U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–050PDF 2011

PIERCING BURMA’S VEIL OF SECRECY: THE TRUTH

BEHIND THE SHAM ELECTION AND THE DIFFICULT

ROAD AHEAD

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

June 22, 2011

Serial No. 112–50

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

VACANT 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman 

RON PAUL, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Aung Din, executive director and co-founder, U.S. Campaign for Burma ... 7

Chris Beyrer, M.D., director, Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health and 

Human Rights ...................................................................................................... 25

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Illinois, and chairman, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific: 

Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 3

Mr. Aung Din: Prepared statement ........................................................................ 9

Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, General Secretary, National League for Democracy, 

Rangoon, Burma: 

Prerecorded video message .................................................................................. 20

Transcript of video message ................................................................................ 23

Chris Beyrer, M.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................... 28

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 48

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 49

Mr. Aung Din: Material submitted for the record ................................................ 50

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from 

American Samoa: Article submitted for the record ........................................... 55

(1)

PIERCING BURMA’S VEIL OF SECRECY: THE 

TRUTH BEHIND THE SHAM ELECTION AND 

THE DIFFICULT ROAD AHEAD 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:30 p.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald A. Manzullo 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. MANZULLO. The Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific will 

now come to order. I am sorry I am late. We had a pretty tight vote 

on the floor involving patent reform. 

I recognize myself for a brief opening statement. On November 

7th of 2010, the military junta that ruled the country of Burma 

held an election that was universally labeled as a sham due to 

widespread irregularity and lack of participation by opposition parties. This exercise was nothing more than a well-choreographed 

maneuver by the ruling elites to transform themselves into a more 

internationally acceptable civilian dictatorship. 

Despite this attempt at political gymnastics, the repression in 

Burma continues and thousands of political prisoners remain 

locked in jail. The only ray of hope to emerge from this engineered 

process was the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of 

Burma’s revolutionary hero Aung Sun, and Nobel Peace Prize winner. But even this concession can be revoked at a moment’s notice 

by the regime. 

Today we have the extraordinary opportunity to hear directly 

from the woman at the center of the decades-long struggle to bring 

freedom to her beloved homeland. This is the first time she has addressed the U.S. Congress in an official capacity, and I am extremely honored to be able to present it at this hearing. 

I cannot disclose how we received this video, and I would instruct 

the press not to ask me that question if they are so inclined. We 

are certainly delighted to have this unprecedented opportunity. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to peer behind Burma’s veil of 

secrecy to fully comprehend the changes, if any, that are going on 

in that country. Since the election, we have witnessed a distinct 

point of view emerging from some Burma experts arguing that, no 

matter how fraudulent, the elections represent an important shift 

in domestic Burmese politics. 

2

As the argument goes, this shift might lead to real changes in 

the future, even if nothing significant occurs immediately. Furthermore, the existing opposition party, the National League of Democracy, is incapable of grasping this opportunity because the group 

and its leader, Ms. Suu Kyi, have an all or nothing approach. This 

is what is characterized as the pragmatic engagement theory. 

Since the Obama administration began its policy of pragmatic 

engagement in 2009, U.S. relations with Burma have not changed. 

Let us not forget that there are still 2,200 political prisoners languishing in Burmese gulags, including peaceful monks and citizens 

that took part in the Saffron Revolution 4 years ago. 

The Burmese Government, as an effort of goodwill prior to a visit 

by U.S. officials in May, announced a despicably disappointing 1-

year blanket reduction of jail sentences for all criminals, but it is 

not clear whether this includes political prisoners. The recent news 

of clashes in Burma’s Kachin province between government troops 

and ethnic minorities, which has been the heaviest fighting in 17 

years, adds further evidence to the argument that the situation in 

Burma has not changed. 

If proponents of pragmatic engagement are correct, then Burmese leaders should recognize this unprecedented opportunity 

being offered by the Obama administration and seek to improve relations with the U.S. by demonstrating tangible change. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The State Department’s visit to Burma 

in May is further proof that change in Burma is extremely difficult 

to achieve. 

At a time when it seems Western influence is dwindling, Burma 

is actively engaging with its neighboring countries, constructing 

gas pipelines to Thailand and China, and accepting investments 

from China, its largest trading partner. Burma is a country that 

spends 1.8 percent of its GDP on health care, the second lowest in 

the world, while it spends 40 percent of its GDP on the military. 

As the lead Republican sponsor of legislation to award Ms. Suu 

Kyi the Congressional Gold Medal in 2008, it is my sincere hope 

that we will have the opportunity to present her with this award 

in person. Ms. Suu Kyi and her countrymen have lived under the 

yoke of oppression for far too long. It is time that free nations 

stand together to help Burma finally realize the same freedoms 

that we all enjoy. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Faleomavaega for his opening 

statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Manzullo follows:]

3


67050c-1.eps
4


67050c-2.eps
5

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this 

hearing. I think it is not only timely, but very important, and is 

part of the responsibilities of our subcommittee. 

It is very unfortunate that no one from the administration is 

here to testify concerning the situation in Myanmar. I know that 

at the initiation taken by the Obama administration, supposedly to 

carry on some kind of an engagement process with Myanmar, but, 

unfortunately, this has not taken place. Secretary Campbell and 

Secretary Joseph Yun have both visited Myanmar, but apparently 

with no results. But, still, it would have been nice if someone from 

the administration should have been here to tell us exactly what 

the latest development in this dialogue or this process. 

I do want to welcome today’s testimony, Mr. Din and Dr. Beyrer 

and especially Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and 

Myanmar’s pro-democracy leader. In 2008, she was also the recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest civilian award 

in the United States. 

