitted detailing specific 
actions that should be taken before the nomination of a United States 
Ambassador to Burma would be considered by the Senate.
  Last year, the State Department authorization act for 1994-1995 
contained a provision I introduced placing Burma on the list of 
international outlaw states such as Libya, North Korea, and Iraq. Let 
us be clear: The U.S. Congress considers the SLORC regime to be one of 
the very worst in the world. The Senate also unanimously adopted S. 234 
on July 15, 1994, calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and for 
increased international pressure on the SLORC to achieve the transfer 
of power to the winners of the 1990 Democratic election.
  After 6 years of unjust detention by the Burmese military, Nobel 
Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was released on July 10, 1995. 
While this was cause for celebration and great relief for those of us 
who have long called for her release, one cannot fail to stress that 
there is also great outrage that she was incarcerated in the first 
instance.
  The struggle in Burma is not over. The SLORC continues to wage war 
against its own people. Illegal heroin continues to be produced with 
the junta's complicity. And the SLORC continues to thwart the transfer 
to democracy in Burma. The New York Times writes appropriately in an 
editorial:

       The end of Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi's detention must be 
     followed by other steps toward democracy before Myanmar is 
     deemed eligible for loans from multilateral institutions or 
     closer ties with the United States. It is too soon to welcome 
     Yangon back into the democratic community.

  Too soon indeed.
                                 ______