[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 155 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7455-S7456]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 BURMA

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on November 8, just a few weeks away, 
the people of Burma will hold national elections. This promises to be a 
momentous event for a country many of us have studied and followed for 
a very long time--in my own case for over 20 years. This is going to be 
a momentous election for at least two reasons.
  First, for Burma's citizens--or for many of them, at least--this 
election represents a chance to finally choose their own leaders, which 
is, indeed, a rare occurrence in recent Burmese history. That is 
significant in itself, but there is another reason these elections are 
so important, because the manner in which they are conducted will serve 
as a key indicator of the progress of reform in that country.
  There are some encouraging signs that the election will be freer and 
fairer than what we have seen in the past. Unlike recent Burmese 
elections, for example, international election observers have been 
permitted into the country. That is an important departure from the 
past, and it is encouraging. At the same time, there have been 
troubling signs during the election cycle. Allow me to share a few of 
them with you now.
  First, the Constitution was not amended prior to the election. As 
many of my colleagues will recall, the Burmese Constitution 
unreasonably restricts who can be a candidate for President, a hardly 
subtle attempt to bar the country's most popular opposition figure from 
even standing for office. That is certainly worrying enough, but the 
Burmese Constitution goes even further, ensuring an effective military 
veto over constitutional change--over, for instance, amendments about 
running for the Presidency by requiring more than three-fourths 
parliamentary support in a legislature where the Constitution also 
reserves--listen to this--more than one-fourth of the seats for the 
military. So in order to change the Constitution, you have to get some 
military votes and obviously, so far, that hasn't happened.
  Allowing appropriate constitutional changes to pass through the 
Parliament would have represented a tangible demonstration of the 
Burmese Government's commitment to both political reform and to a freer 
and fairer election this November. But when the measures were put to a 
vote on June 25, the government's allies exercised the very 
undemocratic power the Constitution grants them to stymie the effort.
  So what kinds of messages do these actions send us? They bring the 
Burmese Government's continued commitment to democracy into question. 
If you were truly committed to democracy, why would you continue a 
provision like that, which to most of the world is simply quite 
laughable or outrageous?
  They also raise fundamental questions about the balloting this fall, 
increasing the prospect of an election being perceived as something 
other than the will of the people, even if its actual conduct proves to 
be free and fair. It is hard to see how that is in anybody's interest.
  The second deeply troubling consideration is the apparent widespread, 
if not universal, disenfranchisement of the Rohingya population. For 
all the ill treatment the Rohingya have had to endure in their history, 
at least they had once been able to vote and run for office in Burma. 
They voted and fielded a candidate for office in both the 2010 election 
and the 1990 election, but, alas, no more.
  Reports indicate that otherwise eligible Rohingya, more than half a 
million of them, have been systematically deprived of the right to vote 
and the right to stand for election. That poses another serious 
challenge to next month's elections being seen as free and fair, and 
there is another serious challenge I would note as well.
  Finally, while media activity in Burma is far more open than it was 
before 2010, there have been troubling signs that indicate a recent and 
worrying backslide. In fact, just a few days ago, news circulated of 
individuals being arrested for Facebook postings.
  These are very disturbing reports. Campaigns can be conducted only 
when a free exchange of ideas is permitted. Arresting citizens for free 
expression runs directly counter to that idea. It is at odds with 
notions of free speech and democracy, and it seems designed to send 
chilling signals to the Burmese people.
  It is clear that Burma faces substantial challenges. From the 
undemocratic elements in Burma's Constitution, to the 
disenfranchisement of the Rohingya, to troubling incidents regarding 
the curtailment of citizens' basic rights, these challenges are 
significant. They need to be addressed.
  At the same time, we should not allow these things to completely 
overshadow what Burma has accomplished. It has actually come a long way 
in recent years. There are many positive things to be built upon as 
well. In short, there is still hope for Burma's upcoming election.
  Thein Sein's government has an opportunity to make these last few 
weeks of campaigning as free and as fair as possible. The Burmese 
Government can still hold an election that, despite the troubling 
things I mentioned, can be embraced by Burmese citizens and the 
international community alike.
  That will mean ensuring these final weeks of campaigning are as free 
and as fair as possible. That will mean ensuring freedom of expression 
is protected.
  These are the kinds of minimum goals that Burmese officials must 
strive toward in the final weeks of the campaign season. If the Burmese 
Government gets this right, if it ensures as free and fair an election 
as possible, with results accepted by competing parties, the 
government, and the military, that would go a long way toward 
reassuring Burma's friends around the globe that it remains committed 
to political reform and progress in the bilateral relationship. Indeed, 
both the government and the military have committed to standing by the 
election results.

[[Page S7456]]

  Now, let me be clear. While I have always approached this 
relationship and the role of sanctions realistically, this election is 
a test the government must pass. Simply holding an election without 
mass casualties or violence, while vitally important, isn't good 
enough. Let me say that again. Just holding an election without mass 
violence is not enough. It has to do a lot more than just have the 
absence of violence.
  As I stated on the Senate floor earlier this year, if we end up with 
an election not accepted by the Burmese people as reflecting their 
will, it will make further normalization of relations--at least as it 
concerns the legislative branch of this government--much more 
difficult. It would likely hinder further enhancement of U.S.-Burma 
economic ties and military-to-military relations. It would likely erode 
confidence in Burma's reform efforts. It would also likely make it more 
difficult for the executive branch to include Burma in the Generalized 
System of Preferences Program or to enhance political military 
relations.
  Those of us who follow Burma want this country to succeed. We want to 
see the government carry out an election that is as free and as fair as 
possible. We are prepared to continue doing what we can to encourage 
more positive change in that country, and we will be realistic about 
what is possible.
  As I just mentioned, that is the kind of approach I have always tried 
to take--a hopeful but still realistic one when it comes to this 
relationship, not just on the role of sanctions but also on the 
possible steps toward closer relations and on the individual programs 
and policies that would aid Burma's development and capabilities.
  So we are hoping the Burmese Government gets this right. This is a 
big opportunity to send a signal to the rest of the world that Burma 
has indeed truly changed. We are hoping the Burmese people continue 
moving along the path of greater freedom and greater reform, but 
whatever the result, Burmese Government officials should be assured 
that Burma's partners in the United States and in the international 
community will be watching intently to see what happens in the coming 
weeks with a realistic assessment in what Burma can achieve.

                          ____________________