Aung San Suu Kyi was born on Myanmar. Her father, General 

Aung Sun, was the national leader of Myanmar until he was assassinated in 1947, when Aung San Suu Kyi was only 2 years old. Her 

mother was Myanmar’s Ambassador to India. 

Raised in Myanmar, India, and the United Kingdom, Aung San 

Suu Kyi returned to Myanmar in 1988 and joined the National 

League for Democracy, or the NLD. She became the General Secretary and used her platform on the military regime to hold free 

and fair elections. 

In November last year, Aung San Suu Kyi was finally released, 

but, despite her efforts and sacrifices, Myanmar’s military regime 

has not held an election that has been considered fair or free. In 

November last year, the State Peace and Development Council held 

the first election since 1990. And the results, which gave the military party a super majority in all houses of Parliament, were 

marred in controversy. 

While many nations, including the United States, continued to 

impose sanctions on Myanmar’s military leaders in an effort to 

bring about democracy reforms, apparently the strategy is not 

working. I believe this is, in part, because we do have a double 

standard when it comes to sanctions. When it is convenient for us, 

we apply section 508 sanctions law against Thailand, Myanmar, 

Fiji, for example; but in 1999, when General Pervez Musharraf 

overthrew the democratically elected government of then Prime 

Minister Sharif, the U.S. waived section 508 sanction law, despite 

the fact that for nearly 10 years, General Musharraf never made 

good on his promise to resign his military commission and hold 

free, fair, and transparent elections in Pakistan. 

From my perspective, Mr. Chairman, I believe we should find 

new ways to approach Myanmar, including high-level engagement 

with the new regime. And I hope today’s testimony will help us advance the relations between our people and the people in the Government of Myanmar. 

I do ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that—part of the article that I have here was written by Professor Michael AungThwin, who is with the Political Science Department of the University of Hawai’i, in February. That was written February of this 

6

year, interesting observations in terms of the elections that took 

place in November least year. 

Unfortunately, too, even CRF was not comprehensive enough. 

What British colonial rule was like in Myanmar, if it was as brutal 

as the French colonial rule over Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, I 

would be very interested to know more about it. 

Myanmar was in a state of civil war for decades. The seven city 

states constantly were fighting amongst themselves. And it seems 

that the only organization that was finally trying to put some sense 

of order in Myanmar, it was the military. But I do look forward to 

hearing from our witnesses and especially from Ms. San Suu Kyi. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MANZULLO. The document will be admitted into the record 

without objection. 

Congressman Cardoza, do you have an opening statement? 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

both my friends, Chairman Manzullo and my friend Ranking Member Faleomavaega, for organizing today’s hearing. 

Burma held its first election in 20 years last November. This 

sham of an election was rightly condemned around the world. 

Looking at the long history of brutal oppression in Burma, the road 

ahead for the citizens who are suffering does not seem to hold a 

lot of promise. 

But I believe that the Arab spring of this year is a reminder that 

we should never discount about how quickly the spark of freedom 

can turn into a wildfire. The uprisings across the Middle East are 

serving as a reminder to dictators around the world that tyranny 

will not be tolerated. 

The people of Burma do not need to look to the Middle East, 

however, to see what the pursuit of freedom looks like. Instead, 

they need only look at the work of leaders like Nobel Laureate 

Aung San Suu Kyi or Aung Din, who both represent the true spirit 

of democracy in their country. 

I am looking forward to hearing from all of our distinguished witnesses today. And I thank them for joining us. And I yield back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Without objection, all witnesses’ statements will 

be entered into the record. 

Our first witness today is Aung Din, executive director and cofounder of the U.S. Campaign for Burma. He served over 4 years 

behind bars as a political prisoner in Burma after organizing the 

country’s nationwide pro-democracy uprising in 1988 as vice chair 

of the All Burma Federation of Student Unions, the largest national student organization in Burma and outlawed by the regime. 

He also served as vice chair of Burma’s Youth Liberation Front 

and Cabinet Secretary of the Parallel Government founded by 

Prime Minister U Nu during the peak of the 1988 pro-democracy 

uprising in September. 

Amnesty International adopted him as a prisoner of conscience 

in 1989, as chapters worldwide campaigned for his release. He is 

also country representative of Thai-Burma border-based ‘‘Assistance Association for Political Prisoners—Burma.’’

7

He has been quoted in hundreds of articles. He is an authority 

on the subject who knows more than anyone about being a prisoner 

for the purpose of freedom. 

Mr. Aung Din, we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MR. AUNG DIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND 

CO-FOUNDER, U.S. CAMPAIGN FOR BURMA 

Mr. DIN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Faleomavaega, and 

Congressman Cardoza, thank you very much for holding this hearing today. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Could you bring that microphone real close? You 

have a very soft voice. 

Mr. DIN. Thank you very much for holding this hearing today. 

I have submitted my prepared testimony for the record. 

And I also would like to submit the resolution on Burma adopted 

by the U.N. Human Rights Council in April 2011, which Aung San 

Suu Kyi made reference to in her message, for the record. 

And my testimony is too long. And it is not possible for me to 

summarize it in 5 minutes. So, therefore, I would like to raise only 

one important issue that is bothering me too much. 

For many years, the international community has tried to stop 

human rights violations in Burma. The United States, European 

Union, Australia, and Canada have employed economic sanctions 

on the regime as forms of pressure for positive change. Many years 

have passed. And then they began to doubt that imposing sanctions 

alone is not enough. And, therefore, they started to engage with the 

regime directly. 

I supported the United States’ policy of engaging with the regime 

while making the sanctions, but as I have reminded from the beginning, engagement should have a time frame, clear benchmarks, 

and it should involve an appropriate measure to respond for any 

kind of development. 

