[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 16, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9440-S9448]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BURMESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the hour
of 10 a.m. having arrived, the Senate will proceed to the consideration
of H.R. 2330, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2330) to sanction the ruling Burmese military
junta, to strengthen Burma's democratic forces and support
and recognize the National League of Democracy as the
legitimate representative of the Burmese people, and for
other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). There is 1 hour
of debate equally divided in the usual form with no amendments to the
bill.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Burma
sanctions bill. This bill is the result of a collaborative effort
between Senators McConnell, Grassley and myself.
When first introduced, the bill would have imposed sanctions without
an opportunity for congressional review. I was concerned that Congress
would simply pass a bill, and then forget about Burma.
I think that is the wrong approach when it comes to sanctions.
Senator Grassley and I worked hard to ensure that Congress would have
the opportunity to revisit this issue every year. The House went even
further, by requiring an annual vote, plus a 3-year sunset.
Now, make no mistake about it, the actions by the dictatorship in
Burma are unacceptable. The arrests and treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi
are deplorable and cannot be tolerated.
Yet as is so often the case when we debate the merits of
international sanctions, the question is not whether to punish Burma's
ruling regime; the question is how to do so effectively.
We have learned through our own experiences that unilateral sanctions
simply don't work. They rarely destabilize the oppressive regime that
is the target of the sanctions. Instead, they only hurt the people--
both in the target country and even here in the United States.
Unfortunately, we have also seen how, once a sanctions policy is in
place, it is very difficult--no matter how ineffective the policy is,
to terminate it and find a better solution.
So, how do we deal with this dilemma?
The answer is found in a simple appeal to common sense.
First, we must actively seek the cooperation of our allies.
Multilateral action is essential if the policy is to be effective.
Second, we must give ourselves a chance to review and revise the policy
if it isn't working.
That is what this bill does with Burma. It imposes sanctions. It also
encourages the president to work with our allies in the region to build
a collective response. And I understand our allies are considering
sanctions.
This bill also requires Congress to revisit the issue every year. If
the policy is working, then we can renew it. But if it isn't working,
then we can terminate it and try a new policy. This legislation will
keep the dictatorship's feet to the fire. It will create regular
incentives for them to change.
It is just this sort of common-sense approach that is needed with
other U.S. sanctions, particularly against Cuba.
By any honest assessment, our embargo against Cuba--now in its fifth
decade--is a total failure. The U.S. is alone in pursuing this failed
policy, yet politics prevents us from reassessing it.
Thus, the Cuban embargo has become institutionalized. And the fight
to end the embargo, even though ending it makes so much sense, has
become a difficult, uphill battle.
We do not want that to happen to the Burma sanctions. We want the
people of Burma to enjoy true democracy and freedom. And we want to
pursue the policy that will help them achieve this. So we will try
sanctions. But if they don't work, and if we are not joined by our
allies in this cause, then Congress will revisit this issue in a year.
In the coming weeks, many Members will be pressing for action to
reform Cuba sanctions. I hope that today's debate on Burma highlights
the inconsistency of our sanctions policy, and that we can apply a
common-sense approach as we move forward on other sanctions issues.
I now would like to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Iraq Intelligence
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from
Montana who as always is representing issues that make an enormous
difference to the quality of our debates here on the Senate floor but,
more important, to how our world works, both here at home and abroad. I
appreciate it very much.
Mr. President, I rise today to join in a growing expression of
concern by my colleagues and the American people about the possible
misrepresentation of intelligence information by the President and the
administration in building its case for the war in Iraq. Without a
thorough explanation of why many of the administration's statements are
in conflict, and have included claims unsubstantiated by the best
intelligence, the American people, their representatives, and many of
our would-be international partners in post-conflict Iraq, will most
certainly begin to lose confidence in the administration's word.
Simply, the Nation's credibility, in my view, is at stake.
That credibility is vital as we approach burden-sharing efforts in
the reconstruction and democratization of Iraq, the projected cost of
which grows each and every day.
There were reports again this morning that another American soldier
lost his life in that reconstruction and democratization effort. All
told, in New Jersey there have been seven men and women who have lost
their lives in Iraq. We are paying a serious toll, not only in terms of
financial expense, as recently reported, but, most importantly, in the
life and blood of our brave soldiers.
A thorough public review is necessary, in my view, if we are to
reestablish the United States' credibility. And once all the facts come
to light, we need to hold those responsible accountable. Our leaders
need to promptly admit and correct all misstatements, exaggerations,
and overreaching interpretations.
On the White House Web site, the pages that relate to the conflict of
Iraq are titled ``Denial and Deception.'' The American people can only
hope that is not a moniker for the administration's presentation of its
case for the war in Iraq.
As we are now all well aware, in this year's State of the Union
Address President Bush said:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa.
The power of the President's allegations in those 16 short words
cannot be overstated. The Bush administration, using legalistic
language, was leading people to embrace, at least in my view, the view
that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear program. The President didn't
say the British were claiming anything. He didn't say they alleged
anything. He said they ``learned'' that Saddam was attempting to buy
uranium, implicitly accepting the charge as fact.
Although just 16 words long, it was a powerful statement that
resonated in the context of debates that had gone on throughout the
Nation and the world. Only much later did we the people and the
Congress learn this statement was based on information that our own
intelligence agency earlier learned was false.
[[Page S9441]]
Yesterday morning, Senator Levin, the distinguished ranking member of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, laid out seven questions about
claims regarding Iraq and the uranium. Senator Levin argued these
should be answered in the context of a bipartisan investigation. I
believe that is true, and I could not agree more.
This is not just a concern about the African uranium issue. It is
about whether there was a fair and full presentation to the American
people. But to the list of the seven questions, I would add an eighth.
If the information in the State of the Union Address was technically
accurate, as administration officials have lately argued, why was it
excluded in Secretary Powell's 90-minute presentation before the United
Nations only 8 days later? Why was the intelligence on alleged Iraqi
uranium purchases good enough for the State of the Union Address, a 1-
hour speech addressing a variety of issues besides Iraq, but not good
enough for a U.N. speech laying out the complete case against Iraq in
painstaking detail 1 week later?
I would add a ninth question to Senator Levin's list. Why did we
learn about the misleading nature of these comments in the State of the
Union, not from the administration, but from the International Atomic
Energy Agency and the media? If there is no good explanation for the
administration's delay in correcting the error, it is hard to escape
the conclusion this was not just a series of blunders. Was it a
strategy for winning an argument? What was it about? Was there a
coverup involved? I think those questions need to be asked.
This is not an academic matter. At stake is nothing less than the
credibility of the United States, and that is important for protecting
the American people. That credibility gets weakened each day the
administration fails to provide a complete and candid explanation of
what happened. Who knew? When did they know it? Why did they wait until
now to break the conspiracy of silence?
