U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

97–264PDF 2015

BURMA’S CHALLENGE: DEMOCRACY, HUMAN

RIGHTS, PEACE, AND THE PLIGHT OF

THE ROHINGYA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 21, 2015

Serial No. 114–117

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 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

MATT SALMON, Arizona Chairman 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

AMI BERA, California 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

GRACE MENG, New York 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Daniel R. Russel, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian 

and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................... 7

The Honorable Jonathan Stivers, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia, 

U.S. Agency for International Development ...................................................... 17

The Honorable Tom Andrews, president, United to End Genocide ..................... 33

Ms. Jennifer Quigley, president, U.S. Campaign for Burma ............................... 43

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Daniel R. Russel: Prepared statement ......................................... 9

The Honorable Jonathan Stivers: Prepared statement ........................................ 19

The Honorable Tom Andrews: Prepared statement .............................................. 36

Ms. Jennifer Quigley: Prepared statement ............................................................ 46

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 56

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 57

The Honorable Tom Andrews: Material submitted for the record ...................... 58

Written responses from the Honorable Daniel R. Russel to questions submitted for the record by members of the subcommittee ................................... 65

(1)

BURMA’S CHALLENGE: DEMOCRACY, HUMAN 

RIGHTS, PEACE, AND THE PLIGHT OF 

THE ROHINGYA 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Matt Salmon 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SALMON. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Burma, also known as Myanmar, is a country with a long history 

and a rich culture that has, after decades in military rule, in recent 

years taken the first steps to transition into a disciplined democracy. In 2011, the Burmese military regime dissolved the ruling 

junta and handed power over to the union Parliament and President Thein Sein, reserving considerable influence for themselves. 

On November 8th, Burma is scheduled to hold its first openly 

contested election in 25 years with hopes that it will be credible, 

transparent and inclusive. As the elections draw near, we watch intently to see if Burma lives up to its promises. Committee staff 

have traveled to Burma to observe political dynamics and assess 

the humanitarian situation in the lead up to this election, and I 

find that I am both optimistic and pessimistic. 

The ultimate success of the political transition remains uncertain. How should we in Congress judge a systematically manipulated democratic transition in light of what may be a credible, 

transparent and inclusive election process on November 8th? If the 

odds are intentionally in the ruling party’s favor but they have a 

clean election, how should the U.S. respond? 

We know that the election is not the end-all be-all for Burma. We 

will watch the political transition unfold in the coming months to 

look for a peaceful transition and sustained dedication to transparency, openness, and reform. We welcome a sustained transition 

to democracy, while it is yet to be seen, and in the meantime we 

will urge restraint on further expansion of U.S.-Burma relations. I 

look forward to hearing from our distinguished panels what we 

should expect from the election and the ensuing transition, and 

what it means for the people of Burma. 

There are other major issues to discuss here today. On October 

15th, the government, the military, and ethnic armed organizations 

2

signed a joint ceasefire agreement after 2 years of negotiations. 

About a dozen armed ethnic groups declined to sign. I wait to see 

how the remaining ethnic armed groups will be reintegrated into 

the process, how the post-ceasefire dialogue will take shape, and 

how Burma intends to address the humanitarian costs and challenges the conflict has wreaked on their country. 

Speaking of uncertain futures, I am saddened by the resolute denial of rights to the Rohingya people. After the 2012 riots that displaced nearly 150,000 Rakhine and Rohingya, there is little improvement in living standards. Our staff recently visited Rakhine 

to investigate the conditions and look at the displaced camps where 

over 143,000 still live. At the Rakhine camps, residents asked the 

United States to provide solar power, jobs, and funding for education. 

And this is what the homes look like. You can see them on your 

screens; they are on the screens on the walls. At the Rohingya 

camps, homes were literally sinking into rice paddies that the 

houses have been built on. If you see here, the disparity is quite 

stark. The Rohingya, asked about the amenities, what amenities 

were missing, they want to be able to feed and provide for their 

families and their children. 

