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

74–001PDF 2012

OVERSIGHT OF U.S. POLICY TOWARD BURMA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 25, 2012

Serial No. 112–140

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(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 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

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 

The Honorable Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian 

and Pacific Affairs, Department of State ........................................................... 12

The Honorable Nisha Biswal, Assistant Administrator for Asia, United States 

Agency for International Development (USAID) ............................................... 25

The Honorable Tom Andrews, president and CEO, United to End Genocide 

(former Member of Congress, D–ME) ................................................................. 39

Mr. Aung Din, executive director and co-founder, U.S. Campaign for Burma ... 48

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

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

American Samoa: Prepared statement ............................................................... 6

The Honorable Kurt Campbell: Prepared statement ............................................ 15

The Honorable Nisha Biswal: Prepared statement .............................................. 27

The Honorable Tom Andrews: Prepared statement .............................................. 43

Mr. Aung Din: Prepared statement ........................................................................ 51

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 64

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 65

(1)

OVERSIGHT OF U.S. POLICY TOWARD BURMA 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2012

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

2200 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. The story of Burma is a heartbreaking tale of 

needless suffering and unnecessary sorrow. It is a story of a people 

forced to survive in abject poverty at the hands of dictators despite 

living in a country abundant in natural resources. Indeed, for more 

than a century, the story of Burma has been divided into two main 

chapters; the first takes place in the era of colonialism, and the second spans the painful evolution of a brutal military dictatorship. Of 

course, the era of independent rule in Burma has been only a footnote in its history, a mere blink of an eye—spanning only 14 

years—before she was again robbed of her freedom. 

The reason I open today’s hearing with a look back into Burma’s 

history is to remind us all that we must never forget a people who, 

at no fault of their own, have been deprived of so much. This includes the ethnic minorities who live in constant fear, and of 

course, the political prisoners who languish behind bars to this day. 

This is the real story of Burma, and these are the reasons why 

Members of Congress are dedicated to promoting true reform in 

that country. To date, we know far too little about what is actually 

going on in Burma. Beyond the news stories, information is far too 

scarce and from what we do know, very little can be inferred. 

On April 1, 2012, the Burmese regime held parliamentary byelections in which Burma’s legendary leader, Daw Aung San Suu 

Kyi, and the National League of Democracy, the NLD, won 43 out 

of 45 open seats. Regardless of whether we view an election of 7 

percent of Burma’s legislative body as real reform, the elections 

nevertheless cap an impressive year of progress made by the secretive military regime. 

The question that we face today is whether these activities of the 

past year represent real reform or modest window dressing. If this 

is real reform, what steps are needed to protect progress made and 

promote additional steps? Have our European and Asian allies 

gone too far by rushing headlong into suspending all sanctions and 

immediately boosting assistance? 

2

At the same time, the list of problems that Burma continues to 

face is extensive. Approximately 600 political prisoners remain behind bars, and in spite of news reports to the contrary, there is evidence that a civil war continues to rage in the ethnic areas. In the 

Kachin state, anecdotal evidence from refugees and outside visitors 

point to serious human rights abuses being carried out by the military. This has led to a serious humanitarian crisis and has forced 

tens of thousands of people to flee their homes and villages. 

Rule of law in Burma continues to be nonexistent, with cronyism 

and bribery ruling the day. If the example of other resource-rich 

countries is applied to Burma, the military establishment and corrupt officials stand to reap an enormous windfall from the revenue 

that Burma’s rich natural resources promise to generate. The people of Burma will see next to nothing and remain locked in a repeating cycle of poverty. If the U.S. inadvertently contributes to 

this cycle of corruption by recklessly removing sanctions, then a 

generation’s worth of efforts by human rights champions will be 

wasted. We must not let this happen. 

America’s policy on Burma has long been guided by policy makers on both sides of the aisle. I joined my good friend and colleague, 

Congressman Joe Crowley from New York, to pass the Congressional Gold Medal Act for Aung San Suu Kyi in 2008, and was also 

the lead Republican in renewing congressional sanctions against 

Burma. I spoke out forcefully against the brutal crackdown of the 

Saffron Revolution and its aftermath. Last year, Aung San Suu Kyi 

delivered recorded testimony before the subcommittee on conditions 

in Burma and urged Congress to continue supporting her beloved 

country. I championed the cause of freedom in Burma not because 

it was politically advantageous, but because it was the right thing 

to do. 

I commend the administration for returning an ambassador to 

Burma and for USAID’s reopening of its mission there. More than 

anything, we need Americans on the ground assessing what is actually happening. But now, we face the next step in this journey. 

It is my sincere hope that these actions in Burma are the beginning of real, meaningful political reconciliation. However, let us not 

lose sight of the reality that Burma has endured 50 years of military dictatorship, and those in power will not give up this power 

overnight. 

I now recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. 

Mr. Faleomavaega? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Manzullo follows:]

3


74001e-1.eps
4


74001e-2.eps
5

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

thank you for holding this hearing on U.S. policy toward Myanmar. 

I applaud your leadership and want you to know I am honored to 

serve with you. This subcommittee, the House of Representatives 

and your constituents have all been well represented by you. At 

home and abroad you will be missed. 

Last year, Myanmar has demonstrated that it is on the path toward democratic reform and I am pleased by these developments. 

I am especially pleased that President Obama sent Secretary of 

State Hillary Clinton to Myanmar in December of last year. Secretary Clinton was the first high-ranking member of any American 

administration to visit Myanmar since World War II. 

And Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased and honored that we have 

with us as our witness, a gentleman whom I have had the privilege 

of working with also is our Assistant Secretary of State of East 

Asian Pacific Affairs, my good friend, Kurt Campbell, who has also 

been doing a fantastic job as part of the administration’s engagement policy from the very beginning in terms of what they have 

done in the past 3 years in dealing with the leaders of Myanmar. 

And Mr. Campbell certainly is attributed for doing all the tremendous work, leg work in bringing to pass these developments, and 

especially having Secretary Clinton visit at the leaders of that 

country and especially Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi. 

During her visit, Secretary Clinton praised President Thein 

Sein’s leadership and courage, and so do I. President Thein has authorized four separate amnesties for groups of prisoners since May 

of last year. For the first time in 22 years, Aung San Suu Kyi and 

the National League for Democracy participated in the April 1st, 

2012, by-elections and won 44 out of the 45 seats up for election. 

Under our new policy of engagement the United States will name 

an ambassador to Myanmar and establish USAID presence. We 

will ease sanctions on agriculture, tourism, telecommunications 

and banking. Furthermore, international response to U.S. leadership has been positive, Australia announced that it would lift sanctions. Japan decided it would waive Myanmar’s debt, and the EU 

announced its decision to suspend trade, economic and individual 

sanctions against Myanmar for 1 year. 

These are welcome new developments and I commend President 

Obama, Secretary Clinton and Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell 

for moving full speed ahead in the policy of pragmatic engagement. 

This is the course of direction the U.S. should be taking. 

I look forward, Mr. Chairman, in hearing from our witnesses, 

Secretary Campbell and Ms. Biswal, and I want to note for the 

record that my dear friend and colleague, Congressman Joe Crowley of New York, who has been a strong advocate for reform in 

Myanmar, at his request our democratic witness is the Honorable 

Tom Andrews, former Member of Congress and president and CEO 

of the United to End Genocide. 

On behalf of Representative Crowley I welcome you, and once 

more I commend Chairman Manzullo, gentlemen, for holding this 

important hearing. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]

6


74001f-1.eps
7


74001f-2.eps
8


74001f-3.eps
9

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. Mr. Royce? 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over the past year, 

Burma has seemingly opened itself up to change. Persons of conscience as you know have been released there now. Aung San Suu 

Kyi’s National League for Democracy party was allowed to participate in the elections. Governments around the world are of course 

quite optimistic. The EU is suspending sanctions, Australia has 

pledged to lift its sanctions, we have a situation where Japan has 

waived the $3.7 billion of Burmese debt. But at the end of the day 

I think we can say that Burma’s motives are somewhat unclear in 

this. 

Some of the speculation has been that the regime no longer 

wanted to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beijing and that that 

drove some of it. I will be interested in hearing the witnesses’ observations and what the administration believe is driving this. 

The administration has also struck a similarly optimistic tone 

with the rest of the international community on this, and we are 

moving quickly toward pragmatic engagement there with the Burmese Government, laying out plans for a fully accredited ambassador now in Rangoon and plans for presence of USAID, which is 

appropriate. However, I think that we would be wise to remain 

cautious. Progress this is but progress can be quickly reversed. And 

although we enjoyed watching that election and 44 seats out of 45 

going to the National League for Democracy party, at the end of 

the day that is still a small, small percentage, a sliver of that 664 

seats that are in the Parliament there. 

Our increased engagement with the Burmese Government must 

be accompanied by a push for engagement with civil society which 

can be empowering for a civil society there. What should be at the 

center of this relationship is not only a long-term view about engaging civil society, but the Burmese people. If we keep that in 

mind, making that the center of the relationship, that is where we 

are going to do the most good. 