However, as of today the existing sanctions are still not fully implemented yet. And the engagement remains open-ended. And I 

don’t see any effort by the U.S. Government to exercise the pressure in a more effective and well-coordinated way. 

But the regime knows very well how to manipulate the current 

form of engagement. From the beginning the regime took the upper 

hand by withholding the issuance of visas. They were not reject applications for visa, flatly. They will make some excuses, such as 

‘‘their leaders are now very busy and they will not be able to host 

you appropriately. Please try again later.’’

And those diplomats who are eager to visit Burma have no choice 

but to wait for an indefinite period or find someone who is close 

to the regime for help. While waiting for their visa, they will try 

to refrain from criticizing the regime publicly. This can be called 

‘‘visa blackmail.’’

After delaying weeks or months, the regime issues visas for the 

diplomats. Then the regime will try to control their schedule. The 

visas will only allow for a 2- or 3-day stay in the country. And the 

regime will make them to spend most of their time at the capital, 

Naypyidaw, for meetings with the regime officials. The diplomats 

will not have much time left to see the opposition leaders. This can 

be called ‘‘schedule control.’’

8

The next steps of the regime are making hollow promises and 

selling a story of ‘‘the reformers versus hardliners.’’ In most of the 

meetings with the regional leaders, the diplomats will not have 

much chance to raise their concerns. 

At the end of the meeting, the regime will make some promises, 

such as, ‘‘Oh, we are planning to release some prisoners,’’ or, ‘‘We 

are considering to allow ACRC to visit prisons,’’ et cetera. 

And then diplomats will meet some officials, who will actually 

listen to them. The diplomats will be amazed by good command of 

the English language these official process. And then they will be 

amazed more as the regime officials hardly argue or deny the complaints they made about the human rights situation. And they will 

be told by the officials, ‘‘We know there is something wrong in our 

country. We want to fix it. And we want to make changes, too, but 

there are hardliners within and above our ranks.’’ Then they will 

tell the diplomats to give them time. 

It might sound like this: ‘‘Oh. You need to understand us and 

give us some time. Don’t put so much pressure on us. If you continue to do so, we cannot convince the hardliners to make the 

change. And don’t forget. Aung San Suu Kyi is also very stubborn.’’

So many diplomats have bought such a story right away. They 

heard from the regime leaders who made some promise. And they 

found some reform-minded persons within the murderous regime. 

They were very much encouraged. 

That is why when they came back from Burma and reported to 

the respective government and organization, their message is, ‘‘Oh, 

we need to give them some time to implement what they have 

promised and for the reformer to be able to convince the hardliners 

to do the positive things.’’ And they will also claim that this is not 

the right time to impose more pressure. 

So these four steps, visa blackmail, schedule control, making hollow promises, and selling a story of reformers versus hardliners, 

have worked very well for the regime over the years. And they 

have been successful in diluting and confusing the international 

diplomats by responding to their engagement with such a tactic. 

Unfortunately, and unintentionally, the international community 

has made the regime stronger and the democratic opposition weaker by legitimizing the regime, patiently waiting for hollow promises, and doing nothing while waiting. And now expectations are 

high again among diplomats that some elements in the so-called 

new government are reform-minded and that they deserve to be 

given more time and that putting more pressure on the regime now 

is not a good idea. For these diplomats, there will never be a right 

time to impose more pressure on the regime. 

Mr. Chairman, please help us to end the ‘‘open-ended engagement policy and this is not a right time attitude’’ of the U.S. Government. The world has given the regime plenty of time, and so 

many opportunities to survive to this day. Now is the time to support and strengthen the democracy movement by weakening the regime stronger and harsher. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Din follows:]

9


67050a-1.eps
10


67050a-2.eps
11


67050a-3.eps
12


67050a-4.eps
13


67050a-5.eps
14


67050a-6.eps
15


67050a-7.eps
16


67050a-8.eps
17


67050a-9.eps
18


67050a-10.eps
19


67050a-11.eps
20

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Our next witness is coming to us through a prerecorded videotape. Aung San Suu Kyi was born on June 19, 1945, in Rangoon. 

Her father, General Aung San, was the national leader of Burma 

until his assassination on July 17, 1947. She was only 2 years old 

at the time of her father’s assassination. His death would be one 

of the main contributors to her fight for peace and independence 

for Burma. 

An extremely popular figure, the military junta targeted her, 

eventually placing her under house arrest on July 20, 1989. She 

spent over 15 of the last 21 years under house arrest, forbidden to 

meet her family in England. 

One of the world’s most renowned leaders, Aung San Suu Kyi is 

a symbol of hope, defiance, and moral strength for the 55 million 

people of Burma who call her ‘‘Mother,’’ indicative of an important 

and endearing note that she plays in her country. 

She has won numerous international awards. In 1991, she was 

awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for being one of the extraordinary 

examples of civil courage in Asia in recent decades. In 2008, the 

Senate honored her with a Congressional Gold Medal award, the 

highest civilian award in the continental United States. Her other 

awards include the Sakharov Prize from the European Parliament, 

the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Jawaharlal Nehru 

Award from India. 

Now we will play the prerecorded video from Aung San Suu Kyi. 

Ms. AUNG SAN SUU KYI [via video]. Any statement made before 

a committee of the United States Congress must start with a few 

words, however brief, of appreciation for all that you and your colleagues have done for the cause of democracy in Burma over the 

last two decades. We are very appreciative, and we believe that you 

will continue to do whatever you can to help us in the future as 

well. 

I understand that the purpose of this committee is to find out 

what has really been happening in Burma since the elections of 

November 2010. To, as I understand it, pierce the veil of secrecy 

and to find out the truth of the situation in Burma. 