As the monsoon season recedes, we may see another repeat of 

earlier of this year, tens of thousands of migrants boarding rickety 

boats to aimlessly tackle the seas in search of hope in Thailand, 

Malaysia and Indonesia. The United States alone cannot be the solution to this problem. The Burmese Government must address this 

heinous violation of human rights. 

I do want to recognize the Burmese Government for making commendable advances in its economy, its political system, and civil society. The aperture has widened for greater freedoms and voices to 

be heard, but not sufficiently. It is also clear how much hard work 

remains to be done. 

Members present are going to be permitted to submit written 

statements to be included in the official hearing record, and without objection, the hearing record will be open for 5 calendar days 

to allow statements, questions and extraneous materials for the 

record subject to the length and limitation in the rules. And I recognize Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Salmon. 

Thank you, by the way, for traveling to Rakhine State in order to 

view this firsthand, and also for this hearing. 

Many are looking at Burma’s upcoming elections to gauge the 

progress in that troubled country. But a better yardstick in my 

view is the country’s abhorrent treatment of the minority Rohingya 

Muslims, probably the most persecuted minority group in the 

world. That should be our test, key test. The elections are important, but this is even more important. It is the yardstick. 

For over three decades now, the Government of Burma has systematically denied the Rohingya even the most basic of human 

rights. A 1982 citizenship law denies the Rohingya Burmese citizenship even though most of them have lived in the country for 

generations. This goes back to the 8th century, their presence there 

by the way. 

3

In the past 5 years since the Obama administration’s outreach 

to the Burmese regime, 140,000 Rohingya and other Muslims have 

been displaced by violence and hundreds have been killed. As one 

12-year-old Rohingya boy recounted during the 2012 violence, Burmese men broke into his house and beat his father’s head in with 

a brick before slaughtering him with a knife. For the mass killings 

that broke out in 2012, exceptionally few have been prosecuted, let 

alone jailed. 

In fact, a non-governmental organization based in Southeast Asia 

disclosed credible documents detailing state involvement in persecuting Rohingya. They outlined state policies on population control, 

restrictions on movement, and empowering security forces to use 

abusive measures to control Rohingya, among other steps. 

Now it is no wonder that Rohingya by the thousands, as Chairman Salmon just mentioned, are packing themselves into boats to 

flee and they are fleeing for their lives. They end up in Malaysia 

and Bangladesh facing the hardships of destitute refugees. Others 

perish in the Indian Ocean or fall prey to human traffickers. There 

must be a way to protect these individuals through a ‘‘safe zone’’ 

in the Rakhine State. There must be a way to have humanitarian 

groups have the ability to go in there and work with this community and have people protected in that state, and other minorities 

protected in that state. 

This tragedy is what happens when a government refuses to recognize its own people. The Thein Sein government maintains that 

Rohingya are merely Bengali migrant workers, but their roots go 

back centuries. Muslims trace their roots back to Rakhine State to 

the 8th century. These deep historic ties of the Rohingya to Burma 

must be recognized and of course protected. 

The Government of Burma cannot claim progress toward meeting 

its reformed goals if it so blatantly and cruelly mistreats Rohingya 

Muslims and other minority groups. The U.S. must prioritize the 

protection of human rights in its relations with Burma using the 

tools we have at our disposal. In August, Ranking Member Engel 

and I wrote to the Treasury Department expressing our concern 

that only one individual had been added to the Specially Designated Nationals List for violations of human rights since violence 

erupted back in 2012. That is the list for enforcing economic sanctions, blocking assets and trade to accomplish our foreign policy 

goals. With the people on the verge of genocide it is inexcusable 

that we are not aggressively targeting abusers here. We need to do 

that. More than one needs to be on that list, and I plan on working 

with the administration providing additional names of Burmese 

human rights abusers to be added to the Specially Designated Nationals List. 