Lastly, I think Burma’s positive relationship with North Korea is 

a vexing and an odd thing that shouldn’t be taken lightly. The extent of the proliferation network between those two countries is 

still murky but we know some of the history of it, and cutting this 

tie to North Korea should also be a priority in the relationship. 

But I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Congressman Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think 

this is a wonderful celebration today of many, many years. I know 

for myself I have been engaged in this for about 24 years. A lot of 

people understand that right after I was elected to Congress I disappeared and went to Afghanistan for 2 months and fought alongside the mujahideen. But what they don’t also understand is on my 

way to Afghanistan I went to Burma and met with the Burmese 

students in the jungle who were at that time even then in 1988, 

resisted in fighting the junta that was repressing their people in 

Burma. 

And I remember walking away from that meeting, pardon me. I 

just came back from overseas last night, so I am a little bit weary 

here, but I will try to get my words out right. The fact is, is that 

10

when I left those meetings in the jungle in Burma I was so impressed with these young people. And I remember while I was impressed certainly yes by the courage in the fighting which I saw in 

Afghanistan, but the idealism of those young people in Burma, I 

knew that some day if they held true to that they would triumph. 

And this is a triumph for the idealism of the Burmese people, and 

they did not succumb to the type of mass bloodshed on their side 

as many people who are struggling for freedom have gotten into 

over the years and not been successful. 

Those note in terms of American policy, so first of all, this is a 

great success for the Burmese people, the idealists among the Burmese people, but it also is a reflection on American policy. We did 

not in Burma become engaged. We did not put forth a policy of engagement. This is coming about now, is not coming about because 

the United States Government decided to treat the Burmese Government as if it wasn’t a vicious dictatorship that was murdering 

its own people. In fact, we tried to isolate them and used economic 

sanctions instead of trying to make them feel that they could be 

part of the family of nations even though they were a corrupt dictatorship. Well, in the end that policy has worked. The policy of basically treating a dictatorship like it is different than a democracy, 

and not giving them the same trading and economic privileges that 

we have with democratic nations. I think now is the time we 

should move forward and make sure that we start opening up 

those opportunities. As they make their concessions, we should do 

step by step make theirs. 

And Mr. Chairman, one last point and that is, let us not forget 

that there are still tribal groups along the border in Burma, the 

ethnic peoples who are still under attack and being murdered by 

the central government. They need to be brought into this process 

of reconciliation as well. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. Congressman Crowley? 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Chairman Manzullo, and thank you 

for allowing me to sit in on my former committee here in Foreign 

Affairs. And thank you for allowing me to participate today. 

I was fortunate to travel to Burma in January when I was on 

a trip to India. And I had the opportunity to meet with both the 

military government and the opposition led by Aung San Suu Kyi. 

I also met with families of political prisoners and some members 

of ethnic minority groups. I am deeply appreciative to all those at 

the State Department who helped me on that trip, in particular, 

Secretary Clinton. I also appreciate the time spent on Burma by 

this administration. It has been an enormous amount of time, I 

think, and a good amount of time on this. And I also want to recognize the work of former First Lady Bush, and President Bush’s attention to this as well. After all, it was this committee that created 

many of the sanctions and also the position of the special envoy on 

Burma through the Burmese JADE Act, which was an Act that I 

was proud to be the sponsor of. 

I walked away from Burma with three distinct impressions, and 

those impressions form my view that a lot of the media coverage 

around Burma lately has been overheated if not slightly overstated. 

First, those who are struggling to end military rule in Burma are 

among the bravest heroes in the world today. They are risking 

11

their lives for values that we share as Americans and sometimes 

take for granted and they deserve our respect and our admiration. 

Second, human rights abuses in Burma are still going on. There 

are still several hundred if not more political prisoners locked up 

behind bars in Burma, serious acts of violence against ethnic nationalities have continued. In fact, many attacks on ethnic minorities have taken place even after the April 1st by-election. 

Third, the democratic opposition has won only a small political 

arena to operate, about 6 percent of the national Parliament. The 

opposition holds no real power in this Parliament other than the 

power of hopefully persuasion. There is no real rule of law to constrain government behavior, and the military still seems to run a 

lot of the show in Burma. 

Now I don’t want to be viewed as one who is here to throw cold 

water, that is not my intention. But for all these reasons I believe 

we must be careful to not lift sanctions too quickly. We should not 

hesitate if it is necessary to impose even more. The steps already 

taken by the United States have been substantial and there is no 

need to rush to judgment. Groups working in conflict areas report 

that it may even be more likely that lifting some of the sanctions 

could increase conflict within Burma. 

It is no secret that the vast majority of extractive industries in 

Burma are owned and operated either by members of the military, 

former leaders of the military or their cronies. There is nothing 

they want more than to sweep into ethnic areas and steal the plentiful and natural resources within. If we give up all of our leverage 

through lifting more sanctions, what do we have to push for an end 

to these attacks? So let us continue some pressure. We can match 

action with action but we should be cautious and skeptical so that 

we don’t write simply a blank check. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I once again thank you, and I thank 

our witnesses here today. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. Our witnesses are, first, Secretary 

Kurt Campbell who became the Assistant Secretary of State for 

East Asian and Pacific Affairs in 2009. Previously, he was the CEO 

and co-founder of the Center for New American Security, and concurrently served as the director of the Aspen Strategy Group and 

chairman of the Editorial Board of the Washington Quarterly. He 

was the founder of StratAsia, a strategic advisory firm, and was 

the senior vice president, director of the International Security Program, and Henry A. Kissinger Chair in National Security Policy at 

the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

Dr. Campbell has served in several capacities in government including as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and the 

Pacific, a director on the National Security Council staff, Deputy 

Special Counselor to the President for NAFTA in the White House, 

and White House fellow at the Department of the Treasury. He received his BA from the University of California San Diego and his 

doctorate in international relations from Brasenose College at Oxford University. 

Nisha Biswal was sworn in as USAID’s Assistant Administrator 

for Asia on September 20, 2010. Prior to her appointment she 

served as the majority clerk for the State Department and Foreign 

Operations Subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations in 

12

the U.S. House of Representatives. In this capacity, she provided 

staff support to the Appropriations Committee Chairman David 

Obey and subcommittee Chairwoman Nita Lowey in managing the 

appropriations and oversight of the U.S. international affairs budget. 

She has also served as professional staff on the House International Relations Committee. That is your most famous post, 

right? Ms. Biswal holds a bachelor of arts degree from the University of Virginia. 

Welcome, Secretary Campbell. Welcome, Administrator Biswal. 

Let us start first with Secretary Campbell. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KURT CAMPBELL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And just 

to save time, I know we have so much interest here, I would like 

to ask that my full statement be submitted for the record and then 

we can proceed accordingly. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Without objection, the statements of both witnesses, of all the witnesses, will be submitted for the record. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much. And I just want to say if 

I may at the outset, a word of thanks to all of you for some specific 

issues. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we were both in New Zealand 

during the earthquake, and working with you in the aftermath of 

that I want to tell you, we were very proud that the United States 

has been by far and away the largest contributor to the rebuilding 

of the devastated city of Christchurch, and you played an instrumental role in that. I want to thank you. 

Congressman Faleomavaega has been an ardent supporter of renewed engagement in the Pacific. Too often when we say Asia Pacific, P is the small P, and he has been a constant reminder of our 

need to do more there, and I want to thank him for that, for his 

encouragement and his support. 

Congressman Royce, in particular, you have helped us so much 

in our relationship with the Philippines. I am proud to say, on 

Monday we will be hosting the first ever 2+2 with our Filipino 

friends. We must do more with our allies in the Pacific, and you 

have been a consistent reminder of that. 

Congressman Crowley, you have been our conscience on so much 

of what we have done in Asia, and I appreciate your support and 

your reminder not to forget about those that are still struggling 

mightily in Asia and particularly in Burma. 

And Congressman Rohrabacher, you have been our conscience on 

security issues often, sometimes reminding us about stuff that goes 

on that we must not turn our head away from. So for all of you, 

we are grateful for your support in engagement on the Asian Pacific region. I want to also underscore that there is scarcely a word 

said by any of you that we would disagree with. 

So I just want to underscore that again the hallmark of our policy in Burma has been two essential features. I would say actually 

three. The first is that it has been bipartisan. And we seek and I 

want to commit to you that we want to maintain that bipartisan 

commitment and dialogue going forward. Secondly, it is part of a 

13

partnership between the executive and legislative branches. The 

legislative branch has really led the way, has reminded us of the 

importance of Burma even when we were focused on other things, 

and we have been very grateful for that. 

And then the third dimension is the need to consult and coordinate closely with international friends. We spend an enormous 

amount of time working with our friends in Europe, in Asia, in 

Japan, in Australia and New Zealand, to ensure that we are as 

well coordinated as possible in terms of our overall approach. So 

overall, I think that what we heard just now from you was balanced and careful. 

And I just want to underscore that that is our overall approach. 

I think Congressman Crowley did underscore that there has been 

some overheated rhetoric. I hope that is not coming from the administration. In fact, I think we have tried to be clear from the beginning of an effort of dialogue in 2009, to acknowledge areas of 

very deep disappointment. And in fact, for about 2 years we were 

probably the first to say that we were making absolutely no 

progress. 

