U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

67–039 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

H. CON. RES. 328 AND H. CON. RES. 397

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 13, 2000

Serial No. 106–145

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska, Chairman

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

PETER T. KING, New York

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

JOHN MCHUGH, New York

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL GILLMOR, Ohio

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

MICHAEL P. ENNIS, Subcommittee Staff Director

ROBERT KING, Democratic Professional Staff Member

MATT REYNOLDS, Counsel

ALICIA A. O’DONNELL, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Markup of H. Con. Res. 397, voicing concern about serious violations of

human rights and fundamental freedoms in most states of Central Asia,

including substantial noncompliance with their Organization for Security

and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) commitments on democratization and

the holding of free and fair elections .................................................................. 1

Markup of H. Con. Res. 328, expressing the sense of Congress in recognition

of the 10th anniversary of the free and fair elections in Burma and the

urgent need to improve the democratic and human rights of the people

of Burma ............................................................................................................... 4

APPENDIX

Bills:

H. Con. Res. 397 ...................................................................................................... 14

H. Con. Res. 328 ...................................................................................................... 23

Admendment to H. Con. Res. 328 .......................................................................... 28

(1)

H. CON. RES. 328 AND H. CON. RES. 397

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:35 p.m. in room

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Doug Bereuter (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. BEREUTER. The Subcommittee will be in order. I am unaccustomed to beginning a Subcommittee markup with only one Member. It could expedite the procedure. The Minority has indicated

they have no objections to us proceeding. Actually, most Members

of the Committee and the Subcommittee are involved in a meeting

with the Acting Foreign Minister of Israel at this point, and, since

that started late because of House votes, that explains why our

Members are not here. But I would like to begin at least taking us

part way, perhaps quite a way, through the Subcommittee markup

agenda today.

The Subcommittee meets in open session to consider two resolutions: First, H. Con. Res. 397, concerning the failure of most of the

states of the Central Asia region to honor their commitments on

democratization and free and fair elections; and, second, H. Con.

Res. 328, regarding the need to improve democratic and human

rights of the people of Burma.

First, we will proceed to the markup of H. Con. Res. 397. That

is the order of business. The Clerk will now read H. Con. Res. 397.

CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 397

Mr. ENNIS. House Concurrent Resolution 397: Voicing concern

about serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in most states of Central Asia, including substantial noncompliance with their Organization for Security and Cooperation in

Europe commitments on democratization and the holding of free

and fair elections.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you. Without objection, further reading of

the resolution will be dispensed with, printed in the record in full,

and open to amendment.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

Mr. BEREUTER. I would like to explain that H. Con. Res. 397 was

introduced on September 12 by the gentleman from New Jersey,

the Chairman of the International Operations Subcommittee, Mr.

Smith. It is a significantly updated alternative to H. Con. Res. 204,

2

which Mr. Smith had introduced last year. This Member is pleased

to join Mr. Smith as a cosponsor of the resolution.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, five independent

states of Central Asia—Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan,

Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan—came into being. The deserts,

mountains, steppes, and river valleys in this region are home to 50

million people. State borders, which were imposed by Stalin, artificially partition and breed resentments among various large ethnic

groups, principally Russians, Uzbeks, and Tajiks.

Since achieving their independence, the Central Asia Republics

have operated with little or no international scrutiny. In effect,

Central Asia has been relegated to an international policy backwater. However, given the geostrategic significance of the region

and given the region’s vast wealth of natural resources, such an

oversight is risky. We ignore the region at our own peril.

Regrettably, all of the countries of Central Asia appear to be

moving along the path of authoritarianism at various paces. In recent months, each of the five countries has conducted general elections. These elections varied in the degree of electoral freedom.

However, in no case did any of these elections meet internationally

accepted norms. Indeed, most remain reminiscent of Soviet-style

elections. There has been decertification of opposition parties and,

in some cases, the apprehension of opposition leaders. The State

Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1999

concludes that Presidential power in Kazakhstan and Kyrgystan

overshadows legislative and judicial power, and that Uzbekistan,

Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan have lost ground in democratization

and respect for human life. This continual decline is very disturbing, and it raises questions about the ability of the United

States or other countries to successfully encourage true democratic

institutions and the rule of law.