Keep in mind, political leaders around the world, not just here at
home, have staked their own reputations on their support of President
Bush and the United States. As a consequence, many of our closest
allies and their elected officials are facing enormous criticism from
their own citizens, and sometimes--and this is quite telling--from
their own political parties. We owe it not only to the American people
but to all those who stood with us to be straight and to come clean
immediately. Otherwise, this episode will only undermine our ability to
win support for other critical foreign policy interests in the future,
and they are substantial. In fact, without a clear explanation or an
admission of fault, we put the American people at risk facing a world
where our partners question our credibility on all issues--Iran and
Syria, North Korea.
The problem is especially troubling when viewed in the context of a
broader pattern of selective information provided by the
administration. Last October, for example, during the Iraqi debate--
this is one that is particularly troubling to me--Secretary James Kelly
was in Pyongyang, meeting with the North Koreans. At that meeting, a
meeting that occurred a full week prior to the Senate vote on the
resolution authorizing force in Iraq, the North Koreans admitted to an
active nuclear program. Yet despite its importance and relevance to the
debate regarding Iraq and America's national security posture
generally, the administration waited until after the Congress had voted
on the resolution to authorize the use of force before revealing the
details of the North Korean disclosure.
To this Senator, that information was both relevant and timely to the
Iraqi debate. Apparently, because it might affect the tenor of the
debate, the information was withheld from the full Congress until after
the vote.
What are our priorities? Where were the dangers and how do we frame
this issue, particularly as it relates to the security of the people of
the United States? I ask, where is and where was the greater risk to
the American people?
As Senator Levin and others have explained, there were many other
instances in which the administration selectively, in some form or
another, misrepresented or withheld information to support their case
for the war in Iraq.
For example, the administration claimed there were linkages between
al-Qaida and Iraq. But those claims now seem overstated or exaggerated
and apparently were based on scant and circumstantial evidence.
Another widely discussed issue relates to Iraq's purchase of aluminum
tubes, where there was considerable debate within the intelligence
community about whether the tubes were useful as part of a nuclear
program.
When you add up these claims, it becomes clear that the
administration certainly was seeking to win an argument--not inform--
and quite obviously it worked.
As John Adams once said, ``Facts are stubborn things; and whatever
may be our wishes, or inclinations, or the dictates of our passions,
they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.''
We need to ensure that the facts come out. We should do it on a
bipartisan basis, and we should do it immediately. The safety and
security of the American people are at stake.
We need to hold accountable not only those responsible for providing
misleading intelligence but also those responsible for preventing the
facts from coming out. The credibility of this President and the future
credibility of the United States are at stake. I hope we can deal with
this in an expeditious and clear manner. Hopefully, this in turn will
set us on a course where we can share the burdens not only in Iraq but
of protecting the American people around the globe in the days and
years ahead.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senate is going to do something
important later this morning; that is, send a message to Burma that we
don't intend to do business with them any longer. In addition to that,
this Freedom and Democracy Act, which will pass the Senate later this
morning and go down to the President for signature, will guarantee that
we have another debate in each of the next 3 years very similar to the
MFN China issue with which we are all familiar where the issue came
back before the Senate with an expedited procedure once a year.
This is not the last time we will be dealing with the Burmese Freedom
and Democracy Act, and certainly it will not be the last time we deal
with Burma until the legitimately elected leader of that country is not
only out of prison but in power.
I thank my colleagues in both the Senate and House for acting quickly
on the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. The 418-2 vote in the
House yesterday complements the 97-1 vote we had on a very similar bill
in the Senate on June 11.
The message from the United States Congress to the world could not be
more clear--the assault on freedom in Burma will not stand.
With the cooperation and support of my colleagues in the Senate, the
Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act will shortly be on its way to the
White House for signature by the President.
When the people of Burma needed support in their struggle for
freedom, America acted--and acted decisively.
Unfortunately, there has been no change in the situation in Burma
since this measure was first introduced.
It is an outrage and a violation of human decency that democracy
leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other democrats continue to be held by
the thugs calling themselves the State Peace and Development Council
(SPDC). Instead of giving the world access to Suu Kyi, Burmese
strongman General Than Shwe has dispatched his minions to regional
capitals on a misinformation campaign laying blame for the May 30
ambush on Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy
(NLD). Few should be duped by this desperate measure, and an import ban
and other sanctions against Burma cannot come soon enough.
More must be done to support the struggle of freedom in Burma. It is
past time that neighbors--especially Thailand and China--take off their
blinders to the multitude of dangers posed by Burma to the region. We
already know that HIV/AIDS and drug use unravels the social and
economic fabric of bordering countries, and engagement with the SPDC
serves only to further perpetuate lawlessness in Burma that
[[Page S9442]]
threatens peace and stability, not just in Burma but throughout all of
southeast Asia.
The United Nations has a role to play in creating a unified front
against the regime. The Security Council should be briefed by U.N.
Special Envoy Razali Ismail on the situation in Burma, and further
action by that body should be contemplated.
However, words of condemnation are not enough. While I was pleased to
meet with Razali when he was in Washington last week, frankly, his time
is better spent in Asia shuttling between capitals and marshaling
support for the release of Suu Kyi and other democrats and for the
recognition of the results of the 1990 elections which have never been
honored. Suu Kyi and her party got 80 percent of the vote but were
never allowed to take power, and she has been under house arrest for
most of the last 3 years.
America's leadership is as important as it can possibly be. By
signing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, President Bush will
clearly signal that the United States stands by the Burmese people in
their hour of need. Our allies should take note of the import ban and
other measures contained in the act and immediately follow suit.
The only way this is going to work is on a multilateral basis. It
worked in South Africa. Generally, I am skeptical of these kinds of
import bans. But there was one conspicuous example of where it worked,
and that was in South Africa. The reason it did was because everybody
cooperated. We are calling on the international community to isolate
these thugs and not do business with them.
Change will come in Burma only if the free world has the collective
will to hold the SPDC accountable for its brutality.
Some may continue to beat the ragged drum of engagement, but dialog
is as dead as those the SPDC murdered on May 30. It is folly to think
engagement will ``encourage positive changes'' within the SPDC. This
tiger will never change its stripes. For over a decade, engagement has
been tried. While the junta has made hollow promises of
``reconciliation'' with the NLD and ethnic nationalities, general Than
Shwe has no intentions of relinquishing power on his own. He must be
pressured by the world into doing so.
It is not enough for envoys and diplomats to meet with Than Shwe's
underlings and other senior SPDC leaders in Rangoon. Than Shwe's grip
in Burma is no less than Saddam Hussein's was in Iraq. If Japan,
Thailand, Indonesia, and other Southeast Asian nations are to have an
impact on the situation, they must deal directly with Burma's top thug.
Let me be clear. Than Shwe is personally responsible for the May 30
murders and subsequent injury and arrest of countless Burmese democracy
activists. He is responsible for the ongoing and systemic egregious
human rights abuses perpetuated upon the ethnic nationalities in that
country.