But in fact, over the course of the last several months we have 

seen dramatic developments taking place inside the country that 

no one would have imagined. Aung San Suu Kyi has been elected, 

in albeit an imperfect election, to Parliament. Just a few months 

ago she was under house arrest. We believe that there is real significant progress underway inside the country, but I want to quote 

what Secretary Clinton has said, ‘‘We believe that it is fragile and 

reversible. The future in Burma is neither clear nor certain and 

therefore we need to carefully calibrate our approach to encourage 

continued progress.’’

I want to assure you that in every single meeting we have both 

with officials in the country, with representatives from ethnic 

groups and from civil society and all of our interlocutors in Asia, 

in Europe and elsewhere that we do acknowledge the changes that 

are taking place. But we also say very clearly and firmly that much 

more needs to be done. These are the first stages of what we hope 

will be a very long journey, but much more needs to be done with 

unconditional releases of political prisoners, much more work in 

terms of advances of civil society, the legislative and legal frameworks of a well functioning open society. 

The relationship that Congressman Royce raised between Burma 

and Noth Korea, we are seeking a full discontinuance of that relationship. On the military side, countries are judged by the company 

they keep and we think that is extremely important going forward. 

And we are also determined to work diplomatically in every area 

that is of continuing concern between the United States and indeed 

the international community and the country itself. 

I believe what we have laid out is a very careful, calibrated, step 

by step approach that rewards action for action. And I just want 

to suggest that any steps that we take, any easing will be done in 

very close consultation with Congress, in close consultation within 

the U.S. Government between the White House, the State Department, the Department of Defense and particularly the Treasury 

Department, to ensure that it is done carefully and responsibly, 

and we recognize very clearly that there have to be provisions and 

14

capabilities to be able to respond if there is a reversal or a stalling 

out. That leverage is an essential component of our strategy, and 

pressure will be needed in a number of circumstances going forward. 

So my own personal view is that this is indeed a welcome, historic opening. I would disagree slightly with my friend, Congressman Rohrabacher. I think it does have to do with what the international community has done. I believe the solidarity of friends in 

Europe, in the United States, not just in governments but in 

groups that have persevered and kept conscience with people inside 

the country, have made an enormous difference and that needs to 

continue going forward. And I just want to underscore, anyone who 

says that this is the end of the game is not paying attention. We 

are at the very beginning stages of a process that will demand intense American engagement, no gauzy gaze and rose-colored glasses. A true understanding that the steps that we take must be in 

the larger pursuit of systemic reforms and progress for the people 

not the cronies. 

And I just want to commit to you that as we go forward we will 

do everything possible to work with you to make sure that we do 

this in consultation. And I also want to thank my friend and colleague, Nisha Biswal. I cannot imagine a better person to be working with this effort on. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows:]

15


74001a-1.eps
16


74001a-2.eps
17


74001a-3.eps
18


74001a-4.eps
19


74001a-5.eps
20


74001a-6.eps
21


74001a-7.eps
22


74001a-8.eps
23


74001a-9.eps
24


74001a-10.eps
25

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Administrator Biswal? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NISHA BISWAL, ASSISTANT 

ADMINISTRATOR FOR ASIA, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID) 

Ms. BISWAL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Faleomavaega, members of the committee. It is always a 

pleasure, an honor and a thrill for me to testify before this committee since I spent so much time sitting behind the members in 

preparing for hearings in the past. 

I do want to follow in the steps of my esteemed colleague, Kurt 

Campbell, and just touch upon a few key priorities and next steps 

on the USAID assistance program so that we may preserve the balance of the time to answer questions and engage in discussion. 

USAID has a long history with Burma, and indeed the U.S. relationship predates the establishment of USAID as the assistance relationship began in 1950. But we have not had a mission there 

since 1988 and the fateful events of that year. In the meantime, 

we have been stalwart in our support for the Burmese people 

through our humanitarian assistance programs inside and outside 

of Burma as well as our support for democracy, human rights, 

independent media and the like. Since about 2010 we have maintained a $38 million program of 

bilateral assistance through USAID, both along the Thai-Burma 

border as well as inside Burma. The opportunity we have today is 

an opportunity to, through the establishment of an USAID mission, 

more directly engage with the people of Burma, more directly support the reforms through support for the civil society, and for reform-minded institutions to support efforts for reconciliation and to 

engage more efficiently with other donors as we move forward. 

That, first and foremost, is why we want to establish that mission 

and that is our operating procedure moving forward. 

We hope to have by the fall of this year, the first U.S. direct-hire 

mission director in country, and to have a fully staffed mission by 

next summer. It will be a small presence but it will enable us to 

engage and assess far more directly then we have been able to 

heretofore. 

Our priorities for assistance really are focused on supporting political reform, for supporting civil society institutions, which though 

informal and nascent have been very, very resilient in meeting the 

urgent needs of the Burmese people. We believe that those civil society institutions are going to be critical for reform to really take 

root and to penetrate across all levels of society particularly as we 

look forward to 2015. 

We also believe that the critical need on the government side is 

to really have a greater technical capability and understanding of 

democratic governance. Even for those who are engaging aggressively on the path to reform, the greatest thing that we hear from 

them is the lack of capacity that is hindering institutions in Burma 

on the path forward, whether that is leaders of Parliament, whether that is ministries or the elections commission, and the like. 

And finally, as I noted, ethnic reconciliation is a major, major 

area of importance and of concern. The path to development cannot 

26

go far until and unless the needs and conditions of the ethnic minorities are addressed. And we are working with other donors to 

see what we can do to support national reconciliation, but in the 

meantime, also maintain our support for the urgent needs of those 

vulnerable populations that are most affected by ongoing conflicts. 

And finally, I would just like to note that Congress has had an 

important role, as Secretary Campbell noted, in U.S. policy toward 

Burma. USAID has worked very, very closely with Congress on 

how we move forward, and I want to commit to you that it is our 

intention to continue to do that. 

I want to thank you very much for this opportunity and open up 

now to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Biswal follows:]

27


74001b-1.eps
28


74001b-2.eps
29


74001b-3.eps
30


74001b-4.eps
31


74001b-5.eps
32

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you for your testimony. Let us talk about 

the sanctions, the sanctions that have been lifted and the sanctions 

that may be lifted, and what are the next steps on lifting those 

sanctions and include a timeline, and how to keep pressure on 

Burma if we look to sanctions. 

Do you want to go first, Mr. Secretary? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Congressman. I can give 

you a general answer to your very good question. Some of the particulars and specifics I would urge in another setting to talk with 

our colleagues in OFAC and Treasury that are responsible for the 

details. 

I would simply say that there is no intention to ‘‘lift sanctions.’’ 

I think in certain prescribed areas we will seek to ease sanctions 

by using executive authorities, but we would intend to do that in 

close consultation with key players on Capitol Hill including this 

body. I think our desire is to focus on those areas, and how we do 

this precisely obviously will be to maintain a clear criteria in terms 

of entities and individuals that are precluded from interactions because of prior associations. We will continue to enforce those prohibitions. We will update the list as necessary, and we will also work 

in areas that we think have the greatest potential to lift the lives 

of the people inside the country. 

We recognize fully that to date the reforms to the extent that 

they have taken effect have been primarily in urban areas and in 

fact Burman areas, and that other ethnic areas in fact, have told 

us quite clearly that they see very little change on the ground. So 

we need to ensure that that process extends into the country as a 

whole. And we are troubled by very clear and, we believe, reliable 

reports of continuing attacks and atrocities that are completely 

antithetical to the overall effort that we are seeking to achieve inside the country. 

I want to say that this will be a protracted process almost invariably because first of all, the complexities of the sanctions involved, 

the desire that we have to ensure that we do this in consultation 

with colleagues on Capitol Hill, and also to do this the right way. 

The real challenge, I think, going forward right now is the potential for a small country with very little infrastructure to be absolutely overwhelmed by outside engagement. And so we want to do 

this in a careful way. 

We do believe that American firms have the appropriate kind of 

corporate governance and the right values to promote better and 

more responsible actions inside the country, and we will seek to do 

this in a manner that the kinds of sanctions easing that we have 

in mind will actually assist reforms rather than undermine them. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Your response to that? 