I am sure you will be receiving a lot of information from very 

many different sources that will enable you to assess the situation 

correctly. What I would like to urge is that you look at what is happening in Burma in the light of the United Nations Human Rights 

Council Resolution, the recent one, which came out in March. This 

resolution covers all the needs of Burma today, all the political 

needs, let me say, of Burma today. The requests, the urgings, the 

demands of this resolution are very much in line with what we in 

Burma think is needed to start Burma along the genuine process 

of democratization. 

So, if you were to consider this resolution very, very closely and 

then if you were to look at the present situation in Burma, you 

would have a very good idea of how far we are along the path to 

democracy, if we have started on that path at all. 

The resolution includes such very important issues as political 

prisoners, freedom of association and information, independence of 

the judiciary, and the right of Professor Quintana, the United Nations Human Rights Rapporteur, to visit Burma whenever he 

21

thinks it is necessary. It also includes the need for an inclusive political process in Burma, that we may have the kind of situation 

where there can be a negotiated settlement leading to national reconciliation. All these that the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution has called for are essential if Burma is to enjoy constitutional liberalism and democratic institutions. 

It is going to be a long road. It has already been a long road and 

a difficult one, and no doubt the road ahead will have its difficulties as well. But, we are confident that with the help and support 

of those who share our values, those like you who are true friends 

because true friends are those who share your values and understand why you hold onto these values in spite of all the difficulties 

that you have to face. With the help and support of true friends, 

I am sure we will be able to tread the path of democracy, not easily 

and perhaps not as quickly as we would like, but surely and steadily. 

This is why I would like to request you to do whatever you can 

to ensure that the requests and demands of the United Nations 

Human Rights Council Resolution are met as broadly, as sincerely, 

and as quickly as possible by the present Government of Burma. 

The resolution, among other things, calls for the independence of 

the judiciary. I mentioned this earlier. This is one of the most important needs in our country today because without an independent 

judiciary we cannot have the rule of law; without the rule of law 

none of our people can be secure and there can be no true progress 

toward democracy. 

Then, the case of political prisoners. Why are they still in prison 

if this government is really intent on making good progress toward 

democracy? If it is sincere in its claims that it wishes to bring democracy to Burma, there is no need for any prisoners of conscience 

to exist in this country. 

Surely, democracy means that we all have the right to our own 

beliefs, that we all have the right to try to live in accordance with 

our conscience. Because of that, the case of prisoners of conscience 

is crucial in deciding whether or not the present government is sincere about its democratic aspirations. 

Professor Quintana has spoken of the need for a commission of 

inquiry into human rights violations in Burma. I support his call 

for such a commission, making it quite clear that a commission of 

inquiry is not a tribunal. It is simply a commission of inquiry to 

find out what human rights violations have taken place and what 

we can do to ensure that such violations do not take place in the 

future. 

I would appreciate everything that is done to help Professor 

Quintana in his work because unless we respect the work of the 

Human Rights Rapporteur, I do not think we will be able to make 

much progress toward the implementation of the resolution of the 

United Nations Human Rights Council. 

I have never made a statement before a committee of the United 

States Congress, so I am not quite sure how to go about it. I would 

simply like to use this occasion to request that you do whatever 

you can to help us implement the United Nations Human Rights 

Council Resolution because that will open up the real road to democracy for all of us. 

22

I would also like to take the opportunity to repeat once again 

how much we appreciate all that you have done and that what you 

have done for us has meant a great deal. I know that you will continue to study the situation and to review what has been done in 

the past and to inquire into what should be done in the future. 

Sometimes we all have to guess at what is necessary because 

Burma is not an open society. But, I think because we truly believe 

in democratic values and we are all sincere in our respect for 

human rights and constitutional liberalism, our guesses will not be 

far wrong. 

So, I would like to ask you to continue with your work with confidence in what you are doing and with confidence in the fact that 

your work is much appreciated. Thank you. 

[The transcript of the video message follows:]

23


67050d-1.eps
24


67050d-2.eps
25

Mr. MANZULLO. Well, that was extraordinary. 

Dr. Beyrer, this is a tough act to follow, isn’t it? We appreciate 

you coming here. 

Doctor Beyrer serves as professor of Epidemiology, International 

Health, and Health Behavior and Society at the Johns Hopkins 

Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. 

He directs the Fogarty AIDS International Training and Research Program, which provides research training in HIV/AIDS for 

providers from Africa, Asia, and the CIS. He is the founder and director of the Center for Public Health and Human Rights at Hopkins, which is engaged in research, teaching, and policy work on 

public health and human rights issues. 

He has been engaged in public health research in Burma since 

1993. He completed his M.D. at State University of New York, 

Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, and did his public health and infectious disease training at Johns Hopkins. In 

2008, he was elected to the Governing Council of the International 

AIDS Society as a representative for North America. 

He currently has research and/or training activities underway in 

Thailand, Burma, China, India, Vietnam, Russia, Kazakhstan, 

Uganda, Ethiopia, Malawi, and South Africa. In 2010, he was appointed to the Scientific Advisory Board of the U.S. PEPFAR program. 

We look forward to your testimony, Dr. Beyrer. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS BEYRER, M.D., DIRECTOR, JOHNS 

HOPKINS CENTER FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

Dr. BEYRER. Well, thank you very much. Chairman Manzullo, 

Ranking Member Faleomavaega, members, first of all, I want to 

thank you for the extraordinary opportunity to appear with my colleague and friend Aung Din and with Aung San Suu Kyi. 

She is, of course, not only beloved by the people of Burma but 

I think has really emerged as a leading voice for nonviolence, democracy, and human rights worldwide. And we all look forward to 

the day when she can address this body in person. 

