[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 4, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4822-S4824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     BURMA'S ICON STILL NEEDS HELP

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if my colleagues doubt that the pen is 
mightier than the sword, they need to take 5 minutes to read Rena 
Pederson's May 2 Dallas Morning News column entitled ``Burma's Icon 
Still Needs World's Help.''
  When it comes to continued repression in Burma, and a largely muted 
world response, Ms. Pederson hits a bullseye.
  She is right to demand the U.S. Congress to expeditiously renew 
sanctions against Burma, which I fully expect us to do over the next 
few weeks, and to take the United Nations to task for its weak and 
tepid response to the State Peace and Development Council's, SPDC, 
recalcitrance to implement U.N. General Assembly and Commission for 
Human Rights resolutions.
  I share Ms. Pederson's disbelief that the U.N. Security Council has 
yet to bring the Burmese crisis up for debate and sanction. We already 
know that Burma poses an immediate and grave threat to its neighbors, 
whether through refugees fleeing persecution, the spread of HIV/AIDS or 
the proliferation of illicit narcotics.
  Unfortunately, the U.N.'s misguided ``wait and see'' approach serves 
to further exacerbate a regional crisis that is a direct result of 
these undesirable Burmese exports and that neighboring countries, out 
of political expediency, refuse to face. Thailand, China, India and 
other regional neighbors can only bury their heads in the sand for so 
long.
  As three Burmese were recently sentenced to death for merely talking 
to

[[Page S4823]]

the International Labor Organization, a U.N. agency, one would think 
that the Secretary-General would have publicly and forcefully condemned 
these sentences as means to defend both the Burmese victims and the 
integrity of his own agency. It is not too late for such an expression.
  Further, Ms. Pederson's concerns with U.N. envoy Ismail Razali's 
business dealings with the SPDC comes at time when the corrupt ``oil 
for food'' program in Iraq is under investigation. It is only fair to 
ask if principles are similarly being discarded in Burma for the sake 
of personal profit.
  I suspect that the closer we get to the May 17 constitutional 
convention, the louder the din from the SPDC and its advocates in 
Thailand will become on ``progress'' being made in Burma. I have little 
hope that the convention will serve as a catalyst for anything but an 
attempt by the SPDC to bestow legitimacy upon itself and its abusive 
rule. The director of the Burma Fund, Zaw Oo catalogued these concerns 
superbly in an opinion piece entitled ``Don't Help Burma's Generals'' 
in the May 6 issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review.
  My message to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for 
Democracy could not be more clear: you are in a position of strength 
because of the principled stand you continue to make in support of the 
struggle for freedom in Burma. The people of Burma should know that 
America stands with them and will continue to do so until democracy and 
justice triumphs in Burma.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Ms. Pederson and Mr. Zaw Oo's 
articles be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Don't Help Burma's Generals

                              (By Zaw Oo)