Ms. BISWAL. I think that Secretary Campbell covered the waterfront on this. I would note that one of the actions that we have 

taken more immediately is to ease the restrictions on nonprofit organizations so that they may engage more robustly in supporting 

the Burmese people. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I would say, and I am sorry. I apologize, Congressman, I didn’t mention this. We have taken a couple of steps 

that we think are important. We are seeking to ease travel restrictions on certain officials. So we want to be able to invite key playVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Jun 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AP\042512\74001 HFA PsN: SHIRL
33

ers inside the government like the Foreign Minister, the Health 

Minister was just here, to come to Washington for consultations to 

engage with us on areas where we think more work is necessary 

and where we can support them going forward. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. Congressman Faleomavaega? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps we are 

dealing with semantics, Mr. Secretary, but I just wanted to make 

sure what we are, if we make reference to the colonial legacy of the 

British toward Myanmar, we call it Burma. But every country that 

I know among the ASEAN countries always make reference to this 

country as Myanmar and not Burma. What is the official designation by the administration? Are we going to call it Burma and remind the world community of its British colonial legacy or are we 

going to call it Myanmar? But what is the correct designation of 

this country? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Congressman. You always have the 

questions that are based in the deep knowledge of the circumstances. It is the practice of the U.S. Government and one 

other government currently, to use the official term of Burma as 

the reference to the country. As you suggest, most countries in the 

world, ASEAN, Asia, many countries in Europe and almost all 

newspapers and other official sites use the term Myanmar. And indeed, even inside the country strong supporters of the NLD, when 

writing the country down use the term Myanmar as a whole. 

I would simply say that is our policy, and we have had deliberations with key stakeholders inside the country and elsewhere, and 

I think it will be a subject of discussions going forward. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I recall Congressman Royce had raised the 

point that I wanted to ask you also, Mr. Secretary. The shift by the 

current administration or the Government of Myanmar toward 

these reforms like allowing Aung San Suu Kyi to participate in the 

election to bring about more democratic reforms. Of course a lot of 

pundits have also said that the current government kind of wants 

to play both sides, not necessarily in the pockets of the Chinese but 

try to also work with the Western, our side of the fence so to speak, 

or is it because it is just time to change? 

My understanding historically is that the reason for the presence 

of the military is because you had five, seven or eight states that 

are constantly killing each other from its history. There was never 

a united Myanmar so to speak, and apparently the only party that 

really was able to finally put everybody together was the military. 

Please correct if I am wrong on this historical. 

And I always say with fond memory, in the early ’60s as a high 

school student I always remember the name U Thant as the former 

secretary general of the United Nations, coming from Myanmar. 

And then all of a sudden we just kind of not hear anymore about—

but I really would appreciate for the record, historically why we 

ended up with the military taking control? It is my understanding 

that factions among the seven provinces for states, or eight or nine 

were constantly killing each other, a form of anarchy if you will, 

and correct me if I am wrong on this. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Congressman. I probably would more 

closely associate myself with the reference that the chairman made. 

That this is a country with a long and tragic history. I also believe 

34

that the true path to reconciliation will require ethnic reconciliation. That there have been important steps that have been taken 

in urban settings, but ultimately how power, how authority is dealt 

with in ethnic areas, how these long running, some of them over 

half a century, conflicts are resolved will be key to the country’s future. 

I have to say I do believe the government has attempted to take 

steps in a certain number of situations, ethnic situations to try to 

deal directly with the problems which are entrenched and long 

standing, and we have seen some progress. But there is also areas 

where we have seen continuing violence that is reprehensible and 

must be addressed going forward. 

To your earlier question about why this leadership has decided 

to reach out and also take steps inside the country, and this refers 

back to the excellent point that Congressman Royce and Congressman Rohrabacher raised. And the truth is one can never know fundamentally what motivates a government or a people to do things. 

My sense is that it is often a complex number of reasons why formal or informal decisions are taken. 

I will say this that it is well known and understood in Asia that 

50 years ago, the richest, the most productive, the country with the 

most impressive potential future in Asia was Burma, and today it 

is probably, if not the most backward, among the most backward 

not just in Asia but globally. I believe that some of the leaders 

have had more experience traveling in ASEAN, traveling in Asia, 

and they have seen how far their government and their country 

has fallen behind. And I also am of a view that there are people 

inside the government, the current government that are people of 

courage and of goodwill that want to do what they can to support 

their people and their country. 

And so I think a big motivation is an attempt to bring this country into the 21st century and to move away from a history that has 

been clouded by violence, repression and a lack of opportunity. And 

I think if the United States can help play a role along that path 

we will be historically over time, I think, rewarded. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I wish to just say in closing, Mr. Chairman, 

I am sorry, but I would also like to give credit to the members of 

the ASEAN association for having a lot of influence on the leaders 

of Myanmar to do what they are doing now. Thank you. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Congressman Royce? 

Mr. ROYCE. I think one of the realities though in terms of what 

we are talking about is the military government there. You have 

a government with 60 percent of the GDP ends up in the hands of 

the government, and Burma as we think about its history as we 

think about the education system there and how impressive that 

was. And now you have, what, 2 or 3 percent of the GDP going for 

education. You have literally had an implosion within the society 

of other, of anything related to civil society or private ownership or 

related to institutions like education in which what has happened 

in place of it is this enormous transfer of resources into one sector 

of the society which then can hand out franchises to the officer 

corps or whatever. But that in fact, is what has happened in the 

last few generations and the last generation. 

35

So one of the questions I wanted to ask is given the small number of percentage of seats that were in play here, is this something 

that was done to placate the international community? Would circumstances really have been different if more was politically at 

stake in terms of a real presence there in the Parliament? Just to 

get your thoughts on that. 

And then the other thing, Mr. Secretary, that I wanted to ask 

about, there are these talks about a third test in North Korea being 

imminent, and yet the President of Burma, Thein Sein, had this to 

say. He reiterated his support for Kim Jong-un in saying, ‘‘I am 

convinced that the friendship and close cooperation between 

Myanmar and DPRK will continue to develop.’’ This is the type of 

message you get out of some pretty odd actors on the world stage 

who have been based in North Korea and it puts Burma in company, in league with some characters that don’t exactly comply 

with international norms of behavior. And I was just going to ask 

you what else you could tell us about that relationship. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you again, Congressman Royce. Just to 

your first observations about the plundering that has taken place 

inside the country. I would add just to point to what you said, 

which is it has not just enriched some of the cronies, but frankly 

we think some of the international deals that have been struck, 

frankly, have robbed Burma of its natural heritage. And we would 

like to see a set of internal checks and balances and frankly, supported by the international financial institutions and the multilateral development banks to ensure that the development that takes 

place going forward serves the interests of the people of the country, and we think that is an extraordinarily important dimension 

going forward. And by the way, we will only be able to effect that 

if we are more in the game. So I believe that is also one of the reasons why a certain careful, calibrated engagement is in our best interests. 

I also suggest that I think that what will be critical in any sanctions easing will be to underscore publicly and in all our circumstances that those that have been associated particularly with 

past misdeeds will be prohibited from economic activities and other 

kinds of engagements financially and the like with the United 

States and our partners. And we worked very closely to ensure that 

these various steps are going to be adopted, we believe, among 

many of the countries in Europe and elsewhere that will go forward 

with engagement. 

On your last point, I don’t really have much to say beyond full 

agreement with what you said about North Korea. And I just want 

to say publicly what we have said privately, to China, to South 

Korea, to every country in Asia who has focused on their engagement strategy with Burma that a limiting factor in our engagement 

will be the future direction of their military relationship with the 

DPRK. And that if they continue to take steps that are antithetical 

to U.N. Security Council resolutions it will put a break on the kind 

of engagement that we seek between their two countries. 

And I can’t say it anymore directly that countries are judged by 

the company they keep. And so we fully agree, Congressman Royce, 

with your concerns in this regard. 

36

Mr. ROYCE. Yes, if I could just end with one point, Mr. Chairman. Just shifting countries for a minute, I want to thank you for 

your good work, the progress we are making with an old ally with 

the Philippines. One area of concern though is the sale of public 

lands especially when Filipino Americans are hurt. And I had a 

chance to talk to you a little bit about this prior to the meeting, 

but I look forward to working with you on it and I thank you again, 

Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I would like to commit publicly that we will work 

with you on this issue and raise it with our Philippine colleagues 

and friends. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Crowley? 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. There are a 

number of meetings that took place in the short period, the 2 days 

that I spent in Burma. In one meeting, I think, one of the most extraordinary women I have ever had the opportunity to meet is 

Aung San Suu Kyi. But also prior to that meeting, a meeting that 

I had with the families of prisoners of conscience, many of whom 

were released the day I was leaving Burma, and many of those 

families reunited. 

I just would like to get a sense from you, something I just want 

to say about those families momentarily. The absence of revenge 

was palpable. It was so evident that these people, the deprivation 

they had been through, their families, the torture. Being in prison 

in Burma is probably one of the worst places in the world to be incarcerated, and yet the total absence of revenge that I sensed from 

these families and from the prisoners as well. 

Do we have a sense of how many prisoners are still incarcerated 

in Burma who are prisoners of political conscience? And what is 

the administration doing to secure their release, and is the U.N. 

doing anything to secure their release with the soon-to-be visit by 

the Secretary General? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you. I think I can address that question, 

Congressman. Can I just say, my own personal observation, I noted 

the same thing. And I have had a number of meetings with family 

members and those that have recently been released. I took away 

something else, which was just incredible. I have never met a 

group of people that had that strength of mind and appeared ready 

to play a role in as they returned to society. 

And one of the things that I had asked Congress to look at perhaps working with USAID or some other institutions, it is very 

clear that it is challenging for some of these hundreds of people 

that are returning back into public life to find roles in society. 

Some have been outside of, behind bars or imprisoned for decades. 