The fact that no outsider has seen Suu Kyi since Razali's brief
meeting in early June should be a cause for alarm.
We need to know exactly where she is being held and the state of her
physical condition. No one has time for peek-a-boo games the junta may
be interested in playing.
Suu Kyi must be immediately and unconditionally released, along with
all other democrats whose only crime is advocating democracy and the
rule of law.
With the passage of this act, our work on this issue is hardly over.
The people of Burma can count on America's continued support for the
struggle for freedom in their country. I intend to seize every
opportunity to advance this cause both in Washington and abroad.
And I know that I can count on many of my colleagues to do the same.
I particularly want to thank Senators Feinstein and McCain, who are no
less outraged than I at the horrific abuses of the SPDC and the
continued detention of Suu Kyi and other Burmese democrats. On the
House side, Congressmen Lantos, King, and Hyde were equally energetic
in responding to this crisis. Burma has no better friends than these
freedom-loving Americans.
Democracy and the rule of law will prevail in Burma. As we near this
historic vote this morning, I am reminded of the Reverend Martin Luther
King's observation that the ``arc of the moral universe is long, but it
bends toward justice.'' This morning, we must commit ourselves never to
tire in the pursuit of justice in long-suffering Burma until Suu Kyi is
free and the struggle for freedom won.
Suu Kyi has kindled the flame of freedom in the hearts and minds of
her compatriots. America must ensure that it is never extinguished.
Let me close by saying that the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act
would not have moved so swiftly through the Congress were it not for
the efforts of Senator Feinstein and particularly Senator McCain.
Senators Lugar and Biden of the Foreign Relations Committee gave this
legislation an opportunity to move quickly. They could have insisted on
it going to Foreign Relations. They did not. Senator Grassley and
Senator Baucus had very useful suggestions to make in terms of the form
of the final bill. And my colleague Senator Leahy also played an
integral part.
Over in the House, Congressmen Lantos, DeLay, Thomas, Hyde, and King
were all instrumental in securing swift passage of the act.
In terms of staff, I just want to mention my crew who were involved:
Billy Piper, my chief of staff; Brian Lewis, who is my counsel on the
Senate floor; Robert Karem; and Paul Grove, a longtime friend and
associate, who is the staff director of the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee, who has had an intense interest in this issue for a long
time.
I give special thanks and recognition to my former staffer who used
to have Paul Groves' job, Robin Cleveland, who is now Assistant OMB
Director in the Bush administration, who, 10 years ago, sparked my
interest in this whole issue. It is hard to believe it has been 10
years, but, unfortunately, not much has changed in Burma. Ten years of
the status quo is completely unacceptable. The Burmese people have a
friend in Robin Cleveland.
Finally, I thank those in the NGO community for their tireless
efforts in support of Burma. There are a lot of very committed
activists in the United States who also travel to the area who are
intensely interested in this issue and who will never give up until Suu
Kyi has an opportunity to be free not only of prison but free to assume
the power that she and her supporters earned in the free elections back
in 1990.
Mr. President, I know Senator McCain wants to speak. How much time do
I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 19 minutes 5 seconds.
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous
consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I do want to make a few further
observations related to Thailand, Burma's neighbor, and their policy
toward Burma.
When Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was in Washington last
week, we had an opportunity to discuss the situation in Burma and Thai
policy toward the repressive regime. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister
seemed to indicate that Thailand would not change its policy of
engagement with the SPDC. I know the President brought it up with him
as well because the President told me he brought the matter up with the
Thais as well when he met the Thai Prime Minister. If we look at
Thailand today, we can see the benefits of this policy they have been
following.
Drug abuse has spun wildly out of control, causing His Majesty the
King of Thailand to publicly comment on the threats to his beloved
country from narcotics trafficking and abuse. With this abuse has come
HIV/AIDS, crime and destitution.
Where do these drugs come from? Why, they come from Burma, of course.
Thailand today is home to countless innocent people seeking sanctuary
from gross human rights violations and the denial of even the most
basic of freedoms. Thailand's response has been
[[Page S9443]]
less than compassionate, with many of these men, women, and children
detained and deported back to their homeland, and others denied access
to humanitarian assistance.
Where do the refugees have to return? Why, Burma, of course.
Tensions along the Thai-Burma border have periodically spilled over
into skirmishes between Thai soldiers and those of the SPDC. Burmese
investment in armaments, including MiG aircraft purchased from Russia,
pose an immediate danger to the entire region.
What is the source of this instability? Burma.
The Thai Prime Minister should have departed the United States with a
firm understanding that protection of freedom in Burma was a top
priority for both Congress and the administration.
Unfortunately, I do not think he got the message.
I understand that on July 31 and August 1 a meeting will be held in
Bangkok between Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Burma to discuss economic
cooperation strategies. Prime Minister Shinawatra should take note of
the vote we are about to cast and reconsider hosting this meeting.
Instead of promoting economic cooperation strategies, Thailand should
be working to free Aung San Suu Kyi and other democrats being detained
by the SPDC. Democrats should help democrats during times of duress.
I will have more to say about Thailand at a later date, but we should
have a right to expect more from the Thais who have been one of our
strongest allies in that region over the years.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous
consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator McConnell for his
leadership on this issue, not only now as we are in an incredibly
critical moment in time in the history of the struggle of the Burmese
people for freedom, but for his longstanding advocacy in this noble
cause and his commitment to the security and safety of one of the
heroic figures of the 20th and 21st centuries, Aung San Suu Kyi.
Again, I thank him for not only motivating this body to rapid passage
of this legislation but to his work with the other body which has
resulted in us being able to pass it overwhelmingly today. I thank
Senator McConnell again, and I regret to say we are a long way from
seeing a resolution of this terrible unfolding, unending tragedy taking
place in Burma. I guess as a personal pique, I refuse to call it
Muanmar, which the junta have changed the name to, and we have a lot
more to do. But I believe what we are doing today, because of his
sponsorship, will send a message throughout Burma that we have not
abandoned this heroic woman, nor have we abandoned the cause of
democracy and freedom in this country of gentle people who deserve a
great deal better than the group of thugs who have been oppressing them
and repressing them for a long period of time.
It has been almost 7 weeks since Burma's military junta orchestrated
a savage attack on Burma's democrats and their leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
In response Congress acted with extraordinary speed and consensus to
send to the President's desk the bill before us banning imports from
Burma. It is imperative that he sign it immediately, as I am confident
he will.
Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese people can't wait, nor should
Burma's rulers and neighbors wait a day longer to hear the United
States speak with one voice in support of freedom in Burma.