       As I write this, the Burmese military junta called the 
     State Peace and Development Council, or SPDC, is expected to 
     soon free pro-democracy leaders Aung San Suu Kyi and Tin Oo. 
     But it will do this solely for ulterior reasons. The SPDC is 
     seeking some measure of international credibility. Releasing 
     Suu Kyi will get Asean off its back. Next, by also pretending 
     to seek a road map towards some form of ``disciplined'' 
     democracy, the SPDC gives Asean the cover to accept Rangoon's 
     chairmanship of the group in 2006. But in a vicious circle, 
     the SPDC is strong-arming the democratic opposition by using 
     any legitimacy it gains abroad to force the opposition into 
     accepting its road map--which will only strengthen its 
     position as a regime. The generals don't plan to retire from 
     politics any time soon.
       The SPDC is rushing to implement its seven-point road map 
     towards ``democracy'' by reconvening on May 17 a national 
     convention to prepare a new constitution. The original 
     convention was aborted in 1996 after the SPDC expelled the 
     National League for Democracy for complaining that the 
     convention was being manipulated. The new convention will 
     just as likely be manipulated. First, holding the meeting in 
     a remote town called Mhawbi is meant to isolate and 
     intimidate opposition delegates. Moreover, the convention 
     commission will be made up only of SPDC officials, who will 
     completely control the agenda and procedures. The junta could 
     also use its notorious military rule, ``Order 5/96,'' to 
     suppress those who oppose its wishes. Certainly, that was 
     what it did the last time around.
       The junta's hand-picked delegates are expected to ram 
     through 104 constitutional principles laid down in 1996 
     before the last convention was scrapped. Those principles 
     include setting aside 25% of parliamentary seats for the 
     military, indirect election of the president through an 
     electoral college, the requirement that presidential 
     candidates have military experience, and total autonomy for 
     the military. They are a comprehensive list of military 
     prerogatives that make a mockery of any modern notion of 
     constitutionality. Thus, through a ``guided'' convention, the 
     SPDC's road map will lead to a ``disciplined'' political 
     form: a constitutional military autocracy.
       Clearly, the SPDC's version of ``reform'' will continue to 
     be a disaster for Burmese. Its vision of democracy with dual 
     power centres in the form of a military commander-in-chief 
     and the president could easily become unstable because of the 
     intermittent power struggles that emerge within the military. 
     Its economic model won't bolster investors' faith. (Even the 
     Chinese have become frustrated with Burma's appalling 
     economic policies.) Dreams of Thai industrialists relocating 
     manufacturing plants to Burma will remain just that: 
     fantasies. And the continuing gross neglect of Burma's social 
     capital and a likely failure to stem the lucrative drug trade 
     will export instability from Burma to its neighbours.
       A year ago, at a gathering in Bangkok of like-minded 
     individuals from 10 countries, there was the promise of a 
     start to building an effective regional strategy towards 
     Burma. The gathering, called the Bangkok Process, could have 
     sent a clear signal to the SPDC that its intentions were 
     unacceptable Sadly, the meeting chose to build on the earlier 
     constructive-engagement policy. Still, the damage could have 
     been minimized if the process had crafted a larger 
     international strategy by inviting the participation of the 
     United States, and provided the United Nations a stronger 
     mandate to mediate and enforce a democratic settlement in 
     Burma.
       Today, only a democratic breakthrough can stop the looming 
     confrontations in Burma. Suu Kyi has been consistent in 
     offering a reasonable role for military leaders in jointly 
     transforming Burma into a democratic country. In 1990, the 
     Burmese military organized an election and supervised it; the 
     NLD won but the military refused to honour the results. Now 
     is the time finally to resolve this impasse. The key is to 
     assist negotiations in Burma for implementing this as-yet 
     unrealized national mandate in a way that provides shared 
     responsibility between the NLD, the military and ethnic 
     leaders. Compromise is needed to allow for a sharing of power 
     and responsibility in managing a democratic transition. All 
     this is clear. But what would not be helpful is for Burma's 
     neighbours to help efforts by the SPDC to strengthen and 
     prolong its rule. This would not be in the interest of anyone 
     in Asia, let alone Burma.
                                  ____


              [From the Dallas Morning News, May 2, 2004]

                 Burma's Icon Still Needs World's Help

                           (By Rena Pederson)