And I think we need to do more to support these people to help 

them, and we have been working with private foundations and the 

like. But frankly, your attention to this, your support to this makes 

a huge difference. So what you could do to help along those lines 

would be terrific. 

One of our efforts, we believe a very large percentage of the most 

high profile prisoners have been released, not all of them unconditionally, a point that we make in every single meeting with authorities that we seek those unconditional releases. We are beginVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Jun 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AP\042512\74001 HFA PsN: SHIRL
37

ning a bilateral dialogue, a multilateral dialogue, and we have 

worked with the United Nations to have a sense of what number 

and what kind of prisoners of conscience remain in prison. I would 

hate to give you an exact number because I don’t think we know, 

but we will not rest until we achieve a full and accountable release 

of all the political prisoners inside the country. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Ambassador. Ms. Biswal, just on 

terms of USAID and the conflict areas of the Kachin state as well 

as the northern Shan state, it is clearly a humanitarian crisis. 

There are over 75,000 displaced civilians and they are in desperate 

need of assistance and help. 

What is USAID providing in terms of assistance to these refugees, and will USAID begin to address the life and death needs of 

the displaced Kachin as well? 

Ms. BISWAL. Thank you very much, Mr. Crowley. And before I 

answer your question I just also wanted to note that I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to visit Burma and to meet both with 

Aung San Suu Kyi and with many of the ’88 generation political 

prisoners who have been released. And it is remarkable that not 

only do we have an extraordinary leader in Daw Suu, but that 

there are so many extraordinary individuals that give cause for optimism for that country’s future. 

With respect to what we are doing and will continue to do, humanitarian needs inside Burma, along the borders, in the ethnic 

areas and such, we have provided over the years assistance 

through the Thai-Burma border consortium to refugees and displaced in that Thai-Burma border, we have been seeking to gain 

access into the Kachin areas for our assessment teams so that we 

can try to not only get a better handle on the humanitarian needs 

but also the institutions that may be able to partner with us in 

supporting and addressing some of those needs. 

The Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and 

Migration did recently put forward assistance through the UNHCR 

specifically for Kachin, and UNHCR is right now also engaging in 

partnerships with some of the local institutions to try to get aid 

into the Kachin area. It has been difficult and we continue to press 

that in all of our conversations with the government, and we continue to meet very aggressively with the humanitarian community 

to see how we can expand access and assistance into that area. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. Congressman Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for letting me sit in today. I am not a member of this 

subcommittee although I have been active on many of the issues 

we have been talking about. 

Let me just start with a couple housekeeping chores here in 

terms of wording. When I talk about engagement, I have always 

personally been engaged with the people and expect our Government to be engaged with the people of Burma and other repressed 

peoples. That is where engagement belongs. For example, we did 

not engage the Soviet Union by giving it most favored nation status, but we engaged with China and that provided most favored 

nation status, and where did that engagement get us? There has 

been no liberalization in China whatsoever. They are still the 

38

world’s worst human rights abuser. And in the Soviet Union, it has 

disappeared and they have gone through massive reform. 

I also have sat through decades of the business community lobbying this Congress to try to get us to lift the economic sanctions 

when the repression was at its worst in Burma. And there was no 

reform, the business community wanted to make money. So surprise, surprise, businessmen don’t care about human rights. They 

want to make money. Well, let us recognize that. An engagement 

with those businessmen making money has nothing to do with 

making it a freer society and, in fact, I argue just the opposite. We 

should not be having free trade with dictatorships. Free trade between free people is wonderful. Free trade with dictatorships 

strengthens the dictatorship. 

Furthermore, I would like to respectfully disagree with my 

friend, Mr. Faleomavaega. The Burmese junta did not take over to 

stop killing and they did not have some benevolent native in mind. 

They have killed and murdered more people than the ethnic groups 

were killing each other. And yes, there was a great deal of conflict 

that went on in that country, but nowhere near the organized 

slaughter that has taken place by the Burmese dictatorship which 

was the worst in the world. 

When they started calling Burma, Myanmar, was after 1988 

when the junta assumed total control of that society after they 

reneged on agreeing with free elections. That is when the word 

Myanmar, so that they could hide the fact that people don’t even 

know what they are, who is being criticized when you use the word 

Myanmar. Most of the people over there didn’t even know what 

that meant. That is why the word has changed. And now that we 

are going toward reform, I think it is a good idea we start calling 

them Myanmar. Let us start rewarding them and let us start engaging with them and really engaging with them, but let us do so 

in a way that if they start going backwards that there is a price 

to pay. 

I would suggest, and I know this is another outrageous Rohrabacher suggestion, let us give amnesty to all of them no matter 

what crimes they have committed against their people. Let us give 

amnesty and just say blanket amnesty everybody. But those people 

who continue to commit crimes after this lose that amnesty. That 

we will say, if you are going to start operating as we do in a decent 

society and a democratic, we are with you. We don’t care what they 

say you did in the last 10 years. But if you start getting engaged 

again in slaughtering the people and the tribal groups out in the 

Kachins or the Kayins or whatever, that amnesty is going to be 

withdrawn. Let us make sure there is a penalty to go the wrong 

way and let us give them all the incentive to go the right way. 

And again, I think we should be celebrating. This is a tremendous breakthrough. This is a victory for the honorable people and 

the idealists of Myanmar, and it is also I might add, it is a defeat 

for China and it should be taken that way. This is a major country 

that was being given to the Chinese. They were raping, the Chinese were raping the natural resources of that country in exchange 

for arming the junta that oppressed the people. They have broken 

away from that cycle. That is a magnificent achievement for humankind. 

39

And maybe either of you would like to comment on that diatribe 

or whatever it was. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think I will just reflect on it for awhile. Thank 

you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. He doesn’t want to engage with me. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman move forward? 

Mr. MANZULLO. Certainly. 

Mr. CROWLEY. He should refrain from self-diagnosis. I don’t 

think he is an M.D. or a doctor or a psychiatrist, so it is really——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you for your testimony, Secretary Campbell and Administrator Biswal. We appreciate you coming here this 

afternoon. We can prepare for the second panel, thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MANZULLO. Okay, our second panel is former Congressman 

Tom Andrews from the great state of Maine. He is president and 

CEO of United to End Genocide. He most recently served as the 

national director of Win Without War, a coalition of 40 national organizations promoting a more progressive national security strategy that calls for prudent use of military engagement. He has 

worked toward democracy and human rights throughout the world. 

He has worked closely with the National Coalition of Government 

of the Union of Burma facilitating the creation of the European 

Burma Network, and served as general secretary of the Nobel 

Peace Laureate Campaign for Aung San Suu Kyi. 

Tom was elected to the Maine House of Representatives in 1982, 

the Maine Senate in 1984, and the U.S. House of Representatives 

in 1990. He recently served as an observer in the elections in 

Burma. Glad to have you here, Congressman. 

Our next witness is Mr. Aung Din, who 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 president 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 former President U Nu during the peak of the 1988 pro-democracy uprising in September. 

Amnesty International adopted Mr. Din as a prisoner of conscience in 1989, and its chapters worldwide campaigned for his release. In 2003, he co-founded the Washington, DC-based U.S. Campaign for Burma, an umbrella group of Burmese dissidents in exile 

and American activists. 

Mr. Aung Din, good to see you here. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM ANDREWS, PRESIDENT 

AND CEO, UNITED TO END GENOCIDE (FORMER MEMBER OF 

CONGRESS, D–ME) 

Mr. ANDREWS. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having 

this hearing at this extraordinarily important time for Burma and 

this part of the world, and for inviting me to serve as a witness 

today. You are right, I did serve in this body. As a matter of fact, 

I was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives the same year 

that Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy 

40

won 92 percent of the seats in the Parliament. I went on to Congress, she went to prison. 

And certainly there is a lot to celebrate in the fact that Aung San 

Suu Kyi has gone from a prison cell to house arrest to being elected 

to the Burmese Parliament. But reforms that President Thein Sein 

has announced should indeed be recognized, but we should also recognize that Burma, the progress that we have seen in Burma can 

easily be reversed and that we need to be prudent and clear-eyed 

because of the fact that a great deal in this country has not 

changed. 

The United States and this subcommittee has played a key role 

in generating and sustaining the international pressure that has 

been instrumental in making this progress possible, but to abandon 

this leverage prematurely would be to jeopardize this positive 

movement and condemn those who suffer and continue to suffer in 

Burma to more of the same. 

While the world was watching and celebrating Aung San Suu 

Kyi’s election, I spent that day, election day in Burma, on the front 

lines of the brutality at the hands of this regime, Kachin state. A 

place the Burmese Government did not want me to see and does 

not want you to know about. A place where 75,000 men, women 

and children have been forced to flee their homes because of attacks by the Burmese military. I would like to share with you what 

I saw. 