Congressional action on this bill is nearing completion, but as the
Senator from Kentucky has said, our commitment to Burma's people will
not end until they are free. Our resolve will not weaken as long as the
junta denies the Burmese people a right to live in a nation ruled by
law, not fear, led by the elected leader whose appeal no amount of
violence can diminish and whose courage no amount of suffering can dim.
It is now time for Burma's leaders, especially the frontline states,
to join the United States and Europe in rejecting half measures and
implementing a fundamentally new approach that looks forward to Burma's
liberation rather than a mere moderation of an illegitimate regime's
rule. Southeast Asia will not be stable or secure as long as the
generals rule in Rangoon. Placing hope in a policy of reconciliation
that relies more on the junta's goodwill than on international pressure
for democratic change will do nothing to alter a status quo that
upholds tyranny.
China, India, and Thailand directly suffer the effects of regional
insecurity caused by AIDS, drugs, and refugees that flow across Burma's
borders. They also suffer the economic consequences of living next to a
bankrupt nation whose economy is controlled largely by drug lords and a
corrupt military elite. While China may not be troubled by dictatorship
in Burma, it would clearly benefit economically from having another
Asian tiger on its borders which good government and Burma's natural
wealth would make it.
Democratic India would benefit strategically and economically from a
fellow democracy in Rangoon that could expand Indian influence in
Southeast Asia and serve as a significant trading partner.
We expect more in particular from our ally Thailand which has done
little of substance to support change in Burma since the May 30
attacks. As far as I am concerned, business as usual won't cut it. We
frankly expect a democratic ally such as Thailand to do more to oppose
dictatorship in Burma, both out of principle and because of the
insecurity its misrule brings to Thailand. We will be watching for
signs of a new policy approach in Bangkok. This will be an issue in our
bilateral relationship.
We welcome Japan's announcement of suspending new assistance to Burma
as a result of the junta's crackdown. But Tokyo's existing aid programs
send a mixed signal to the democrats who were so heartened by popular
protests on their behalf in the streets of Tokyo. We would welcome the
Government of Japan's reassessment of its entire policy toward Burma.
All of us appreciated ASEAN's joint statement calling for Aung San
Suu Kyi's early release at the Phnom Penh summit, breaking with the
group's history of noninterference in each other's affairs. But friends
of ASEAN want to see it take concrete steps to prove its relevance to
security and stability in Southeast Asia.
I remind my colleagues that when ASEAN admitted Burma into ASEAN, it
was with the promise and commitment that things would improve in Burma.
No one can argue that there has been anything but retrogression and an
increase in brutality and, of course, the latest outrage in the capture
and mistreatment of their freely elected leader.
Events in Burma are testing ASEAN as never before. Burma's crisis
impacts every nation in the region, from AIDS, drugs, and refugees to
political and economic instability. Those of us who want ASEAN to
succeed expect it to play a leadership role in its own backyard and to
deliver on its promises in 1997 that membership would change Burma.
Some of us weren't convinced then and we are not convinced today. Burma
will soon be preparing to assume ASEAN's presidency in 2006. What kind
of an image does ASEAN have with Burma as its president? ASEAN's
credibility can't withstand the presidency of a rogue regime that is
unreconstructed and brutal, which has the blood of its people on its
hands and imprisons their elected leader. As long as Burma festers,
ASEAN looks either incapacitated, weak, or irrelevant.
As long as Aung San Suu Kyi remains in prison and the Burmese people
live in fear, convinced Burma's neighbors are complicit in their
suffering, the problem of Burma will be an issue in America's bilateral
relations with nations across Asia. It is time for Burma to command the
attention of the U.N. Security Council. Burma's misrule is clearly of
international importance. The council has not even formally been
briefed by Ambassador Razali Ismail since his visit over a
[[Page S9444]]
month ago to Rangoon as the Secretary General's personal
representative. The United States should demand that the Security
Council take up this issue.
As the United States, the EU, and even ASEAN have acknowledged, Burma
is an international problem. The council would be remiss to ignore it,
and even a council debate would command the attention of the generals.
It might also command some attention in Beijing, Bangkok, Tokyo, and
other capitals with the power to make a difference. It is past time for
the United States and our allies to press this issue.
I am proud that Congress, with passage of this legislation, is
speaking with one voice in support of Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese
people. The generals must know we won't let up the pressure until Burma
is free. The United States stands with the Burmese people in their
struggle for the freedom that is their birthright and which the
generals have stolen from them. We will do everything in our power to
help them take back their country.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four editorials be
printed in the Record. Two are from the Washington Post, one from the
Wall Street Journal, and the final one a comment by Jack Straw, the
foreign minister of Great Britain.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, July 14, 2003]
Stop Stalling on Burma
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is scheduled to meet with
President Bush at the White House today. Ahead of time, U.N.
officials said they expected the two men to discuss Liberia,
the Middle East and other matters. We trust that among those
other matters will be a subject about which both leaders have
claimed to be highly concerned: the crackdown on democracy
activists in Burma. The leader of that Southeast Asian
nation's democracy movement--the rightful leader of the
country, in fact--remains in captivity, and neither Mr. Bush
nor Mr. Annan has rallied to her defense as strenuously as
one would expect.
It's been a month since Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
promised prompt action to penalize the generals he referred
to as ``the thugs who run the Burmese government.'' The time
had come, he said in an op-ed article in the Wall Street
Journal, to freeze their financial assets and ban remittances
to Burma. But the administration has taken no such steps.
It's been six weeks since the junta sent 3,000 vigilantes,
armed with wooden bats and sharpened iron rods, to beat and
stab Aung San Suu Kyi's supporters as they traveled with her
in the hinterland. Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel peace laureate,
apparently escaped injury but was taken into custody and,
except for one brief interview with a U.N. envoy, has not
been heard from since. The Senate shortly thereafter approved
a measure banning imports from Burma, where the generals
control most companies, but the bill has yet to emerge from
the House. It's scheduled for action this week; the House
should vote and the president should sign the bill quickly
into law.
And the United Nations? You might think the Security
Council would have swung into action to demand freedom for
one of the world's most courageous leaders and for her
colleagues and to address the threat to regional stability
posed by the increasingly erratic junta. After all, there is
no dispute as to her legitimacy; the party she leads
overwhelmingly won an election in 1990 but has never been
permitted to take its rightful place in government. So far,
however, the chief U.N. response has been the election of
Burma--or Myanmar, as the generals call it--to the vice
presidency of the General Assembly for the session that
begins in September.
For many years now, the United Nations and the United
States have supported dialogue between Aung San Suu Kyi and
the nation's junta leading toward peaceful democratization.
She has consistently endorsed such a nonviolent process, even
during many years of house arrest. With their murderous
attack of May 30 and subsequent incarceration of her, Burma's
leaders have shown contempt for the idea, and so far they
have paid little price. The president and the secretary
general could begin to change that equation today.