I currently serve as a professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins. I have been involved in Burma since 1993. And this year we 

published a report with Physicians for Human Rights on the health 

and human rights situation in Chin State in western Burma, ‘‘Life 

Under the Junta: Evidence of Crimes Against Humanity in Chin 

State.’’

What I thought I would talk to you about today is the evidence 

we have from some of the ethnic areas and from some of the health 

and human rights domains that really suggest where we are in the 

post-election Burma and, unfortunately, how far this country has 

to go. 

From the perspective of basic freedom and the rights of the Burmese people, particularly of the ethnic nationalities and their hopes 

for real national reconciliation, it is clear that very little, too little, 

has changed since the elections. 

And many would argue that that goes back to the nature of the 

election itself. As President Obama said in New Delhi, ‘‘The November 7th elections in Burma were neither free nor fair, failed to 

meet any of the internationally accepted standards associated with 

26

legitimate elections, based on a fundamentally flawed process, and 

demonstrated the regime’s continued preference for repression and 

restriction over inclusion and transparency.’’ And I think that he 

really got that right. 

U.N. Special Rapporteur that Aung San Suu Kyi referred to, 

Tomμs Quintana, last month listed several areas in particular in 

which this new government has failed to make any progress. These 

included land confiscation, forced labor, internal displacement of civilians, extrajudicial exit killings, and sexual violence against 

women. And I want to highlight some of the recent information 

about several of these domains. 

First of all, as many know, after 17 years of cease-fire, fighting 

has broken out in Burma’s Kachin State. That fighting started on 

June 9th. Some 10,000 civilians are reported to have fled. And, 

again, Burmese military forces are reported to be using rape as a 

weapon of war. 

The Kachin Women’s Association in Thailand has reported at 

least 18 Kachin women and girls have been raped by soldiers since 

June 9th. Four were killed after being raped. 

Our Chin-based survey, as another example, found that 91 percent of households had had at least one family member forced to 

labor for the military in the past 12 months. Religious persecution 

was reported by 14 percent of households, a disappearance by 4.8 

percent, and rape by 2.8 percent. And we were able to look at who 

actually committed these abuses. And government soldiers committed 98.3 percent of those abuses. 

The highest levels occurred in southern Chin State in areas 

under the control of a man named Colonel Zaw Min Oo, who was 

then head of the Tactical Operations Command in Matupi Township. 

Now, of course, all of those occurred before the election. So you 

ask yourself how relevant are they to the Burma that we now are 

looking at? Well, Colonel Zaw Min Oo was one of the junta’s appointments to the new Parliament. And he is not the Border Area 

and Security Affairs Minister of Chin State. So that has now 

changed. That is impunity for human rights abuses. 

And in Shan State, again after the elections, we have had reports 

of a 16-year-old girl who was raped by soldiers after having been 

forced to watch while the military shot and killed her parents. 

Fighting there has recently broken out and has affected 100,000 civilians with at least 3,000 people being forced to flea into jungle 

areas or into Thailand. 

These are not isolated incidents. Secretary of State Clinton noted 

in her remarks in April at the Vital Voices event here in Washington which honored Aung San Suu Kyi, Secretary said, ‘‘We hold 

up the ethnic women of Burma who are fighting against the systematic use of rape by the Burmese military.’’

In the area of humanitarian assistance and public health, the 

need for expanded health and humanitarian resources and assistance is agreed upon by all parties. But access, transparency, and 

accountability of assistance continue to be challenges. 

As an example, many were heartened by the return of the Global 

Fund to fights AIDS, malaria, and TB, which recently returned to 

Burma as a donor. Now, malaria is the leading cause of death in 

27

eastern Burma’s Karen State, but much of that state is explicitly 

excluded from the Global Fund agreement. And the reason for that 

is—and I quote directly—‘‘to avoid further accusations of lack-of-access problems.’’

The latest government budget, approved without the new Parliament, allocates less than two dollars per person per year for 

health. And that continues, really, the gross underfunding that has 

long been the biggest problem in health allocations in this country. 

You have already heard from Aung Din about political prisoners. 

That was in his written testimony. As a physician, I feel a particular connection to one political prisoner I would like to name in 

person. That is U Indaka, the abbot of Maggin Monastery. 

The Maggin Monastery was a hospice and treatment center for 

AIDS patients in Rangoon. And during the Saffron Revolution of 

2008, Maggin Monastery, a number of the monks from there, from 

the hospice, were involved in the Saffron Revolution. 

The monastery was raided. AIDS patients were driven onto the 

streets. And U Indaka, also NLD member, was sentenced to 20 

years in prison. He is still in prison. And he is precisely the kind 

of provider that if the U.S. were going to increase its assistance to, 

that we would really want to be working with were he free. 

So what can the U.S. do to support democracy, freedom, and development in Burma in this post-election scenario? I think there 

are three things certainly that we could suggest. One is to echo 

Aung San Suu Kyi’s call for the commission of inquiry. The U.N. 

Special Rapporteur Quintana has called for that. So has the U.S. 

Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, Eileen 

Donahoe. And so has Secretary of State Clinton. 

But the U.S. really needs to exercise vigorous leadership on this 

effort. And State Department I think really needs to carry the 

water on this. And this effort could be led by recently appointed 

Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma, Derek 

Mitchell. And we really look forward to his confirmation and leadership in this effort. 

I would just add that the treatment of political prisoners in detention in Burma should be part of this commission of inquiry for 

that, too, may represent crimes against humanity. 

Secondly, full implementation of targeted sanctions legislation already in place for the junta and some of their cronies could continue to put pressure on this new regime. As everybody here 

knows, many of the people who previously were in the military 

leadership are now in the civilian leadership. 