In some ways, this is a difficult resolution. Each of the five countries has unique characteristics. Some enjoy certain socio-economic

advantages over the others. Kyrgystan and Kazakhstan allow a relatively greater but still limited degree of political participation. The

ruler in Turkmenistan has developed a cult of personality so deep

that he is now referred as ‘‘Father of the Turkmen.’’ Tajikistan has

suffered from a crippling civil war through the 1990’s, but a common theme throughout Central Asia is governmental abuse of basic

human rights. Without exception, opposition leaders who appear to

be gaining influence are dealt with in a decisive antidemocratic

manner.

Now, it is certainly true that most, if not all, of the countries face

armed insurgences. There are all-powerful tribal warlords in

Tajikistan. In Uzbekistan and Kyrgystan there are armed religious

extremists aided by the Afghan Taliban. In Kazakhstan, there have

been efforts by pro-Moscow elements to overthrow the government.

It is entirely appropriate that the governments of these countries

deal with such threats. However, it is one thing to campaign

against an armed insurgence, and it is quite another to use an insurgency as an excuse to suspend law and crack down on the legal

political opposition. Unfortunately, that is precisely what has been

done and continues today.

3

H. Con. Res. 397 speaks to the very real abuses, then, that have

occurred in each of the Central Asian Republics and puts the nations on alert that the House of Representatives is deeply concerned about the ongoing abuses of power. The resolution urges the

nations to comply with their OSCE commitments and calls upon

the President and Secretary of State to raise human rights concerns when meeting with the representatives of these governments.

I congratulate the resolution’s author, Mr. Smith, for introducing

this resolution. The language he has crafted accurately reflects the

serious democratic shortcomings throughout the region. It has been

updated by us to include the most recent events in Kyrgystan. I appreciate the willingness of his staff to work with the Subcommittee

on Asia and the Pacific to craft a resolution that we can all support.

At this point, I would ask any Members in attendance if they

wish to be heard in an opening statement on the resolution before

us? The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. I support this resolution, H. Con. Res. 397. I have paid close attention to what is happening in Central Asia and it is a tragedy.

It was just 10 years ago that this was a region with 50 million

people where there was great hope for a transition into a freer and

better government and to a life with more prosperity. None of these

expectations have been met. The reason there has been retrogression in Central Asia has been because those people in the power

structure in those Central Asian Republics have refused to let loose

of their iron grip, the grip that they learned they could control the

population with during Stalinist times and all the way through to

the fall of Communism.

But those leaders in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan,

Turkmenistan, and others have refused to loosen their grip on the

control and power in their own countries and permit their own people the degree of freedom that is necessary for prosperity, and for

their countries to have tranquility and to be integrated into the

prosperity of the whole Western economies. That is a tragedy for

those countries and it is a tragedy for the West because this region

had so much potential. The leaders of these countries have just let

it slide and let this opportunity slip away.

Today, we hear cries of anguish from these very same despots

who had a chance to have democracy in their countries, crying out

for help because of Islamic insurgences in their country. Who is to

blame if there are insurgences in Uzbekistan, in Azerbaijan,

Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan? Who is to blame? The very leaders

that have refused to develop the democratic process. If there was

a democratic process, an honest government in Central Asia, there

would be no threat from Islamic fundamentalists.

We see crocodile tears and hear the cries of anguish from these

despotic regimes, and they themselves are at fault. I would call

upon them to pay attention to H. Con. Resolution 397 and not to

blame their problems on an outside force that are in some way supporting Islamic fundamentalists, but instead to look to their own

lack of willingness to permit democratic institutions to develop.

One last note is that to the degree there is a fundamentalist

threat destabilizing Central Asia, this Administration has to accept

4

some responsibility. As I have said many times at these Committee

hearings that we have had, this Administration is playing an ugly

game and a deceitful game in terms of its position on the Taliban.

I believe still to this day that this administration is secretly supporting the Taliban, which is unconscionable. To that degree, we

should change our policies. But if Central Asia wants to succeed,

they are going to have to have some democratic change in their

own countries.

Thank you very much, and I do support H. Con. Resolution 397.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.

The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, is recognized.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to

apologize. I was given notice that the hearing was at 2 p.m. not

1:30, and so that is the reason for my delay.

But, nevertheless, I do want to thank you for your leadership

and the fact that both the Majority and the Minority Members of

the leadership have been able to work out appropriate language.

In accepting this resolution I thank my good friend, the gentleman from California, for his most profound statements and certainly keen insights of the problems affecting Central Asia. I support the legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of

this.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Faleomavaega.