____
[From the Washington Post, June 22, 2003]
Where She Is
Since Government-sponsored goons attacked Burmese democracy
leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters on a provincial
road May 30, the Nobel Peace laureate has been in confinement
and virtually cut off from the world. In editorials earlier
this month urging that Aung San Suu Kyi be freed we asked,
``Where is she?'' Now we know--and the answer could hardly be
more discouraging. According to the British Foreign Office,
the corrupt generals who rule Burma moved her from a
``guesthouse,'' where she had been held ostensibly for her
own protection, to the notorious Insein Prison, a colonial-
era monstrosity where old dog kennels have been converted to
torture cells. The disclosure of the move came on Aung San
Suu Kyi's 58th birthday--a nice touch, and well in keeping
with the usual mode of operation of Burma's ruling thugs, who
a few years back refused to allow Aung San Suu Kyi's husband
to visit her even when he was dying of cancer.
Usual methods, yes, but other governments can no longer
respond with their usual apathy. Burma is a beautiful,
resource-rich nation of 50 million people, strategically
located at the crossroads of India, China and Southeast Asia.
Its largely Buddhist population, once among the best-educated
in Asia, has fallen into poverty after a half-century of
military misrule. Thirteen years ago the generals, misreading
their subjects as dictators so often do, permitted an
election--and Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for
Democracy won more than four out of five parliamentary seats,
even through she was under house arrest at the time. The
generals nullified the election and kept the NLD leader under
house arrest for most of the succeeding decade. They put
hundreds of would-be parliamentarians and other NLD activists
in prison. They continued to run the economy into the ground,
while Burma's drug trade flourished and the generals enriched
themselves corruptly.
Last year, under international pressure, the dictators
released Aung San Suu Kyi and promised a dialogue leading
toward democracy. But once again her popularity--freedom's
popularity--seems to have surprised them. They cracked down
more brutally than before, settled back to see whether the
world cared--and so far seem to have seen little reaction
that might worry them. On June 11 the Senate, led by Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.), voted 97 to 1 to cut off imports from
Burma, which would deal a blow to the generals, who control
most of the economy. A companion House bill seemed to be
making progress late last week. The White House and Secretary
of State Colin L. Powell have issued some tough statements.
But actions of real consequence? So far, none. Southeast
Asian foreign ministers, meeting last week in Cambodia with
Mr. Powell, agreed to send a delegation to Burma no later
than October. October? While one of the world's most
courageous political leaders languishes in one of its most
infamous jails? Where are Kofi Annan and the U.N. Security
Council? Where are the executive orders that President Bush
could issue today? ``If the international community has the
political will to stand for freedom in Burma, change can come
to that beleaguered country,'' Mr. McConnell said last week.
He's right. Inside Insein Prison, and throughout the larger
prison that Burma has become, a lot rides on that ``if.''
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2003]
It's Time To Turn the Tables on Burma's Thugs
(By Colin L. Powell)
Washington.--United Nations Special Envoy Razali Ismail has
just visited Burma and was able to bring us news that Aung
San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and the leader of a
peaceful democratic party known as the National League for
Democracy, is well and unharmed. The thoughts and prayers of
free people everywhere have been with her these past two
weeks. Our fears for her current state of health are now
somewhat lessened. On May 30, her motorcade was attacked by
thugs, and then the thugs who run the Burmese government
placed her under ``protective custody.'' We can take comfort
in the fact that she is well. Unfortunately, the larger
process that Ambassador Razali and Aung San Suu Kyi have been
pursuing--to restore democracy in Burma--is failing despite
their goodwill and sincere efforts. It is time to reassess
our policy toward a military dictatorship that has repeatedly
attacked democracy and jailed its heroes.
There is little doubt on the facts. Aung San Suu Kyi's
party won an election in 1990 and since then has been denied
its place in Burmese politics. Her party has continued to
pursue a peaceful path, despite personal hardships and
lengthy periods of house arrest or imprisonment for her and
her followers. Hundreds of her supporters remain in prison,
despite some initial releases and promises by the junta to
release more. The party's offices have been closed and their
supporters persecuted. Ambassador Razali has pursued every
possible opening and worked earnestly to help Burma make a
peaceful transition to democracy. Despite initial statements
last year, the junta--which shamelessly calls itself the
State Peace and Development Council (SPDC)--has now refused
his efforts and betrayed its own promises.
At the end of last month, this rejection manifested itself
in violence. After the May 30 attack on Aung San Suu Kyi's
convoy, we sent U.S. Embassy officers to the scene to gather
information. They reported back that the attack was planned
in advance. A series of trucks followed her convoy to a
remote location, blocked it and then unloaded thugs to swarm
with fury over the cars of democracy supporters. The
attackers were brutal and organized; the victims were
peaceful and defenseless. The explanation by the Burmese
military junta of what happened doesn't hold water. The SPDC
has not made a credible report of how many people were killed
and injured. It was clear to our embassy officers that the
members of the junta were responsible for directing and
producing this staged riot.
[[Page S9445]]
We have called for a full accounting of what happened that
day. We have called for Aung Sun Suu Kyi to be released from
confinement of any kind. We have called for the release of
the other leaders of the National League for Democracy who
were jailed by the SPDC before and after the attack. We have
called for the offices of the National League for Democracy
to be allowed to reopen. We are in touch with other
governments who are concerned about the fate of democracy's
leader and the fate of democracy in Burma to encourage them,
too, to pressure the SPDC.
The Bush administration agrees with members of Congress,
including Sen. Mitch McConnell, who has been a leading
advocate of democracy in Burma, that the time has come to
turn up the pressure on the SPDC.
Here's what we've done so far. The State Department has
already extended our visa restrictions to include all
officials of an organization related to the junta--the Union
Solidarity and Development Association--and the managers of
state-run enterprises so that they and their families can be
banned as well.
The United States already uses our voice and our vote
against loans to Burma from the World Bank and other
international financial institutions. The State Department
reports honestly and frankly on crimes of the SPDC in our
reports on Human Rights, Trafficking in Persons, Drugs, and
International Religious Freedom. In all these areas, the
junta gets a failing grade. We also speak out frequently and
strongly in favor of the National League for Democracy, and
against the SPDC. I will press the case in Cambodia next week
when I meet with the leaders of Southeast Asia, despite their
traditional reticence to confront a member and neighbor of
their association, known as Asean.
Mr. McConnell has introduced the Burmese Freedom and
Democracy Act in the Senate; Reps. Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos
have introduced a similar bill in the House. We support the
goals and intent of the bills and are working with the
sponsors on an appropriate set of new steps. Those who follow
this issue will know that our support for legislation is in
fact a change in the position of this administration and
previous ones as well. Simply put, the attack on Ms. Suu
Kyi's convoy and the utter failure of the junta to accept
efforts at peaceful change cannot be the last word on the
matter. The junta that oppresses democracy inside Burma must
find that its actions will not be allowed to stand.