I visited the town of Laiza and Mai Ja Yang and the surrounding 

areas where despite President Thein Sein’s assurances to the country in his speech on December 10th, Burmese troops, weapons and 

violence is, in fact, escalating. I spoke with dozens and dozens of 

people who were literally running for their lives having abandoned 

their homes and their villages. I heard stories of killing, forced disappearance and death from disease. The day after the election I 

asked an NGO worker in Kachin state, what was the news from 

Rangoon, and she said, frankly, I could care less. For the people of 

Kachin, the election and the declaration of reform by this government mean absolutely nothing. 

On election day I stood just beyond the range of Burmese military mortar fire north of Laiza, a place that had been attacked as 

recently as the day before. We could see the Burmese troops positioned on a hill across the valley. They had recently more than tripled their troop presence. Hundreds of soldiers occupied the hill 

and valley below, reinforcements had filled in from behind. Between where I stood and these troops was literally a gold mine. 

Mining operations had been suspended because of the fighting. 

As we were getting ready to leave a pickup truck came by with 

two elderly women in the back, Yi Ma Sa and Waw Ma Lay, told 

us they had just fled their village. The Burmese soldiers had destroyed their crops and shot their livestock. Fearing for their lives, 

they hid in the jungle the previous night, returned in the early 

morning hours to their village to grab what they could and now 

they were forced and were on their way to join tens of thousands 

already displaced. 

We met La Hpay Nang Bauk who spoke to us with a toddler 

afoot and an infant on her back. Her photo I brought to show to 

the committee. Her husband, a Baptist minister, had attempted to 

41

return to her village for supplies. He was captured by the Burmese 

military and had been missing for a month. She is now taking care 

of seven children while desperately trying to uncover news about 

her husband. Similar stories, Mr. Chairman, were all too common. 

Others tell us about an elderly man who had been working in a 

rice paddy when then Burmese military came upon him and shot 

him, killed him. We heard about a nursing mother who had been 

stabbed and left to die in the jungle, her child forced to spend a 

cold night crying next to her body. We met a farmer who had been 

harvesting corn with his wife and father-in-law when Burmese soldiers entered their field, ordered them to carry their corn to a military encampment. They tried to escape the next morning. His wife 

was caught and he has not heard word about her since. 

One of the most heartbreaking memories of my time in Kachin 

state happened 2 days after the election. I arrived in Bum Ring 

Zup camp in Mai Ja Yang. An 11-month-old baby, a little boy 

named Myu Jat Aung, had died the day before. I was invited to attend his funeral ceremony as an honored guest. He had reached the 

safety of the displaced persons camp after his family had escaped 

their village. But living in poor conditions with little access to medical treatment, a bout of diarrhea had become a death sentence. 

The family told us that we had been sent by God to see them so 

that the world would know. 

The Burmese Army as you know, Mr. Chairman, has a long and 

brutal history of targeting ethnic minorities. They do it through direct violence, rape and killing but also indirectly by destroying 

crops, livestock and preventing international humanitarian access. 

The stories we heard while on the ground in Kachin state indicate 

a clear targeting of civilians that shows no sign whatsoever of abating. Despite multiple public announcements from President Thein 

Sein in December ordering the Army to cease offensive attacks in 

Kachin state, Mr. Chairman, precisely the opposite is occurring. 

In reviewing U.S. policy toward Burma, I hope that this committee and our nation bears three basic things in mind. Number 

one, everything that the Burmese Government has done positively 

can be undone. The real questions about who is actually in control 

of the government and what real power the President might have 

must be asked. This was illustrated when the Burmese Army escalated its forces in Kachin state after President Thein Sein’s announcement. 

Secondly, lifting sanctions on the extractive resource sectors of 

this economy precisely in the areas that we visited could have very 

negative impacts on vulnerable populations if those living in ethnic 

minority areas are not protected. And finally, economic pressure 

has helped to push forward progress in Burma. Giving away rewards too quickly in exchange for too little, leave the United States 

and the international community without leverage. 

For the people we met in Kachin state, trapped between hydroelectric projects, a new oil and natural gas pipeline, and situated 

along major trade routes to China, their economic advantages have 

become their misfortune. 

Mr. Chairman, my written testimony outlines specifics that I believe the United States should be looking at and insisting upon before gradual, deliberate, reversible removal of sanctions would be 

42

allowed to proceed. But first and foremost of those, we should be 

insisting that there be demonstrated progress and, in fact, an end 

to the gross violations of human rights including an end to attacks 

on civilians of all regions and meaningful access for international 

human rights monitors everywhere in this country. 

Much as we hope that the recent progress toward democracy in 

Burma will mark a turning point, nothing positive will last until 

the Burmese military stops committing atrocities and a civilian 

government exists that has the right and the capacity to hold it accountable, just the opposite is true. 

Mr. Chairman, Congress should renew the Burmese Freedom 

and Democracy Act, and urge the administration to take a measured approach on incentives. It is imperative that the United 

States Government engage with the legitimate representatives of 

each ethnic nationality and support redress of their long-standing 

and unresolved concerns. And given the reality in Burma that I 

saw, the United States cannot forget our commitment to cross-border humanitarian assistance. The more than 0.5 million internally 

displaced people living in border areas depend on these aid networks for their very survival. 

I understand the desire, Mr. Chairman, to declare Burma a success story. I have been working for two decades to celebrate that 

achievement. But success is not marked by removing sanctions. It 

is marked by lasting and meaningful change for the people of 

Burma who have endured endless suffering under a brutal military 

regime. We must choose our steps wisely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:]

43


74001d-1.eps
44


74001d-2.eps
45


74001d-3.eps
46


74001d-4.eps
47


74001d-5.eps
48

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Din? 

STATEMENT OF MR. AUNG DIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND 

CO–FOUNDER, U.S. CAMPAIGN FOR BURMA 

Mr. DIN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the 

subcommittees, I really appreciate that the committee hold hearing 

about Burma at a very good time. And I also want to just state my 

appreciation to the United States Congress for its consistent interest and support for the Burmese democracy movement. I already 

submitted my written testimony for the record and I will summarize my testimony here. 

The historic by-elections in Burma were held on April 1st, 2012. 

And democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the 

National League for Democracy, won 43 seats out of 44 they had 

contested. And now governments around the world are congratulating Aung San Suu Kyi for her landslide victory. But in my opinion, Burmese Government led by President Thein Sein is the real 

winner of the elections. 

Winning of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her party about 7 percent of seats in the Parliament will not constitute a major threat 

to the Burmese regime as they still hold 80 percent of seats in the 

Parliament and the military still has a veto power to kill any proposed legal change. However, what they have achieved from the byelections is enormous. The international community recognized 

their political system as all party-inclusive and legitimate and 

many international leaders see them as true reformers. 

The pressure and sanctions imposed by the United States, Australia, Canada and EU are being significantly lifted or suspended 

and the Japanese Government has announced that it will write off 

$3.7 billion debt and plans to resume development assistance. Engagement and appeasement will flourish further. More investment 

and more tourists will come in. 

Furthermore, this election effectively eradicates the long-standing objective and expectation of Burma’s democracy movement and 

ethnic nationalities. It is the realization of a meaningful and timebound political dialogue between the military, democracy forces led 

by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and ethnic representatives that would 

lead to the real democratization and sustainable national reconciliation. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has moved herself into the militarycontrolled political system with expectation that she can work together with former and current generals to make the country 

democratic and prosperous, and especially to work for the rule of 

law, internal peace and amendment to the undemocratic 2008 Constitution. However, as we can see from the current stand-off between the regime and the NLD over the language of the Parliamentary oath, the magnitude and depth of obstacles she will face 

in the Parliament are extremely huge. 

So this election victory is just the beginning of new challenges for 

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. There is a risk of course that she may be 

condemned, confined and co-opted in the regime’s political system 

without achieving anything. Or she may be able to crack the door 

wider and recruit more and more members of the USDP and the 

49

military to join in the alliance of the agents of reform. There are 

so many uncertainties lying ahead. 

Two days before the by-election when a journalist asked her how 

she would rate the current state of changes toward democracy in 

the country on a scale of one to ten, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi said, 

we are ‘‘on the way to 1.’’ She knows clearly that there is still a 

long way to go. But the governments around the world including 

the United States, are now rushing to reward the regime with the 

excuse of encouraging the reformers. 

I support the measures announced by Secretary Clinton on April 

4th, 2012, except targeted easing of investment and the financial 

services. I believe such easing of major sanctions will only help cronies, the military and families of authorities as they have power, 

resources, connections and institutions to profit from such opportunities. That is why I would like to make the following recommendations and request for the Congress to balance the fast track action 

of the administration. 

Number one, before the removal of any financial sanctions takes 

place, the SDN, Specially Designated Nationals list on Burma, 

managed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, must be updated 

to include more cronies and hardliners. This list should be a mustcheck reference for U.S. companies that will do business in Burma. 

And number two, the process of selecting targets to be eased for 

investment and financial services should take sufficient time and 

should be made through broader consultation with the human 

rights community in the United States and key stakeholders inside 

Burma, especially ethnic nationalities. 

Number three, the implementation of targeted easing of bans on 

investment and financial service should wait until we see clearly 

how National League for Democracy and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi 

are treated by the USDP and the military in the Parliament and 

establishment of a nationwide ceasefire especially in Kachin state. 