If there are no further discussions, then the resolution is open for

amendment. If there are no amendments, the occurs on agreeing

to the resolution.

As many as are in favor will say aye.

As many as are opposed will say no.

The ayes have it, and the resolution is agreed to.

Without objection, the staff is authorized to make technical,

grammatical, and conforming changes to the text of the resolution.

The second resolution to be considered today is H. Con. Res. 328,

which the clerk will now read.

CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 328

Mr. ENNIS. House Concurrent Resolution 328, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress in recognition of the

10th anniversary of the free and fair elections in Burma and the

urgent need to improve the democratic and human rights of the

people of Burma.

Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection, further reading of the resolution will be dispensed with, printed in the record in full, and open

to amendments.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

Mr. BEREUTER. The Chair would explain that H. Con. Res. 328

was introduced on May 16 by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Porter, and referred to the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.

For over 10 years, the Burmese military regime, now known as

the State Peace and Development Council [SPDC] has refused to

implement the results of the 1990 elections which were won overwhelmingly by the National League for Democracy [NLD]. During

this period, and indeed since 1962, when General Ne Win and the

military seized control, the military has engaged in egregious, sysVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:54 Jan 10, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 67039.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
5

tematic violence and abuse of the fundamental human rights of

ethnic minorities and other people of the country.

The abuses of the junta in Rangoon most recently have come

under international scrutiny, when, on August 24, Aung San Suu

Kyi was denied the ability to visit NLD party officials at the offices

of the party outside the capital. For 9 days, she and her associates

were detained at a roadblock and eventually forcibly returned to

their residences. Since that time, she and other NLD party leaders

have been under virtual house arrest. Despite the military’s denial

of mistreatment, no independent observer has been allowed to visit,

and the British Ambassador was roughed up when he attempted to

force his way into her compound. In addition, party headquarters

have been ransacked and papers seized. To justify their actions, the

junta has issued the ludicrous charge that the NLD has formed an

alliance with rebels in the provinces.

It is entirely proper that the House of Representatives go on

record condemning these human rights abuses and the political

abuses ongoing. Since her electoral victory in 1990, Aung San Suu

Kyi has been repeatedly arrested, threatened, and harassed. The illegal SPDC regime has done everything possible to discredit the

NLD and its leader. Of course, this is simply wrong. It is outrageous, and we should say so. This is not, of course, the first time

that the House or the Congress has spoken on this issue.

At the appropriate time, the Chair will offer a friendly amendment to update the resolution and address a number of concerns

that have been raised regarding the initial draft. We have had good

cooperation working with Mr. Porter. I have had recent input from

the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, which took into

account his concern about a misinterpretation of the language that

was presented earlier.

At this point, I would ask the distinguished gentleman from

American Samoa, representing the Minority, if there are any remarks he would like to make, then we will open it up for discussion.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for taking up this piece of legislation. Thank you for your leadership in

bringing this legislation to the Subcommittee.

I believe the substance of this resolution is well taken, and we

should express this true sense of the Congress in letting the leaders of Burma know that 10 years is a little too long. I certainly

commend Suu Kyi for her efforts in not only being a true patriot

but certainly a great leader of the Burmese people.

I sincerely hope that with the proposed amendment as a substitute that we, as Members of the Subcommittee, will accept this

resolution. Again, I thank you for bringing this to the Subcommittee’s consideration.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. We actually

thought about bringing it up before the recess, but, in light of the

happenings in Burma since, I am glad we could update it and bring

to the attention of the House the outrageous things that have happened most recently. Fortunately, they have had wide international

scrutiny.

Are there other Members who wish to be recognized? The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, first.

6

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I commend you for bringing up this important resolution introduced by

Mr. Porter which, as you say, is even more poignant today than it

was when it was first introduced. It is a bipartisan resolution. It

calls for an urgent need for improvement in human rights and democracy in Burma.

At present there is a serious concern for the health and wellbeing of one of the true international heroes of our time, Aung San

Suu Kyi, who is under intensified house arrest in Rangoon.

I had the privilege of visiting with Aung San Suu Kyi in Rangoon

not too long ago, and I found her to be one of the most clear-sighted

and courageous political leaders that I have ever encountered in

my life. She is not someone that those of us who believe in democracy and believe in the principles that were laid down in our own

country 225 years ago, she is not one of those people, if we believe

in these things, that we should ignore her plight or the plight of

her country when they are in such a desperate situation.