There are a number of measures that should now be taken,
many of them in the proposed legislation. It's time to freeze
the financial assets of the SPDC. It's time to ban
remittances to Burma so that the SPDC cannot benefit from the
foreign exchange. With legislation, we can, and should, place
restrictions on travel-related transactions that benefit the
SPDC and its supporters. We also should further limit
commerce with Burma that enriches the junta's generals. Of
course, we would need to ensure consistency with our World
Trade Organization and other international obligations. Any
legislation will need to be carefully crafted to take into
account our WTO obligations and the president's need for
waiver authority, but we should act now.
By attacking Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters, the
Burmese junta has finally and definitively rejected the
efforts of the outside world to bring Burma back into the
international community. Indeed, their refusal of the work of
Ambassador Razali and of the rights of Aung San Suu Kyi, and
her supporters could not be clearer. Our response must be
equally clear if the thugs who now rule Burma are to
understand that their failure to restore democracy will only
bring more and more pressures against them and their
supporters.
____
[From the Financial Times, June 25, 2003]
Burmese Military Brutality Cannot Be Tolerated
(By Jack Straw)
Last week was Aung San Suu Kyi's 58th birthday. What should
have been a day of quiet celebration with family and friends
for the Nobel Peace Prize winner was instead spent in
detention in a jail outside Rangoon.
The Burmese regime's claims that she is in ``protective
custody'' after her supporters clashed with opponents on May
30 lacks credibility. We know from witnesses' accounts that
thugs, armed and hired by the regime, ambushed Ms Suu Kyi and
her supporters in a premeditated attack. Dozens of civilians
were killed and injured, scores were arrested, many more are
still in hiding. The regime has closed the offices of Ms Suu
Kyi's National League for Democracy and detained party
leaders and workers across the country.
Ms Suu Kyi herself was taken away by the military
authorities. For some time, nobody knew where she was being
held, or in what conditions. Last Thursday, the Foreign
Office revealed that she was being kept in a two-room hut at
the notorious Insein jail just outside Rangoon.
We understand that Ms Suu Kyi is being held under the most
draconian legislation that the military authorities have at
their disposal--Section 10(a) of the 1975 State Protection
Law. This allows for her detention, without access to family
or lawyers, for up to five years--with no prospect of appeal.
She has been isolated from her supporters, both inside
Burma and beyond. Attempts by others, including Mike O'Brien,
a Foreign Office minister, to get in touch with Ms Suu Kyi
have been frustrated by the regime. She remains cut off and
locked up. This is wholly unacceptable.
Far from Ms Suu Kyi's being in ``protective custody'', the
only people being ``protected'' by her detention are those in
the military regime itself. They hope that by keeping her--
and the democratic movement--incarcerated they can cling on
to power. The military government, which attempts to run
Burma through fear and intimidation, is not only brutal but
also corrupt and incompetent. A once prosperous country is
being run into the ground. Poverty is rife and diseases
such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/Aids are spreading.
In stark contrast to the Burmese military junta, and to
their enduring fury, Ms Suu Kyi commands the support and
respect of the Burmese people. Ever since her party won an
election in 1990, the regime has harassed and intimidated Ms
Suu Kyi and her supporters. She has already suffered long
spells of house arrest and imprisonment.
Hundreds of her supporters are also in prison, many without
trial. Others have been blackmailed or intimidated into
giving up politics. But whenever and wherever she travels,
ordinary people still turn out in their thousands to see and
hear her. For them she is a marker of hope for a better
future.
The UK, together with our partners in the European Union,
the US and other members of the international community, are
pressing the regime to begin a process of national
reconciliation and democracy. Burma's neighbors too,
especially its fellow members of the Association of South
East Asian Nations, have been dismayed by the detention of Ms
Suu Kyi and have called publicly for her release.
We welcome this international consensus. Regrettably, the
Burmese regime shows a cynical and blatant disregard for the
views of others. It responds only to direct pressure. The EU
has therefore decided to increase sanctions against Burma.
We have already applied an arms embargo and a ban on the
sale of any items that could be used for torture or
repression, on defense links and non-humanitarian aid. High-
level contacts are also prohibited. We have already
introduced an assets freeze and the EU has suspended Burma's
trading privileges. The US has taken similar steps.
We have now agreed to take these measures further. Our ban
on Burmese ministers visiting the EU will be extended to
include senior managers of state-run enterprises and
officials from organizations linked to the government.
Further pressure will follow unless the regime moves rapidly
to restore civilian rule and democracy.
The hopes and aspirations of the Burmese people cannot be
frustrated. The spirit and justness of the democracy movement
cannot be contained by violence or prison cells. We call on
the friends of Burma, in Asia and around the world, to
redouble their efforts to help Ms Suu Kyi and the people of
Burma move toward national reconciliation, respect for human
rights and the democracy they so richly deserve.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Washington Post editorial of July 14
says:
It's been a month since Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
promised prompt action to penalize the generals he referred
to as ``the thugs who run the Burmese government.'' The time
had come, he said in an op-ed article in the Wall Street
Journal, to freeze their financial assets and ban remittances
into Burma. But the administration has taken no such steps.
It's been six weeks since the junta sent 3,000 vigilantes
armed with wooden bats and sharpened iron rods, to beat and
stab Aung San Suu Kyi's supporters as they traveled with her
in the hinterland. [She] apparently escaped injury but was
taken into custody and, except for one brief interview with a
U.N. envoy, has not been heard from since.
And the United Nations? You might think the Security
Council would have swung into action to demand freedom for
one of the world's most courageous leaders and for her
colleagues and to address the threat to regional stability
posed by the increasingly erratic junta. After all, there is
no dispute as to her legitimacy; the party she leads
overwhelmingly won an election in 1990 but has never been
permitted to take its rightful place in government. So far,
however, the chief U.S. response has been the election of
Burma--or Myanmar, as the generals call it--to the presidency
of the General Assembly for the session that begins in
September.
The Washington Post June 22, last year:
But actions of real consequences? So far, none. Southeast
Asian foreign ministers, meeting last week in Cambodia with
Mr. Powell, agreed to send a delegation to Burma no later
than October. October? While one of the world's most
courageous political leaders languishes in one of its most
infamous jails? Where are Kofi Annan and the U.N. Security
Council? Where are the executive orders that President Bush
could issue today?
I appreciate very much, and I referred to, Secretary Colin Powell's
article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on June 12 and, on
June 25, Jack Straw's article--the Foreign Secretary, as we all know,
of our close friend and ally, England. He wrote:
Last week was Aung San Suu Kyi's 58th birthday. What should
have been a day of
[[Page S9446]]
quiet celebration with family and friends for the Nobel Peace
Prize winner was instead spent in detention in a jail outside
Rangoon. . . .