And, finally, support for democracy. Aung San Suu Kyi and the 

National League for Democracy, despite being outlawed, remain 

critical players in any future democratic transition. 

The U.S. should increase engagement in active and sustained 

dialogue with the NLD and should continue to consult with her and 

her party on all U.S.-funded activities, including humanitarian assistance programs. Programs which exclude the NLD, however 

well-meaning, undermine this transition and won’t I would argue 

in the long run help alleviate the root cause of the suffering of Burma’s people, which is military misrule, essentially under a new 

guise. 

28

The U.S. needs to be on the right side of history in Burma. And 

that side will always be the will of the people. And the will of the 

people is really best expressed by Aung San Suu Kyi herself. 

Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement Dr. Beyrer follows:]


67050b-1.eps
29


67050b-2.eps
30


67050b-3.eps
31


67050b-4.eps
32


67050b-5.eps
33


67050b-6.eps
34


67050b-7.eps
35


67050b-8.eps
36


67050b-9.eps
37


67050b-10.eps
38


67050b-11.eps
39


67050b-12.eps
40

Mr. MANZULLO. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Faleomavaega, we decided not to invite any government witnesses. We have worked very closely with Assistant Secretary 

Campbell and the State Department. We decided because of the 

very unique testimony of Aung San Suu Kyi, we would just have 

a panel from the private sector. 

Dr. Beyrer, on your most recent visit to Burma, did you face any 

resistance to conducting your studies in HIV/AIDS training? You 

were doing it at the National League for Democracy. Give us an account of your personal experience during this trip, if you want. 

Dr. BEYRER. Surely, sir. Well, I made a number of trips to Burma 

in the 1990s and then during that period before Aung San Suu 

Kyi’s most recent house arrest. And at that time, she was very concerned that a large number of the NLD youth league had refused 

to swear allegiance to military rule. At the time the military was 

insisting that all students, university students, medical, nursing, 

everybody, sign the allegiance to perpetual military rule or be expelled. And so a number of them were expelled. 

And as a person who greatly values education, she was very concerned about this and initiated the idea of something like an open 

university, where independent experts would come into the country 

and provide training, education, and the opportunity to really keep 

intellectual life alive. 

So I agreed to do this and did HIV/AIDS training for the NLD 

youth. Suu Kyi herself at the time was not allowed to speak publicly, but she very skillfully suggested that I would need a translator and that she could translate, even though she couldn’t speak. 

So I had the extraordinary opportunity. And let me tell you that 

when she is acting as your translator, you kind of speak well. You 

step up. 

And it went very well, I think. We did it at the old NLD offices. 

They were completely packed. It was standing room only. There 

was a great deal of engagement. We learned a tremendous amount. 

People were very forthcoming about their situations, what was 

going on in the townships, urban areas around Rangoon. 

When I tried to leave the country after that, I was, my hotel was 

basically taken over by military intelligence. All of the other guests 

were asked to leave. And, fortunately, the U.S. Embassy helped me 

get safely out of the country. 

At my departure, all of the materials were taken. And I said at 

the time to the security forces, ‘‘Please distribute these to the 

young people in your offices because they need this information on 


67050b-13.eps
41

HIV as well. We have nothing to hide.’’ We were doing an HIV 

training open to the public. 

But on my most recent attempt to return to Burma and meet 

with Aung San Suu Kyi privately, I was given a visa here in Washington but then detained on arrival in Rangoon, interrogated, and 

then not allowed to enter the country. So I actually saw Burma 

from the air and I got very close, but I was not able to enter. And 

I look forward to the day that I can. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Faleomavaega? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Din, I was going through your testimony. Very impressive. 

Of course, I would be the last person to ever question your expertise and understanding, appreciation of what has happened. 

I don’t know, Mr. Chairman. Should we say Burma or Myanmar? 

I think the connotation of Burma is a colonial perspective because 

that’s what the British called this country, Burma, during its colonial rule of Burma, which is now known as Myanmar. 

I would like to note that you have made a very good point here 

about the fact that Burma is one of the countries with the oldest 

and ongoing civil war since 1948, and composed of eight major ethnic nationalities with several dozens of ethnic nationalities. In 

other words, it is not a homogeneous society. You have eight separate ethnic groupings that are constantly fighting, or were constantly fighting, among each other where you could really never 

really unite as a country. And please correct me if I am wrong in 

reading your statement. 

Was, in fact, Burma a united country before, during, or after the 

British colonial rule? 

Mr. DIN. Today’s Burma is actually made by the British colonial 

government that ruled the country. Previously all nationalities, 

they all have their own kingdom. They all have their own civilization. They have their own territory. They were actually——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. There were eight independent city states 

or——

Mr. DIN. Yes. That is correct, not city states but you also have 

the——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Independent. 

Mr. DIN. Well, the same as the Soviet Union. After the Second 

World War, the Soviet Union, many Eastern European countries 

became a part of Soviet Union, same thing like that. 

So they all have their own territory. They all have their own civilization. They all have a right to stand by themselves without joining into the union of Burma, but they believe in our national leader 

Aung Sun who promised them that the country of Burma will be 

built on the federalism and all of the nationalities will be standing 

together for equal opportunity and the rights. Believing General 

Aung Sun, they tried to take the independence together from the 

British. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And I just want to understand a little more. 

General Aung Sun, was he a member of the largest ethnic group 

among——

Mr. DIN. Yes. He is from the Burman majority. He was——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. He was assassinated by another? 

42

Mr. DIN. Yes. That’s correct. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, I mean, this is how complex. It is not 

as simple as we make it to be. I mean, to suggest that we could 

make a democracy when the fact that it historically and all of this, 

it is a very difficult situation to try to put eight separate ethnic nationalities into a country, one country. Am I wrong in seeing this? 