I also visited refugee camps over the last few years along the

Thai-Burma border, and this last January I was there as well. My

able assistant, Al Santoli, recently returned from the infamous

Golden Triangle in August, and we have confirmed, I confirmed

and Al Santoli confirmed, beyond any doubt, that the oppressive

Burmese military regime is involved in very many scurrilous and

criminal activities, and that this Burmese military junta is one of

the most vile regimes on this planet.

We also confirmed what has recently been reported in the Far

Eastern Economic Review and Asiaweek magazine, stories that

suggest that Burma has become Asia’s first narcoterrorist state,

which is also backed by the communist Chinese.

Efforts by our allies in Asia to engage the SLORC regime with

membership in ASEAN have backfired. The SLORC regime has become increasingly antagonistic toward Thailand, especially in its

partnership with the fierce Wa tribal army, which has become the

foremost opium and amphetamine trafficking group in South Asia.

Although drought has reduced the size of the opium fields, heroin

production in Burma has actually increased.

Mr. Chairman, let us not kid ourselves. Burma supplies perhaps

30 to 40 percent of the world’s heroin. The SLORC regime controls

Burma with an iron fist. Anyone suggesting that the Burmese regime is just refraining from involving itself in the drug trade is living in a dream world. They are closely associated with the Wa. And

of course the Wa army is led by Chinese communist officers, and

they are the ones who are dramatically involved in drug and gun

trafficking that goes right to the border of India and right down

through central Burma. The SLORC is in charge of all of these

areas of production and distribution of drugs.

They are also involved with using force against Christian Karen

and Karenni tribes, trying to force them out of their homelands

and into refugee camps in Thailand. As I say, at the same time the

Chinese military are securing routes for their own supplies and

military operations right down the rivers, down to the coast of

Burma, and into the Indian Ocean.

The resolution today calls for the U.S. policy to demand basic

democratic freedoms for all Burmese citizens and for the release of

7

Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners from prison and from

house arrest. Also it calls on them to maintain political and economic sanctions on Burma until democracy and freedom are restored. Also, it calls upon the Burmese regime to eradicate the narcotics trade.

Finally, let me just say that we should remind our Japanese,

Australian, and ASEAN friends that ‘‘engaging’’ dictators like the

one in Burma, like the SLORC regime, and engaging them with political and economic benefits before democracy is restored, is proving to be a formula for nothing more than a greater suffering for

the Burmese people and greater instability for Southeast Asia.

American policy would be better served by strongly supporting

democratic forces in Burma and throughout South Asia, whether

they are Burmese or whether they are tribal groups who have

shunned the narcotics trade.

We should go on record, and this resolution puts us on record to

seek an end and to stand against this vile military regime in

Burma. It has my strong support.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I couldn’t agree more with the gentleman

and his concerns and the sentiments brought in dealing with a

country like Burma.

I am sure the gentleman doesn’t mean just to Australia or the

members of ASEAN and that area of the world, but shall we say

also the same for France in its current efforts in dealing with nondemocratic countries in the Middle East and in that region of the

world?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I agree with that as well.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Absolutely.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Are there other Members? Dr. Cooksey? I know you and Congressman Campbell visited earlier this year. I am pleased to recognize you.

Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you. Congressman Payne and I visited as

well.

I genuinely support the gist of this concurrent resolution. The

leadership in Burma are military dictators. When we were there,

we met with the No. 3 guy on down, and some of the leadership

are reasonable, but probably the No. 1 and 2 guys are either unreasonable or not smart enough to be reasonable.

It is a military dictatorship. There is no way to justify their position. They tried to talk to me like they do their people, or one of

their foreign ministers did, and I got up and said, ‘‘I don’t have

time to listen to this.’’ when you get as old as I am, and when you

have been in the military, you can just do what you want to, so I

left the discussion. He was much nicer to me the next time I saw

him.

Unfortunately, they are holding Aung San Suu Kyi. This woman

has more courage than anyone else in Burma. She is a bright, articulate, very well-educated lady. I did warn the leadership there,

I said the most important thing you need to do is make sure nothing happens to this lady, because if it does, the wrath of the world

8

is going to come down on you and wipe you out overnight. I think

they recognize that, because these guys are basically a bunch of

cowards. It is just that they have guns and other people don’t.