And number four, binding requirements or a compulsory framework for responsible business conduct should be imposed for any 

U.S. business that will invest in Burma. 

And number five, United States must pressure the Burmese regime to allow former political prisoners to obtain passports so they 

can make trips abroad in response to the United States easing of 

visa restrictions on Burmese officials. And U.S. also must pressure 

the Burmese regime to allow members of the Burmese civil society 

to form and operate nonprofit organizations freely, in response to 

the U.S. granting permission to the U.S. organizations to work in 

nonprofit sectors in Burma. 

And United States also must pressure the Burmese regime to release all remaining political prisoners unconditionally, lift all restrictions imposed upon all former political prisoners, and allow 

former political prisoners to go back to schools or resume their professions such as legal representation, teaching or medical practice, 

et cetera. 

And United States now planning to establish official USAID office in Burma and support a UNDP country program, U.S. must 

pressure the regime to allow international organizations to have 

unhindered access to the areas affected by disaster or armed conflict. 

50

And U.S. must remind and keep reminding to the Burmese regime that their full cooperation with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and 

democratic MPs in the Parliament and achieving negotiated political settlement with ethnic nationalities through a meaningful political dialogue outside the Parliament are the sole factors to justify 

fully lifting of sanctions. And again United States Congress must 

renew import restrictions contained in Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 for Burma. And thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Din follows:]

51


74001c-1.eps
52


74001c-2.eps
53


74001c-3.eps
54


74001c-4.eps
55


74001c-5.eps
56

Mr. MANZULLO. Congressman Faleomavaega? 

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

our colleague, Congressman Andrews, for taking the time to come 

and testify before our subcommittee. And I certainly want to commend you, Tom, for all the work that you have done in the areas 

of human rights, and especially dealing with, I don’t know whether 

to call it Burma or Myanmar, and I am getting a little mixed up 

myself here now. 

Tom, with all that you have said, it sounds like the only reason 

why we are giving this step now toward allowing or working, having a better, closer relationship with Myanmar is because of Aung 

San Suu Kyi’s elections. I mean with all the atrocities and the 

things that you have said, it seems like lifting the sanctions cannot 

be justified with what you have just shared with us. 

So am I catching the wrong wind here? Because not only that, 

we said oh, let us be cautious. It sounds like let us not even do it. 

If we are going to really honor the meaning and why we put sanctions against countries that commit military coups, then I have another series of concerns about this whole thing about sanctions 

where we have given the President the authority to waive the sanctions. And a costly example of this is Pakistan. For 8 years a military coup takes place and because of the nuclear issues, oh no, we 

have got to deal with Masharif in a very different way despite all 

the problems that we have dealt with. 

But I am concerned that what you are sharing with us is that 

it seems like Myanmar really has not changed at all when it comes 

to atrocities and the kind of killings that continue to go on in 

Myanmar. Can you shed some light on this? Am I wrong on what 

I am hearing from you? 

Mr. ANDREWS Congressman, you are not wrong. I think certainly 

from my experience at Kachin state as I mentioned in my testimony, they have no idea what anyone is talking about when it 

comes to reform and that things are going to get better. And as 

they see the escalation of troops and weaponry and violence, they 

have every reason to feel that way. 

I think that what is important is number one, that we do recognize the progress that has been made in Burma. I have met with 

Aung San Suu Kyi long before she was allowed to run for office. 

I have spent time in Burma at the time when the NLD was just 

barely able to exist at all. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am not taking anything away from the tremendous sacrifice and demonstration of her leadership and what 

she has done, I am talking about Aung San Suu Kyi. But it seems 

that our whole international media and everything in this statement is focused, it is just Aung San Suu Kyi, but beyond that you 

are telling us it really hasn’t changed that much. We know that 

winning 44 out of 45 seats is an achievement in that direction but 

we are only talking about one-sixth of the entire parliamentary system that they have. 

And so who are we really kidding, other than to commend Aung 

San Suu Kyi for the sacrifices for what, 10, 15 years now that she 

has been under house arrest? I get the impression that we seem 

to be having a double standard here. If we were really serious 

about sanctions then let us do it. But the way we are saying well, 

57

let us do it halfway like giving a half of a loaf of bread or a third 

of a bread or whatever, I am not getting a straight answer in terms 

of, even from Secretary Campbell and all the administration’s efforts that have been made. Now we are having diplomatic relations, but in the midst of what you just shared with us it hasn’t 

changed that much. So who are we really kidding? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, that is right, Mr. Chairman. Her party, the 

NLD, ran the table on April 1st, on election day. She won 6.5 percent of the vote, but the military by Constitution is guaranteed 25 

percent of the seats in that Parliament and they are guaranteed a 

veto over any changes the Parliament may want to make to that 

Constitution. So in that respect nothing has changed. And certainly 

respective of the people like we are talking about today in Kachin 

state, nothing has changed. So sanctions, I believe, need to remain 

in place and that only when clear progress is demonstrated should 

we incrementally and very, very prudently begin to make reversible 

changes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I had about 100 other questions I wanted to 

ask, Mr. Chairman, but I am going to forego. Thank you, Tom and 

Mr. Din. I am sorry I don’t have the time to ask questions. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DIN. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. MANZULLO. I find it interesting that the NLD party only 

came into obtaining those seats which were previously held by the 

ruling party because the members of the ruling party left the government and the seats became available. I share Mr. 

Faleomavaega’s concern as to what really has happened here? I 

mean at most, 7 percent of the seats were picked up and they have 

not even been sworn in. There is a huge dispute over the oath. 

Anybody want to comment on the oath? I think it is important. 

Mr. DIN. First, I would like to respond something about our immediate concern. You are right, Mr. Chair. The international policymakers, the international media, there has been much attention 

on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, but there has not been much attention 

on very big immediate issue in the country about what is happening among ethnic nationalities. But their plight is almost forgotten. 

So when international policymakers tried to make a policy, they 

only listened to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and they didn’t try to 

reach out to other leaderships. That is why when they made the 

decision and when they do the implementation, something is missing. 

Then you will see the story in the news media, victory of Aung 

San Suu Kyi, actually she only won 43 seats which is 6.5 percent 

of the total Parliamentarian seats. She couldn’t make any difference without convincing the military and the USDP party to join 

with her. But apparently USDP said oh no, there is no way to 

change the Constitution. And then military said oh, our duty is to 

protect the Constitution. 

Mr. MANZULLO. So let me ask you both this question. It took but 

4 days for a huge amount of sanctions to be lifted, and I refer to 

the testimony on, to your testimony, Mr. Din. 

Mr. DIN. Yes, that is correct, sir. 

58

Mr. MANZULLO. I think on Page 3, the USAID mission will establish an official presence in Burma, restrictions imposed upon the 

UNDP will be lifted, a U.S. Ambassador to Burma will be nominated, selected Burmese officials and parliamentarians will be invited to the U.S., private organizations in the U.S. will be allowed 

to operate in Burma, and two major financial sanctions, bans on investment and financial services will be eased for selected targets. 

This is an extraordinary amount of sanctions to be lifted in only 

4 days. 

Mr. DIN. Yes, correct. 

Mr. MANZULLO. What is going on here? 

Mr. DIN. They are going too fast. We look at the measures announced, and we have done too much. They are too fast because 

they made the announcement only after the 3 days of the by-election. Now we have done too much because instead of beginning a 

process of selection of targets to ease investment banking, financial 

services which we consider major sanctions. So while we look at it 

as the situation on the ground, and winning 6.5 percent of seats 

in Parliament. 

Mr. MANZULLO. But what about, and Congressman Andrews, 

maybe you can answer this in addition to Mr. Din, what about the 

ability of Americans and others to travel freely in Burma and to 

go wherever they want and observe whatever they want? 

Mr. DIN. Well, some of them are granted visas, some of them are 

not. Even many of those, their visas was denied so they have to 

come to the State Department to get the United States stamps. 

And not only American travelers but also the Burmese people. 

Sometimes they are allowed to visit, sometimes they are not allowed to visit. Even if they are allowed to visit the country they 

have to sign a paper that they will not get involved in the political 

situation and something like that. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Well, I am talking about the lifting of these restrictions. Do you think that will include the ability to have more 

people on the ground and the ability to make personal ‘‘inspections,’’ for lack of a better word? 

Mr. DIN. Well, some of this I agree that, okay, U.S. are now 

going to allow the U.S. organizations to do the nonprofits, et cetera, 

in Burma. 

Mr. MANZULLO. The NGOs, okay. 

Mr. DIN. No, this is a kind of encouragement for our civil society 

in each of the country. I believe that we need to build a strong and 

active civil society in Burma. The United State organization go into 

the country and have that do in the nonprofit centers, especially in 

education, health care and social affair. That would be grateful. 

This is a good thing, I think. We support it. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Crowley? 

Mr. CROWLEY. Well, first of all, Congressman, I think if I sprinkled a little cold water on the first panel, you are like an iceberg 

coming in, an entire ocean. And I really don’t disagree per se, in 

terms of the two tracks that are going on here. They have this diplomatic track that they are moving forward on to kind of show the 

world that they are changing, and at the same time it is similar 

to what the President said in his speech that things are going to 

change in this region. No longer will the state be attacking, they 

59

will only respond if attacked and we know that they are actually 

taking their own steps to attack the people of the Kachin region. 