Mr. DIN. You are right. At the same time the situation is that 

all of the other nationalities, they don’t want to secede. They would 

rather live within the Federal union. They are not demanding for 

secession from the country. They agreed to join within the country, 

federalism, if they all would have the equal opportunities and 

rights. 

Only the military junta will not allow such a situation. They consider these minorities as secondary; they are subordinates and not 

citizens. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Just to demonstrate how spirited these 8 

separate ethnic nationalities, they had 37 political parties that became part of the elections that took place last year in November. 

Mr. DIN. Yes, that’s correct. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And part of the constitutional requirement 

is that 25 percent had to be from the military? 

Mr. DIN. Yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How is that being considered by the people 

of—I say Myanmar because it has a non-colonial classification to 

it. 

Mr. DIN. One thing, they are usually—our leader, Aung San Suu 

Kyi, said that Burma-Myanmar is very not important. If there is 

a majority of people who want change to Myanmar, we can call it 

Myanmar, but it will be decided by the people of the country. The 

military leader has no power or no authority to make the change. 

They can’t name the country with their own desire. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I know my time is up. I just want to say 

that when I was in high school, I never forgot that one of the great 

leaders that came out is the Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant. But then ever since Mr. U Thant, things seem to 

have dissipated in terms of trying to get Burma or Myanmar to become as a united people. 

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. Oh, I’m sorry. Dr. 

Beyrer? 

Dr. BEYRER. Yes. Just one quick comment is I think it’s true that 

it is an enormous challenge, the diversity of Burma, but it is also 

true that in the 1990 elections, which are the only elections we 

have that were free and fair, the NLD, Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, 

won an overwhelming majority in the Parliament. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But my understanding, Dr. Beyrer, that 

election was really for constituencies. There was not a national 

election, my understanding of that election. It was not a national 

election to elect a President or Prime Minister. It was more a regional election. 

Dr. BEYRER. Well, that is true, but it is also true that in terms 

of the seats in the Parliament, you know the NLD also affiliated, 

for example, in Shan State with the Shan nationality’s leap for democracy. And they won overwhelmingly. 

43

So I think the evidence there is that when the Burmese people 

had the opportunity to vote for what they thought was human 

rights and a democratic way forward, actually, the ethnic tensions 

were——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But then one of the problems at the NLD 

ended up splitting within its ranks. You have got the uncles and 

the nephews. And that was one of the challenges to Suu Kyi as 

well, trying to get her NLD part united, because when they boycotted the election, it left them out of the whole political process 

and that those who split from the NLD party went ahead and participated in the election process. 

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. I will wait for the second round. Thank you, Dr. Beyrer. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. 

I would like to recognize Joe Crowley from New York. Congressman Crowley and I were the co-sponsors of the resolution to give 

the Congressional Gold Medal to Aung San Suu Kyi. Mr. Crowley? 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we hope to some 

day have an opportunity to present the medal to Suu Kyi, who I 

believe is one of the world’s great heroes, Aung San Suu Kyi. 

And I am sorry that I was not here for the presentation of her 

video. I hope to see that in the near future. I did have an opportunity to speak to Aung San Suu Kyi soon after her release from 

house arrest. And I know that Secretary Clinton has also had conversations with her as have other world luminaries and dignitaries 

as well. She certainly is a remarkable woman. 

I thought it was interesting just in terms of my good friend Eni 

Faleomavaega. He and I have traveled the world together and seen 

a great deal of it, as have Don Manzullo and I together. 

And you brought up an interesting subject about the naming of 

the country. And I think being Irish American, we like to be subtly 

defiant and in many respects kind of catching ourselves every so 

often. Saying Myanmar-Burma is just kind of a way maybe for us 

to demonstrate our defiance of the junta and the military rule in 

that country. 

But I am so pleased that both of you continue to bring light and 

attention on a subject matter that I don’t believe we can see to garner enough sustained attention on. It is an issue that from time to 

time heats up and then quiets down again before it hits a boiling 

point again that heats up again, and it kind of dies down. 

It is for that reason, you know, that I feel so strongly in what 

we as a Congress have done to move this regime to act to bring 

more democracy, more freedom to the people of Burma by using 

sanctions. 

What I would suggest is that the Congress has acted, and I believe the administration has tools within its shed or arrows in its 

quiver to really act on the Burma JADE Act and to ask and to call 

upon the administration to use the tools and the tough sanctions 

against this oppressive regime. What is the sense of having these 

tools if the regime continues to rape and to murder and to dehumanize the people that they supposedly are leading? It is something that I think is intolerable and needs to change. 

And just lastly, again, I want to thank both of your guests. I 

know it is not often that a nonmember of this committee—although 

44

I served on this committee for 12 years and I miss it very much, 

it is my first year not serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee but 

that I do appreciate you giving me the opportunity to speak and 

to thank our guests for being here today and for presenting their 

testimony. I particularly want to thank Aung San Suu Kyi again 

for her testimony. 

This is too important an issue to just let fade away. And I think 

the administration has the tools it needs to really bring a bit of a 

hammer to the table when dealing with this junta. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of 

follow-up questions in terms of our dialogue and discussion this 

afternoon. 

I know you mentioned, Mr. Din, you made a very good question. 

What should the United States do? And for how many years have 

we been dealing with the problem of—I think the problem, as we 

have been discussing concerning sanctions, is that the country really doesn’t need to be bothered because as long as they are able to 

train with their neighboring countries, the sanctions don’t give that 

much substance to it. And that seems to be the problem that we 

have over the years dealing with Myanmar. 