And again I thank Chairman Salmon and I thank Mr. Sherman, 

and I look forward to hearing from the administration on this. 

Mr. SALMON. The chair recognizes Ranking Member Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding these hearings about Burma, or Myanmar. I want to focus on three things: 

The Rohingya, elections, and U.S. policy. I want to associate myself 

with the last two opening statements. The Rohingya constitute 1.1 

million people, 2 percent of Burma’s population. The persecution 

has been well described by the last two speakers. They have lived 

4

in, just recently, in temporary camps for 3 years. Of course they 

face discrimination long since then. 

We advocate democracy around the world, but we should make 

it clear we advocate democracy with minority rights around the 

world. And as Burma heads into the elections in November, it appears that both the ruling party, the USDP, and the main opposition party, the NLD, are avoiding proposing solutions for the plight 

of the Rohingya. 

This is particularly disappointing when it comes to Aung San 

Suu Kyi and her party. She has captured the imagination of 

human rights advocates around the world for decades, but now her 

voice is silent when we see the oppression of 2 percent of Burma’s 

population. Of course, the ruling party is worse having passed four 

race and religion protection laws. 

Now one issue here is the concept of citizenship. We have birthright citizenship here in the United States. It is controversial. 

Other countries have different rules. But what we can’t see is the 

circumstance where people who have lived in a country for multiple 

generations are denied rights. We need to be able to define the difference between reasonable immigration law enforcement, which 

does involve deportations in some circumstances, with ethnic 

cleansing of people who have been there for generations. And I 

hope the State Department can tell me that we have a line that 

guides the State Department on what is the appropriate treatment 

of minority groups who have been in a place for generations and 

yet are not accorded the benefits of full citizenship. 

I have been briefed by the Ambassador twice and the foreign 

minister once on these issues just in the last few weeks. And as 

I understand it, people, even if they did arrive before World War 

II, are not citizens, their children are not citizens, but their grandchildren may be citizens if they can show papers that their grandparents arrived decades and decades ago. This is an absurd system, 

especially when I am not sure if it was the chief objective of the 

Japanese occupying forces to issue a citizenship or residency papers 

to those crossing what had been a border between two British-controlled areas in South Asia. 

Moving on to the election, the State Department had different 

definitions for what would be a successful election. Unlike the 2010 

and 2012 elections where the standard was free and fair, for the 

November elections we are calling for elections to be transparent, 

inclusive and credible. I don’t know whether this is a raising of the 

bar or a lowering of the bar. It has been said that it involves a lowering of the bar, and we have to look at not only the Rohingya but 

some 600 villages where people are not going to be allowed to participate in the election. We have to look at the voter list prepared 

in part at our expense, yet containing many made-up names on the 

one hand, and excluding many people who would likely vote for the 

opposition. 

As to what we can do, Burmese officials are asking us to do three 

things: Sanctions relief, USAID and military financing, and joint 

military exercises. In picking whether we are willing to do any of 

these, we have to look at the human rights situation. We should 

not be so arrogant as to ignore our own economic circumstance and 

note that sanctions relief would not cost the U.S. Government anyVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Dec 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\102115\97264 SHIRL
5

thing, might allow our companies to make some money, probably 

not—and I would like to see a lot better human rights situation before we talk about that. But USAID, FMF, and even military exercises all come at the cost to the American taxpayer. 

The Burmese Government has made 11 promises. They haven’t 

even started to fulfill some of them. We of course have talked about 

ethnic problems in Rakhine State. There is also the promise to establish a ceasefire in Kachin, and that is also a very unmet promise with only eight of the 20 groups who have signed on, and of 

course the biggest groups have not. So I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses not only about Burma, but also what standards 

do we apply to determine whether an election meets our standards 

and what standards do we apply to draw the distinction between 

reasonable immigration laws on the one hand, and ethnic cleansing 

of people who have been in the country for centuries on the other. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief. I had 

an opportunity to travel to Burma, I guess it has been 4 or 5 years 

ago, something like that, and it was shortly either before or after 

then Secretary of State Clinton went there, and have worked very 

closely in a bipartisan manner with our colleague Joe Crowley on 

a number of issues related to Burma. 