Far from Ms. Suu Kyi's being in ``protective custody,'' the
only people being ``protected'' by her detention are those in
the military regime itself. They hope that by keeping her--
and the democratic movement--incarcerated they can cling on
to power. The military government, which attempts to run
Burma through fear and intimidation, is not only brutal, but
also corrupt and incompetent. A once prosperous country is
being run into the ground. Poverty is rife and diseases such
as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS are spreading.
In stark contrast in the Burmese military junta, and to
their enduring fury Ms. Suu Kyi commands the support and
respect of the Burmese people. Ever since her party won an
election in 1990, the regime has harassed and intimidated Ms.
Suu Kyi and her supporters. She has already suffered
long spells of house arrest and imprisonment.
Hundreds of her supporters are also in prison, many without
trial. Others have been blackmailed or intimidated into
giving up politics. But whenever and wherever she travels,
ordinary people still turn out in the thousands to see and
hear her. For them, she is a marker of hope for a better
future.
He concludes by saying:
The hopes and aspirations of the Burmese people cannot be
frustrated. The spirit and justness of the democracy movement
cannot be contained by violence or prison cells. We call on
the friends of Burma, in Asia and around the world, to
redouble their efforts to help Ms. Suu Kyi and the people of
Burma move toward national reconciliation, respect for human
rights, and democracy they so richly deserve.
Mr. President, we need the Security Council to debate this issue. Our
Ambassador and our Secretary of State should call for that debate. Our
administration, following the passage of this legislation, should
immediately implement Executive orders that can further put
restrictions on our relations with this gang of thugs in Burma.
Finally, there are probably people who may be viewing this action by
Congress today and the comments the Senator from Kentucky, Mr.
McConnell, and I are making and saying: You know, Burma is a small
country, far away. It is rise or fall. Its type of government has very
little impact on the United States economically, culturally,
politically, or militarily.
But I argue that that is not the case, particularly when we look at
the flow of drugs and many other things that are happening in this
country.
Why is it that these Senators are not talking about Iraq? Americans
are dying--one a day--there. There is an unfolding scandal, or mini-
scandal, about who knew what and when and why, and there is a great
politicization of that. North Korea has threatened to develop nuclear
weapons. Iraq apparently is doing that. Why isn't the Senate devoting
their attention to larger issues that far more vastly affect the U.S.
national security?
The answer is simple: This democracy movement in Burma is what
America is all about. Over 200 years ago, in a very small country, a
very small movement for independence--which was given very little
chance--took place in this country. If it had not been for the help of
other countries--particularly France--the United States may have
achieved its independence over time, but certainly not in the way that
we did.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for the majority debate has expired.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at the risk of redundancy, what is
happening in Burma is what the United States is all about--our defense
of freedom and democracy, even if it doesn't affect our national
interest. That is what makes America different.
I argue that this administration, this Congress, and the American
people will reconfirm their commitment to their freedom, democracy, and
to one of the great heroic figures in history, and that is Madam Aung
San Suu Kyi, who has the profound respect, appreciation, affection, and
admiration of all who have encountered her and many who have not.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Before the Senator leaves, I thank him for his
passionate and insightful comments about the situation in Burma. No one
has said it better. I also share his view that the U.N. ought to take
up this matter. I wish to mention to my friend from Arizona that, in
discussion with the special envoy, Mr. Razali, last week, he showed
very little enthusiasm. The reason is that China might veto it.
I wonder if the Senator shares my view that I don't care whether
China would take such an action, this needs to be discussed before the
Security Council, debated among the most important countries in the
world. Let the Chinese in public rationalize such an action if they are
inclined to do so. I wonder if my friend shares my view on that.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, yes, I think if it is China's view that
the Security Council should not take up an issue of basic fundamental
human rights and democracy and wish to veto it, that is their right as
members of the U.N. Security Council. But the fact is, that does not
relieve the United States of our obligation to bring it up.
One other aspect. Since we have met with Mr. Razali on a number of
occasions, up until our last meeting with the special envoy of the
U.N., Mr. Razali, he was generally upbeat that things would get better
in Burma, that some of the restrictions on Aung San Suu Kyi would be
relaxed, and that we should take this moderate approach. In fact, there
was even little criticism of the inclusion of Burma in ASEAN because
that would bring them into the fold. Now they are facing the
embarrassing prospect of, 2 years from now, Burma taking over the
chairmanship of ASEAN itself. That is remarkable.
So it was very interesting to me that Mr. Razali, for all intents and
purposes--from my impression of our conversation--has basically given
up on the policy of sort of appeasement, bringing along the junta so
they would become more democratic, et cetera. In fact, I think his
statements, authenticated by events, indicate that that policy has been
an abject failure.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is absolutely
correct. This policy of engagement has been a total failure. That is
part of what our bill is about today. It is to not only establish a
leadership role for the United States but to lead the world in moving
in a different direction.
The Senator from Kansas is here, and he also had a chance to meet
with Mr. Razali and has made an important contribution to this debate.
I believe we have enough time to accommodate not only Senator Brownback
but Senator Leahy as well.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President----
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have an inquiry. How much time is
available on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 11 minutes 9 seconds remaining.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will not speak long. The Senator from
Kentucky has covered this very well, as well as the Senator from
Arizona. I think it is important that the Senate take up this
resolution. It is an important time to do this and it is an important
cause.
There are two narrow issues I would like to comment on briefly
regarding the situation of the neighboring country of Thailand.
Thailand has been a strong ally of the United States for some period
of time and has worked closely with us on a number of issues in which
we have a strong interest in the region. Yet on this issue of Burma,
Thailand has not been constructive. As a matter of fact, it has put
forward a number of really quite negative comments.
The current Thai Prime Minister most distressedly has begun an
assault on Burmese exiles living as refugees on the Thai-Burma border,
which leads me to the next category on which I think we need to be
pressing.
I have been to the Thai-Burma border. The exiles, because of the
Burmese Government, have fled to the Thai border and are in refugee
camps. They are subjected to all sorts of horrific conditions--living
conditions that are not appropriate, sanitation conditions that are not
appropriate, and then they are being trafficked, as people move
through, trying to take young women and children into the sex trade
that flourishes in Thailand and other places, but particularly in
Thailand.
We have seen a rapid slave trade, trafficking in persons. Sex
trafficking is taking place because of the Burmese Government and what
they are doing,
[[Page S9447]]
and the complicity of the Thai Government of not dealing with this
situation on the border, of not condemning those in the Burmese
Government who are causing problems.
I rise in support of the bill introduced by the Senator from
Kentucky. What is happening in Burma is an extraordinary situation. It
is having huge human consequences in the region with people fleeing
from the Burmese Government and who then are being trafficked, and we
are not getting the help and support we need from a number of
countries, particularly Thailand. This seems to be propping up the
Burmese regime. This is something about which we should be very clear
to our allies cannot continue.