And I think in terms of my observation that from a diplomatic 

point of view with even on the other track, which is the diplomatic 

end or the public relations end, that their move needs to be responded in a measured way. And I would even suggest that diplomatic relations was a measured way. The release of almost 1,000 

prisoners and other good things that were happening, which really 

doesn’t materialize beyond, the charge d’affaires we have there will 

now be called an ambassador. So we kind of all know what the reality is. 

I also think, in talking before about the hyperbole that has been 

out there about the great changes within Burma, and much of it 

has been driven by almost international competition, like Secretary 

Clinton was there and it was unexpected that trip would take 

place, and the visuals with Aung San Suu Kyi. And by the way I 

think Aung San Suu Kyi was the first person to say, it is not about 

me, and there is too much attention to what is happening here. 

And I hope and I believe that when she is in a position whether 

in Norway or in Great Britain or eventually when she comes here 

to the Capitol to talk about, I think, much of what both of you have 

mentioned today. 

But I do think that whatever that movement is from our end has 

to be measured and one in which we don’t lift, and I think it really 

is pressure because of what Britain says or what the Prime Minister there says or what happens with the French or the Germans 

and who else says in terms of their own interest in wanting to get 

into Burma before anyone else. And it makes me a little concerned 

about the focus and attention on the competition between the 

United States and China in terms of what the fallout or the benefits of the relationship or the improved relationship will be. 

But real quickly, I have just a couple seconds or a few minutes 

left. In terms of the response, the measured response. What do you 

think a measured response should be in terms of sanctions? And 

what do you expect to see change in terms of between now and the 

time in 2014 when Burma is scheduled to chair the ASEAN conference? And we know the Secretary General of the U.N. is heading 

to Burma next week. What type of message should he deliver to the 

junta as well as to the world about Burma? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, thank you, Congressman. I have been described as many, many things but never an iceberg. But I appreciate that because frankly I think that we need to have a balanced 

view of the reality in Burma, and the people of this country and 

certainly Members of Congress who I have spoken with, have not 

received a balanced view of what is going on in Burma. So that is 

the purpose for this iceberg. 

And secondly, it was because of the leadership of the United 

States of America, leadership of both parties, that we were able to 

exercise the kind of pressure and leverage that has led to these 

challenges. I was on the front lines of the battles in Europe to try 

to get the European Union to follow the United States in creating 

the kind of economic leverage that ultimately they did which ultimately paid dividends. So it doesn’t surprise me that because of 

great economic and corporate pressure places like the European 

60

Union are falling aside very quickly. But again we need U.S. leadership. 

Finally I would say, measured and prudent, we have both provided you and the committee with some very specific steps that we 

would recommend that you urge the administration to take and 

that Congress take that is simply based upon maintaining the 

sanctions regime that we have in place, of course recognize that 

having an ambassador there is a good step. Having USAID go in 

and assess what needs to be done, providing the means by which 

health care and education and other NGOs that provide these services can begin to engage. All of those are positive steps that recognize the progress that has been made. 

But in terms of sanctions, the real bite, I would say let us keep 

them but let us remove them incrementally step by step in reaction 

to specific, concrete, tangible progress and do it with measured and 

reversible lifting of sanctions. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Sherman? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I am still trying to figure out why the military regime in Burma has taken the steps that it has. Certainly more 

sanctions efforts were part of it. But they always had an open door 

to Beijing. What is it that they desperately need from the West 

that they were unable to get from China? 

Mr. DIN. If you ask such a question to many other peoples I believe you will have a lot of different answers. So for me——

Mr. SHERMAN. So I shouldn’t feel bad about being confused about 

the matter. Go ahead. 

Mr. DIN. Yes, for me I would like to recall the history. General 

Ne Win took over power in 1962, so when military took over power 

he set up a political party called Burma Socialist Programme 

Party. He knew that he could not run the country and with a military government so he set up a political party and then he draw 

the Constitution which granted the, which is a single-party dictatorship. 

So he took more than 12 years to finish that Constitution, and 

in 1973 this one-party system conditions were approved, and then 

1974 he hold the first one-party system election, and then let his 

party, Burma Socialist Programme Party became the ruling party 

because there is only one party. So my point is that——

Mr. SHERMAN. Perhaps you going back to 1962 may be a little 

bit more of an answer. 

Mr. DIN. No, that is why, I mean, their system, they built the 

political platform for them, so they hold the power. Once they finish the political platform, they allow the people, they ask the opposition members to join in their political system by offering incentives or general amnesty or something like that. So when people 

choose to join in their political system, they would be awarded and 

they would quote it as kind of the position here. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I also want to hear from Tom on this. What do 

they hope to get from the West that they couldn’t get from China? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I agree with Aung Din that 

there are many responses to this, and reading the tea leaves of this 

regime is a very difficult thing to do. But I think in a word, pressure, the sustained pressure by the United States and the West 

made this possible to the limitation——

61

Mr. SHERMAN. What were the pressure points? What did they 

say, oh, this sanction is hurting us. We can’t buy this from the 

United States. We can’t get this technical expertise from Europe. 

What was it that they couldn’t get from China that they hoped to 

get from us? 

Mr. ANDREWS. There is great limitations they discovered to being 

totally dependent as they were on China, both in terms of market, 

both in terms of the kinds of conditions that those investments 

being made on the country meant in terms of taking natural resources and extracting them and putting them into China. In terms 

of the popular view of what was happening to Burma at the hands 

of the Chinese, I mean there are many, many——

Mr. SHERMAN. So China had the capital, the technology and the 

markets that Burma would need, but being dependent upon China 

has some disadvantages. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Distinct disadvantages to the Government and to 

the people of Burma, whereas engagement with the rest of the 

world had significant advantages which they now want to cease. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And as long as they have a relationship with 

China they can play one side off of on the other, give us some of 

what they want, give the Chinese some of what they want. I am 

a bit confused as to why we would have sanctions, which hurt our 

economy as well as Burma, and at the same time provide development aid to Burma, I realize very small. We allo, we give about $38 

million a year to Burma. If the purpose of our sanctions is to hurt 

the Burmese economy as well as individuals in ruling leadership, 

why is that consistent with the $38 million of aid? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, Congressman, let me tell you. When I asked 

Aung San Suu Kyi and others in the NLD about economic pressure 

on the regime and its impact on the people, that development aid, 

support, it was explained to me that the real bite of the sanction 

is not on people on the grassroots level that basically surviving on 

a very localized economy. It is on those at the very top, particularly 

in the extractive industries, that have been the worst violators of 

human rights. And the economic pressure on the regime and the 

military that controls so much more of the economy particularly in 

this area of the economy, would have some real and significant bite 

without impacting those on the very bottom of this localized economy. 

There is desperate poverty in this area as a result of many, many 

factors. And that is why I said in my testimony that certainly those 

who are on the border areas need to have significant and sustained 

continued support just as a matter of survival. But cutting off——

Mr. SHERMAN. Their money is fungible and that if we provide 

$38 million of aid to the poorest people in Burma, the ruling group 

can then take $38 million they otherwise would have spent and not 

spend it. You seem to be talking about a situation where it is not 

that quite simple. And in the absence of our aid the ruling elites 

would not be dipping into their own funds and spending money on 

the same projects? 

Mr. ANDREWS. I think it is extremely important for any aid package that goes to Burma, and this is certainly true in the past, it 

is certainly true now, should be very, very clearly directed that it 

goes directly to the people and the services that are needed. And 

62

that certainly is not the Government of Burma that will then as 

you say use it in a fungible way to support things that we just simply cannot tolerate. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Well, I thank both of you. Mr. Din, this is the 

second time you have appeared before the subcommittee. 

Mr. DIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MANZULLO. And Tom, thank you for a firsthand report of 

seeing different things. We are obviously very interested in Burma, 

and so is China. And I find it quite remarkable that the number 

of restrictions to be lifted before Aung San Suu Kyi and her party 

are actually sworn in and become members of the Parliament. I 

just find that quite perplexing that issue as to, and it is a very important issue with regard to the oath, considering the Constitution 

should have been resolved with pressure from Washington. 

I like to have one panel, but unfortunately the State Department 

does not like to do that. It is not at the request of the witnesses 

but that is their protocol. The reason for the one panel is that I 

like to have the interaction, because we have heard two quite distinct and different stories here as to exactly what is going on. And 

I am not being critical of anybody here, it is just a matter of the 

ability to observe firsthand. 

Congressman Andrews, what you shared with us simply was not 

available to the prior two witnesses, but it all goes together to 

make for the big picture. The testimony of both of you is regarded 

very highly by the people at the State Department and I would encourage both of you to continue what you are doing; to continue 

speaking out, especially with regard to the lifting of the next sanctions because the ultimate step will be the economic sanctions. 

So thank you all for coming, and this subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(63)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

64

f


74001n.eps
65

Æ


74001m.eps