[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11092-11093]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



     NOMINATION OF KENT WIEDEMANN TO BE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO CAMBODIA

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to make three comments on 
the nomination of Mr. Kent Wiedemann, a career foreign service officer 
slated to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Cambodia. Let 
me say at the outset: I strongly oppose this nomination.
  First, it is apparent that Mr. Wiedemann has done little to further 
the cause of democracy in Burma where he has been Charge in Rangoon for 
the past several years. When we met in my office a few months ago, I 
asked him to cite specific instance where he supported Burmese 
democracy activists. Mr. Wiedemann produced a single letter from 
demoracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. However, he could not cite a single 
action or activity that he undertook on the ground to help strengthen 
justice and freedom in Burma. Not one.
  In addition, I asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to 
request copies of all statements or speeches Mr. Wiedemann gave while 
serving in Burma which support the U.S. policy to restore the 
legitimate government of Aung San Suu Kyi to office. During his entire 
tenure, he could not provide a single example of remarks made at a 
Burmese forum supporting U.S. policy or democracy.
  Pro-democracy Burmese activists wrote to me to share their views of 
Mr. Wiedemann's tenure in Rangoon:

       The arrival of Mr. Wiedemann . . . has not changed much in 
     respect to our democracy movement.
       [Wiedemann] remained inactive and ignorant to our vital 
     problems, human rights, democracy and refugee, and made no 
     efforts at seeking cooperation with our NGOs who had 
     extensive experience in these regards * * *. We were left in 
     the cold.
       [There was] no coordination or effort on the part of the 
     embassy, to help the democracy movement of the exiles * * *. 
     Apart from regular meetings with Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, we 
     knew of no efforts by Mr. Wiedemann.

  These are not my words; they are those of courageous Burmese men and 
women who dare to stand for principles and justice. Yet, less than one 
month after the passing of Aung San Suu Kyi's husband, I understand 
that Mr. Wiedemann again requested a letter from her in support of his 
nomination. He seems more interested in personal and career promotion 
than advancing the cause of freedom in Burma.
  Second, Mr. Wiedemann is simply the wrong American representative to 
send to Cambodia at this difficult time. My colleagues may be 
interested to know that in March, I visited that war ravaged country 
and was not encouraged by what I saw and heard. From Khmer Rouge trials 
to narcotics trafficking by the Cambodian military to rampant 
corruption and pervasive lawlessness, the next U.S. Ambassador must be 
a vocal advocate of human rights and the rule of law. When Mr. 
Wiedemann's nomination was being considered last year, Prince Norodom 
Ranariddh--then the First Prime Minister who had been outsted in a 
bloody coup d'etat in July 1997--and Sam Rainsy--an opposition leader 
who has survived two assassination attempts since March 1997--expressed 
their grave concerns:

       We urge you not to replace Ambassador Kenneth Quinn after 
     his term expires in Phnom Penh, and certianly not with Kent 
     Wiedemann who we believe may be less than supportive of the 
     cause of democracy in Cambodia.

  Other Cambodian democracy activists have since joined the chorus of 
concern with his nomination. Again, in their own words:

       [We are] deeply concerned that Mr. Wiedemann will court CPP 
     [the Cambodian People's Party] strongman Hun Sen--at the 
     expense of the democratic opposition--in an attempt to win 
     him over.
       This particular nomination sends the wrong message at the 
     wrong time to a government characterized by lawlessness and 
     corruption. Mr. Wiedemann may lack the credentials to 
     effectively promote American interests in Cambodia * * *. He 
     is not known as a vocal supporter of democracy in Southeast 
     Asia.

  Despite my strong beliefs and the legitimate fears of those who would 
be most affected by Mr. Wiedemann's appointment, it is clear that he 
will be confirmed by the Senate. Therefore, let me make clear my 
expectations of Mr. Wiedemann once he receives his credentials in Phnom 
Penh.
  I expect him to meet regularly and publicly with opposition political 
party leaders as well as democracy and human rights activists. I expect 
him to openly embrace and actively encourage the rule of law in 
Cambodia, even if this causes tensions with Prime Minister Hun Sen and 
the ruling CPP party. I expect him to support international and local 
nongovernmental organizations in Phnom Penh committed to legal and 
political reforms. And, I expect that he will not shirk the awesome 
responsibilities as the American people's representative to Cambodia, a 
task that President Ronald Reagan described in February 1983:

       The task that has fallen to us as Americans is to move the 
     conscience of the world, to keep alive the hope and dream of 
     freedom. For if we fail or falter, there'll be no place for 
     the world's oppressed to flee to. This is not the role we 
     sought. We preach no manifest destiny. But like the Americans 
     who brought a new nation into the world 200 years ago, 
     history has asked much of us in our time. (February 18, 1983)

  Mr. President, it is my hope that Mr. Wiedemann will do a more 
noteworthy job in Cambodia supporting democracy, human rights, and the 
rule of law than his lackluster performance in Burma. I will be 
following his tenure in Cambodia to ensure that he does.
  I have had this nomination on hold for more than a year. During that 
time, Mr. Wiedemann has waged a campaign to support his nomination, 
energy which might have been better directed by securing the declared 
U.S. goal of restoring the National League for Democracy to office. 
Nonetheless, I do not think one Senator should thwart the nomination 
process. So, I leave it to my colleagues to allow his nomination to 
move forward. I, for one, vote no.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to say that we in the Senate tend to 
look at these nominations as mere numbers. Because we deal with so many 
nominations in this body, we tend to forget that these numbers stand 
for real people whose lives and dreams we are deciding upon.
  I would like to talk in particular about one of these numbers, number 
77. He is someone who, in a way, represents all of these numbers.
  Number 77--otherwise known as Dr. Ikram Khan--is a resident of the 
State of Nevada, and one of the most important citizens we have in 
Nevada. He has served on the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners. 
He has been involved in many, many charitable activities over the 
course of the past two decades. He is a skilled physician, an 
outstanding surgeon. He comes from a very substantial family, a family 
that is highly regarded in the State of Nevada.
  I say these things because Dr. Khan is an outstanding man. And he is 
all the more remarkable because he is a new citizen of the United 
States--he immigrated from Pakistan. He exemplifies what is good about 
our country. He is someone who has come here from another country on 
another continent, arrived in the United States, and hit

[[Page 11093]]

the ground running. He worked hard and made a name for himself and his 
family and built a successful career in a very short time.
  And he was able to do all of that while taking the time to help 
others. I'm not even including those whose health and lives he has 
saved in his medical practice. I can't think of an event held in Nevada 
involving the public good that he has not been involved with in some 
way. We recently inaugurated a new Governor of the State of Nevada. Dr. 
Khan served very capably on his transition team.
  In short, number 77 is an outstanding person, just as are all of 
these people who are numbered here, 18, 72, 73, 74, 77 through 91. It's 
regrettable that we here tend to rush through these nominations, for 
each one of these people will dedicate significant time and effort in 
service to this country.
  Many of these nominations are of men and women who are being promoted 
to general officers in the armed forces, or are being promoted within 
the rank of general. Dr. Khan, however, will serve as a Member of the 
Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
Sciences, a nomination that I think sets him apart even in this group 
of good and able men and women. He will serve the University and this 
country at his own expense. He will devote many hours and days and 
weeks of his time doing this, and he does it willingly.

                          ____________________