I rise in strong support of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of
2003. I urge its unanimous passage and world condemnation of what is
taking place by the Government of Burma.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I may briefly say before the Senator
from Kansas leaves, I thank him for having a hearing on the Burma
situation and for being exceedingly involved and knowledgeable about
this issue. I am sure he shares my view that this is going to be a long
struggle. We are going to be dealing with this issue, unfortunately,
next year when this certification process kicks in and we are back to
reviewing the Burmese Government. I hope I am wrong. I hope by this
time next year Aung San Suu Kyi is not only out of jail but in power. I
would not bet on it.
I thank the Senator from Kansas for his important contributions.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for
H.R. 2330, the Burma Sanctions bill.
It is a travesty that today, 55 years after the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and only weeks after fighting a war to liberate 24
million Iraqis, we watch the military junta in Rangoon violently and
ruthlessly suppress the rights of the Burmese people.
The bill before us, like S. 1182, will send a strong message to the
thugs running Burma that the U.S. Congress will not tolerate their
abrogation of the rule of law.
The international community needs to follow suit. This is especially
true with regard to Burma's neighbors--the countries of the ASEAN
group--and the Security Council of the United Nations.
I would like to call attention to a July 14 Washington Post editorial
that very clearly states the need for a unified, international approach
to confronting the military junta in Burma. The editorial asserts that
the United Nations must do more to push Burma toward reform and
democratization. And it draws attention to the sorry fact that Burma
has been elected to provide the vice president of the United Nation's
General Assembly for the session beginning in September 2003.
It is appalling that one of the world's most oppressive regimes has
been chosen by its neighbors for a leadership role at the United
Nations. This selection serves only to undermine the credibility of the
United Nations and the General Assembly.
I support H.R. 2330 because I am a strong advocate for human rights
and democratic governance in Southeast Asia and around the world. I
call on my colleagues to pass this bill.
I also call on administration officials to raise the military junta's
suppression of human and political rights--including the illegal arrest
of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and at least 17 officials of her
party on May 30 when they meet with their ASEAN nation counterparts.
Finally, I urge the international community to stand up to the
Burmese dictatorship. We must remain steadfast in our resolve to
restore the freedom of the Burmese people. We need to send a message to
these thugs that their brutal reign of oppression and terror does not
go unnoticed and will not last.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the House
of Representatives for passing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of
2003 and to urge the Senate to take swift action on the House bill to
get it to the President's desk.
The 418-to-2 House vote to ban all imports from Burma is an important
statement to support for human rights, the rule of law, and democracy
in Burma.
Over 6 weeks have passed since Aung San Suu Kyi and several of her
National League for Democracy colleagues came under attack by
paramilitary thugs and were subsequently detained by the ruling
military junta, the State Peace and Development Council, SPDC.
Since then, with the exception of a brief visit by the U.N. Special
Envoy to Burma, Razali Ismail, Suu Kyi has been held incommunicado
reportedly in the notorious Insein Prison.
The events of May 30 clearly indicate that the military junta has no
intention of adhering to its commitment to engage the NLD in a
substantive dialogue on political reform and national reconciliation.
Prompt Senate action will put the U.S. Congress firmly on record in
support of Suu Kyi's immediate release and the legitimate democratic
aspirations of the Burmese people as expressed by the 1990
parliamentary elections, decisively won by the NLD.
The only difference in the House bill as opposed to the Senate bill
passed last month--a 3-year sunset on the sanctions--is acceptable, if
not ideal.
Now, I call on the international community, in particular ASEAN and
the United Nations, to follow Congress's lead and take action to bring
pressure to bear on the SPDC.
A united effort is critical for sanctions to be most effective. The
regime must know that the world speaks with one voice and its days are
numbered.
I urge my colleagues to support the House bill so that the President
can sign it into law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while both the Senator from Kansas and the
Senator from Kentucky are on the floor, I want to take a minute to
praise them for their outstanding statements. I strongly support the
Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act that Senator McConnell, Senator
Feinstein, and others have introduced and sheparded through the Senate
earlier this year.
I have lost count of the number of times my good friend from Kentucky
has come to the Chamber to send an important message to the very brutal
and very corrupt regime in Burma. Senator McConnell's message has been:
Your conduct is outrageous. It should not be allowed to stand. Aung San
Suu Kyi is the democratically elected leader of Burma, and she and her
fellow opposition leaders must be immediately released.
The Senator from Kentucky and those who join with him are absolutely
right. Our country, the greatest democracy history has ever known, must
stand for democratic principles around the world. This legislation
helps the United States do just that.
Since the McConnell-Feinstein legislation was introduced--and passed
by the Senate 93 to 1, something we do not see too often around here--
it has helped send a clear signal to the administration, ASEAN members,
and the international community that we need to increase the pressure
on the illegitimate regime in Burma.
We have seen some good first steps taken by the State Department,
including a ban on remittances, expansion of visa restrictions, and a
strong statement by Deputy Secretary Armitage on Friday.
But, U.S. action can only go so far. There has to be active pressure
from Burma's neighbors in Southeast Asia. I single out Thailand, Japan,
and China. These nations have to disavow what we all know has been a
failed policy of engagement.
In many cases, engagement can be a good thing. In many cases,
engagement can help resolve difficult international issues. This is not
one of those times.
Mr. President, I am glad to see some postive developments have
occured on this issue in Asia. The ASEAN nations have taken the
unprecedented step of expressing concern with the situation in Burma.
The Japanese have suspended some forms of aid to the regime.
But that is not enough. Other leaders in the region have to make
unequivocal statements saying what we in the United States Senate are
saying: Aung San Suu Kyi is the democratically elected leader of Burma
and the military junta has to release her and her followers.
[[Page S9448]]
The world needs to do more. The U.N. has to become more involved. The
Security Council should be briefed by U.N. Special Envoy Razali Ismail
on the situation in Burma and Security Council action should be
seriously considered.
My purpose in speaking, obviously, is to support this legislation.
However, I wanted to take a moment to praise the deep and personal
effort by the Senator from Kentucky on Burma. He has shown courage,
but, perhaps more importantly, he has demonstrated tremendous
persistence in keeping our attention focused on Burma. Sometimes we
forget some of what we say is heard and has an impact in other parts of
the world. In some cases, it may not be make it back to our own States,
but it is heard in the parts of the world where is makes a big
difference. This is one of those times.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for
his kind comments on the Burma bill and appreciated his forceful
advocacy of passage.
In terms of the parliamentary situation, is there time left on the
Burma bill on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. McCONNELL. I am prepared to yield back the time that remains on
this side if the Senator from Vermont would do the same.
Mr. LEAHY. I will do the same. Should we ask for the yeas and nays?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. McCONNELL. Do we need to ask for the yeas and nays on the Burma
bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be appropriate.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
the third reading of the bill.
The bill (H.R. 2330) was ordered to the third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to vote on passage of the bill at a time determined by the
majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader.
____________________