And you indicated here that you think that if Burma becomes a 

democracy, or Myanmar becomes a democracy, then all of these 

problems will clear themselves. But the reality of it is that as long 

as these countries are able to trade with Burma, especially in the 

Southeast Asia, as well as with China especially, how do you stop 

this from happening? You can’t tell China not to trade with Burma, 

no more than China telling us that we can trade with any other 

country of the world if we feel like it. 

Mr. DIN. Let me argue with you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please. 

Mr. DIN. The first is that economic sanctions or engagement will 

not make the Burma free from the dictatorship. Burma, who will 

have made their country free from the dictatorship? 

Now, they are working hard. They have been working for many, 

many years to be free from the dictatorship under the leadership 

of our leader Aung San Suu Kyi. What are we calling for? We are 

not trying to topple the military junta from the power? We are calling for the political dialogue. We would like to have the negotiated 

political settlement. But such can be realized only when the military junta is weaker and the power of democracy forces are stronger. 

But as we see it, the regime seems to be stronger and our forces 

seem to be weaker. So as long as there is no balance of power between the democratic opposition and the military junta, we will 

never see such a political dialogue in our lifetime. That’s why our 

request is to put so much pressure on the regime stronger and 

stronger. And then when the regime became weaker and weaker, 

then they will realize there is the only way that political dialogue 

with the democratic opposition and the minorities to solve the problem peacefully. 

You know, I understand that sanctions and the trading relationship with the neighboring countries, but we have the very effective 

45

tools in the United States sanctions system. The Congress adopted 

the resolution called the Burma JADE Act, which included a very 

powerful——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just wanted to mention that you mentioned that if a regime becomes weaker——

Mr. DIN. Yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA [continuing]. In the process, don’t you think 

it will go back again to the ethnic rivalry that existed prior to the 

military taking over the country? That was one of the biggest problems that you had over the years. 

Mr. DIN. Yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. It’s a constant civil war, actually, among the 

eight biggest nationalities that make up the country. You are suggesting that if the regime becomes weaker, but are you going to go 

back again to the rivalries among the different major ethnic districts? They’re going to fight among themselves again without the 

military. 

Mr. DIN. It is the same excuse made by the military junta for 

many, many years. They claim that they are the only one institution in Burma which can prevent the country from disintegration, 

but it is not true. But that is all the military forces. 

Yes, they are fighting for their rights. But they never ever tried 

to—they never have willingness to fight against the opponent in 

the civil war. They would like to solve the problem peacefully. So 

that’s why we are talking about. There was a separation, they are 

not standard, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has the capacity that her father belongs. So they are not separatists. They want to unite the 

country with the equal opportunity for all ethnic nationalities. 

We have seen the situation of 400,000 soldiers against millions 

what could become millions of——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My time is running out, sir. I just want another question. Myanmar is a full-fledged member of the ASEAN 

association. And I think right now it is up for becoming the chairmanship for the east Asian countries membership. There are ten 

of them. What do you think should be Myanmar’s position or membership? Should it continue to be a full-fledged member of the 

ASEAN Association? 

Mr. DIN. I made the suggestion that I am talking about I supported the policy of engaging in the region plus while making sanctions, but we want the basic element to make the sanctions from 

this government coordinated. At the same time we need the United 

States Government to set a clear time frame for such engagement 

policy. 

Now the regime is calling for the ASEAN chairmanship in the 

2014, which is quite a good opportunity for the United States Government to set up the clear time frame. Within such a time frame 

with a clear benchmark, releasing all political prisoners, allowing 

all bodies concerned to participate in the political process freely, 

and stop the military offensive of ethnic minorities. We will solve 

the problem together with these such benchmarks within a limited 

time frame. 

I think the United States can play a very important role to make 

positive change in my country. 

46

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Din. 

Mr. MANZULLO. We thank you for the opportunity to have you 

testify. This is the second opportunity I have had to present a videotape of a witness. The first one was Governor Bush of Florida 

testifying on an issue where the U.S. Government wanted to make 

the Canadian snowbirds show up at U.S. post every 60 days. The 

Governor was quite upset with that regulation. We actually resolved the issue during the course of it. Here today we had the rare 

opportunity to be able to have the testimony of Aung San Suu Kyi, 

which no less diminishes the testimony of the two live witnesses 

that came. 

I think the empty chair really symbolizes who this woman is. She 

is there in spirit. She very graciously agreed to testify before Congress in the limited capacity, the only capacity available to her. 

We know that the spirit of people like this, the woman whose father was literally the George Washington of Burma, as long as 

freedom has any hope of piercing the veil of darkness in the world, 

we will always think of Aung San Suu Kyi. She represents that 

shining example. 

It is a real pleasure to have you here, Dr. Beyrer, and you, Mr. 

Aung Din. We look forward to your continuous work in your fields. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. MANZULLO. Oh, I will yield. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am sorry. Yes. I just want to come in and 

thank you again for calling this hearing. It is my sincere hope that 

maybe in the near future, that both of us will have a chance to 

visit Myanmar and also again to congratulate and commend Ms. 

Suu Kyi for an excellent presentation before us. It is historical. It 

is probably the first testimony ever given before a congressional 

subcommittee. So I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for——

Mr. MANZULLO. But then we didn’t swear the witnesses. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let’s have another hearing, get the administration people in here. Find out exactly what the heck they are 

doing so we will get a better idea of what we need to do on our 

part. 

But, again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling——

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(47)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

48

f


67050n.eps
49

f


67050m.eps
50

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MR. AUNG DIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND

CO-FOUNDER, U.S. CAMPAIGN FOR BURMA


67050e-1.eps
51


67050e-2.eps
52


67050e-3.eps
53


67050e-4.eps
54

f


67050e-5.eps
55

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. 

FALEOMAVAEGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA


67050f-1.eps
56

Æ


67050f-2.eps