I don’t agree with the idea of putting sanctions on. We have done

sanctions, or we did sanctions in 1979, which was a misguided effort. We have done it in the last several years. Sanctions hurt the

people that they are really intended to help. I think it is a waste

of time. It is a futile effort, but it makes the people who say ‘‘I

want sanctions’’ feel better. But if the people who want sanctions

want to do something meaningful, they need to go over and tell

these dictators that they are out of touch, that they cannot continue the way they are, and to call their hands, call their bluffs,

because a lot of what they are doing is bluffing.

So I am not certain, in fact I just don’t think it is good to put

any type of economic sanctions on anyone. I don’t think it works.

It’s a waste of effort.

I do think that this is an important part of the world. There is

no question that there are drugs being produced in this area. I

think that they have made some efforts to stem the drug production and the flow of drugs. Part of what they have done is to make

visiting people from other countries feel like they are doing a good

job, but they have, in fact, done some things, I think, to stem the

flow of drugs, and they are trying to help the farmers do something

other than raise poppies and opium.

So it is a difficult part of the world, there are some wonderful

people in Burma, it is just that the problem is that the wonderful

people don’t have guns. All they have got is their intelligence and

their integrity, and the dummies have the guns as is so often the

case in some of these dictatorships.

On the whole, though, I would support this resolution. Did I

make myself clear?

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much, Dr. Cooksey. I think you

have.

Seeing no further requests for time, then, we will proceed to an

opportunity to amend the resolution before us, and the Chair offers

an amendment. I would advise Members that it is in your package.

It is an updating amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.

Mr. ENNIS. Amendment to H. Con. Res. 328 offered by Mr. Bereuter. Amend the 11th whereas clause—— [The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read, printed in the record, and open for amendment.

As the Chair has already noted, this is a friendly amendment offered with the concurrence of the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Porter, the author, designed to update the situation in Burma and address two concerns that were raised regarding the base text.

First, the amendment updates the current language to reflect the

standoff between Aung San Suu Kyi and the military by including

six new whereas clauses. These clauses detail the denial of right

to movement and association, the seizure of documents and NLD

party headquarters. The new language makes it clear that Aung

San Suu Kyi was clearly within her rights in attempting to visit

party offices and that there is no justification for the roadblock established by the SPDC.

9

Second, there is a technical change to the 12th whereas clause

and its reference to Burmese narcotics activity. For the sake of accuracy, it corrects the name of the narcotics report to the Department of State International Narcotic Control Strategy Report, adding the word ‘‘strategy,’’ which had inadvertently been omitted.

Last, the amendment alters resolved clause No. 3. The resolution, as introduced, endorses the economic and political sanctions

that are currently in force. Unfortunately, in this Member’s judgment, the sanctions are simply not having the desired effect. I don’t

know a good answer for having the desired effect, but I don’t think

we should suggest that it is having a desired effect. Burma has not

been isolated. Since enactment of the Cohen-Feinstein sanctions,

Burma has become a full member of ASEAN. Burma’s neighbors,

and other important countries in Asia, like China, India, Japan,

and Southeast Asian nations, are pursuing a policy of engagement

with Burma. This was mentioned, I think, by the gentlemen from

California and Louisiana. Australia prefers a policy of what it considers to be constructive engagement. Even the EU countries,

which have joined us in expressing outrage against the policies of

the Burma junta, have generally not imposed economic sanctions.

As usual, in this Member’s judgment, while unilateral economic

sanctions make us feel good, they rarely are effective in forcing

change on recalcitrant regimes. They need to be broadly supported,

multilateral sanctions to have any impact, as they eventually were

with respect to South Africa. Unfortunately, the regime’s outrageous behavior and stubborn refusal to even engage the NLD in

a meaningful dialogue leaves us with very few options that have

been put on the table.

Let me make myself clear. I do not have an effective alternative

to the sanctions policy. I welcome suggestions from Members as we

look at this issue in the Subcommittee deliberations and as we engage in conversation with each other. I am as frustrated as any

Member perhaps with the Burmese junta. However, we should not

delude ourselves by thinking that the current policy is effective. I

therefore requested, and Mr. Porter agreed, to modify this language

to say that the United States should ‘‘continue to pursue policies

with regard to Burma designed to,’’ and leave intact, then, those

two, three, or four subparagraphs.

Those that support the sanctions policy can, if they choose, read

this as an endorsement of sanctions. However, there is sufficient

flexibility in the language to address the concerns of those who are

frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the sanctions.

The Chair would note that the resolution’s author, Mr. Porter, is

comfortable with the proposed change, and so is the Chairman of

the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee,

Mr. Smith.