       Back in 1995, Madeleine Albright went to Burma to visit 
     Aung San Suu Kyi, who was being held under arrest. Though 
     jailed in her own home, the Nobel Peace Prize winner showed 
     her respect for visiting secretary of state in a touching 
     way. She scrubbed the walls and floor of her house by hand 
     and washed and ironed the curtains by herself.
       It is a good bet that few Nobel laureates have had to do 
     the same.
       But, then, there is no one quite like Ms. Suu Kyi, the 
     brilliant Oxford graduate who continues to risk her life to 
     bring democracy to Burma.
       Last week, Ms. Albright returned the favor. She joined 
     Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona in calling for a 
     renewal of American sanctions on the Burmese junta because 
     the murderous generals are keeping Ms. Suu Kyi under heavy 
     guard in her house yet again.
       Fourteen Nobel literature laureates--including Gunter Grass 
     and Toni Morrison--recently joined Vaclav Havel, former 
     president of the Czech Republic, in calling for the release 
     of Ms. Suu Kyi and other imprisoned writers in Burma.
       Like Ms. Albright, Mr. Havel has been inspired by Ms. Suu 
     Kyi's astounding courage and has been pressing for her 
     release for more than a decade. What is little known is that 
     he was considered the shoo-in for the Nobel Peace Prize in 
     1991 after the ``Velvet Revolution'' in Czechoslovakia, but 
     he threw his support to Ms. Suu Kyi and forfeited his own 
     chances. Hers, he explained, was the greater example.
       What we need is similar gallantry from Congress, which 
     should waste no time extending economic sanctions. What we 
     need is similar courage from the United Nations, which has 
     stood by while the Burmese generals slyly have made a fool of 
     Secretary-General Kofi Annan by reneging time and again on 
     promises of reform.
       If Mr. Annan doesn't have enough problems with corruption 
     in the ``oil for food'' scandal in Iraq (which may include 
     payoffs to his son), his credibility is going to be damaged 
     even more when people start investigating his see-no-evil 
     attitude toward the Burmese regime.
       Some of the tough questions that need to be asked include: 
     Why did Mr. Annan send an envoy to handle the Burma crisis 
     who was doing business deals with the regime? Mr. Annan's 
     envoy, Razali Ismail, has a contract to provide microchips 
     for Burmese passports. Amazingly, Mr. Annan has ruled that 
     the sweetheart deal isn't a conflict of interest because Mr. 
     Ismail was only a ``part-time'' envoy.
       That's the diplomatic equivalent of passing the canapes. 
     Pray tell, why doesn't Mr. Annan bring the Burmese crisis up 
     before the Security Council? why has he merely purred that 
     the junta may allow democracy in 2006?
       While Mr. Annan blinks and purrs, the horrific crimes of 
     the Burmese dictators continue without relief. Reports of war 
     crimes continue to seep out of Burma: The rape and torture of 
     women. The destruction of villages. Forced relocations. 
     The laying of new land mines. The murder of Muslim 
     minorities.
       To make matters even more disturbing, the Far Eastern 
     Economic Review has reported that North Korea may be selling 
     missiles or nuclear technology to Burma. A Christian cemetery 
     near the Rangoon Airport reportedly was bulldozed last fall 
     to make way for the missile base.
       It isn't a good time to keep passing the canapes.
       As Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison put it last week, ``The brutal 
     tactics adopted by Burma's military rulers are reprehensible. 
     The Free World must be unequivocal in demanding the junta 
     release Aung San Suu Kyl and change its ways.''
       There was a slight flutter of hope last week that the 
     Burmese generals might be edging toward a transition because 
     they allowed the reopening of the headquarters of

[[Page S4824]]

     the National League for Democracy, Ms. Suu Kyi's political 
     party. They also released a few party leaders from prison.
       But 1,300 remain in prison. and the top two leaders, Ms. 
     Suu Kyi and Tin Oo, remain under house arrest.
       The junta's recent charm efforts couldn't mask the fact 
     that behind the scenes, the generals slapped life sentences 
     on 11 league members who are in prison. That is tantamount to 
     a death sentence in the grim Burmese gulag. The nine weren't 
     allowed to speak in their own defense. Their only crime was 
     witnessing an attack on Ms. Suu Kyi by government thugs last 
     May 30.
       Even if Ms. Suu Kyi is released, she may be in greater 
     danger outside her home if the junta imposes a constitution 
     at gunpoint that leaves it in power. Congress must keep 
     sanctions in place until there's certifiable change. As 
     Margaret Thatcher would say, this is no time to go wobbly.

                          ____________________