Are there Members who would like to speak to the amendment?

Seeing none, as many are in favor of the amendment will say

aye.

As many as are opposed will say no.

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.

Are there further amendments?

Seeing none, recognizing Members, the question occurs on agreeing to the resolution as amended.

10

As many as are in favor will say aye.

As many as are opposed will say no.

The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Without objection, the staff is authorized to make technical,

grammatical, and conforming changes to the text just agreed to.

I thank my colleagues for their participation and involvement in

the Subcommittee markup. Appreciate it very much.

The gentleman from Louisiana would like to be recognized before

adjournment?

Mr. COOKSEY. Let me mention something. I assume there is

someone here from Burma, perhaps? OK.

One of the dilemmas you have over there is something that has

occurred in other countries where you have these military dictatorships. There are actually some people that we met in the leadership that are reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful, sensitive people. I

will not identify them, for their own benefit. But there are some

that are not. Part of the dilemma is that the current leadership is

reluctant to relinquish power because they do not know what will

happen to them. They could be put in jail, could be tried, could

have a lot of things, undesirable from their standpoint, that could

happen to them.

I got the impression from talking to the opposition, and we met

with all the opposition, that the opposition would be willing to give

them some degree of immunity, or almost total immunity, if they

would allow them to carry out the needs of the people and the vote

that was carried out, when they had that vote previously. I think

something along those lines should be done.

Now, let me tell you a classic example of where it was done and

it was a disaster, and that was in Sierra Leone. Some people from

this country, from this government, from this administration, encouraged the inclusion of Foday Sankoh in the government of Sierra Leone. Then they made him the Minister of Mines, in a country where a war is being fought over diamonds, which was just

about the dumbest thing anyone could do. These were Americans

that were supporting it, and all of them were supporting Charles

Taylor, who was propping up the guerrillas.

Anyway, I don’t think we need to do anything that dumb or that

stupid, but we should do something to give these guys some degree

of immunity, and then maybe they will get out of government, because they know someday it’s going to blow up in their faces. I hate

to see these people have another bloody war, because the people

there are kind, gentle, genteel people. But something needs to be

done.

Thank you.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Dr. Cooksey. I think you have

prompted remarks from the gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I wanted to share the sentiments expressed

by my good friend and gentleman from Louisiana, and I wanted to

ask if our friends over there in the audience are from the Burmese

Embassy or are they from the opposition?

From the opposition. I thought maybe it was from the Burmese

Embassy.

I wanted to express one of the things mentioned by a recent delegation to Southeast Asia. Of course there is perhaps a difference

11

of opinion, as it was expressed to us by the Foreign Minister of

Thailand, but some of these Southeast Asian countries recognize

Burma as a fellow country or nation because, in their viewpoint,

it is better to be engaged with them, despite their political differences, than to avoid them at all costs.

I am wondering also that, as Dr. Cooksey said earlier, and as

sanctions have not worked and will continue not working as long

as the Burmese government continues to be the No. 1 seller of heroin in the world, that from that economic standpoint, it seems that

sanctions have not worked very well and perhaps there may be

some other ways we could establish better influence to see that the

Burmese people themselves would rise up and get rid of these dictators, if there is any way possible.

It is easy for me to say this, but we know this has been difficult

for the East Timorese, this has been difficult even currently for the

West Papua New Guineans, this has been difficult for many other

peoples from other regions of the world. I just wanted to add, to

complement what Dr. Cooksey said earlier, and thank again the

gentleman for bringing this resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank you for your remarks. I guess I would

just react to the gentleman’s statement, with which I generally

agree, perhaps totally, by suggesting that if the other countries of

ASEAN would in fact embrace the economic sanctions, they might

have a chance to become effective. I think it would be much more

difficult for Japan, for example, and Australia, to ignore those at

least ASEAN–U.S. sanctions and therefore make it a broader kind

of coalition of sanctions that might have an impact.

But with ASEAN bringing in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and

Burma—an interesting group of countries—it is causing ASEAN to

be more timid than I had hoped they would be and to be less inclined to take any kind of a leadership role. That is a difficult

group of countries to try to integrate into the modern world, and

I do have sympathy with the task before them.

I thank my colleagues for their interest in this subject and for

their comments, and with those comments we will now adjourn.

[Whereupon, at 2:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]

(13)

A P P E N D I X

SEPTEMBER 13, 2000

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29