And the administration has tried to portray our new relationship 

and the new Burma as a success story, and I think probably the 

most positive thing that you can see is that the jury is still out on 

that. There are still tremendous problems, and some of them have 

already been mentioned particularly with respect to the Rohingya. 

And one of my main criticisms would be that the administration 

has been too willing to reach out, work with, cooperate with Burmese military with promises of reforms, which we really haven’t 

seen significant evidence that they are actually carrying out with 

these things. There are still tremendous human rights abuses of 

the minorities and the militaries involved in these things, particularly with respect to the Rohingya, as I say as already been mentioned. 

And just one final point. I don’t think that Burma can try to tout 

to the world that they really have reformed and that they are a 

true democracy until the most popular political figure in the country, Aung San Suu Kyi, is eligible to lead that country. And I think 

that is what the people of Burma, the vast majority of people would 

like to see. It hasn’t happened yet, but I hope it does sometime in 

the very near future. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. Mr. Bera. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the ranking 

member. Mr. Chairman, I think you put it best. When we think 

about Burma, or Myanmar, both cautious optimism but also some 

pessimism. And as I think about the next steps in Myanmar’s 

progress we are looking very closely at the November 8th elections. 

I mean, there really does have to be a credible, transparent and inclusive election here. 

And that is a message that we have shared with the Ambassador. That is something that I think many of us here in Congress 

6

will be looking for. And again it is cautious optimism. We want to 

see that progress. We want to see Myanmar become more of a stable democracy. We want to see some constitutional reforms that 

make it a much more inclusive constitution that also makes Parliament a much more inclusive body as well. It is going to take 

time, and I recognize that we won’t get where we would like to see 

Myanmar overnight, but we do want to see that steady progress. 

And Myanmar does have an important role as we look to stabilize South Asia, as we look to work in that region to develop 

economies, to address human rights concerns, et cetera. But again, 

in no uncertain terms, the next big step is November 8th to make 

sure that this is a credible election that is somewhat fair. So thank 

you, I will yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. Mr. Lowenthal. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the witnesses for joining us today. Like many on the panel before us 

today, I want to be optimistic about Burma’s future and believe 

that the current leadership is ready to turn toward democracy and 

respecting the human rights of its people. 

But I join with others in being discouraged by the continuing efforts to restrict the openness of the November elections, and most 

importantly the ongoing persecution of the Rohingya people. The 

Union Election Commission’s uneven actions and lack of transparency have severely undermined the credibility of this election 

well in advance of voting. 

This reminds me of the 2013 parliamentary elections in nearby 

Cambodia. One of the major protests of the opposition parties after 

the election was that the supposedly impartial National Election 

Committee was in fact stacked by the ruling Cambodian People’s 

Party and Prime Minister Hun Sen. I believe the case of Cambodia 

highlights the need for independent election monitoring both from 

domestic civil society and by international observers. 

Even after the election, the consequences of two constitutional 

provisions must be reckoned with today. The fact that a quarter of 

the parliamentary seats are going to be reserved for appointment 

by the military and not accountable to the people, to the will of the 

people, raises serious questions about the country’s commitment to 

democracy. I have also raised the issue of opposition leader Aung 

San Suu Kyi being constitutionally barred from being President. 

I join with Chairman Salmon and Chairman Royce in being deeply disturbed by the ongoing repression of the Rohingya, a Muslim 

ethnic minority. For years, the military regime has claimed these 

people are not citizens depriving them of their most basic rights. 

The persecution of the Rohingya has led to a major refugee crisis 

that has affected Burma, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia and the 

entire region. Now the Burmese Government is forbidding the 

Rohingya from participating in the upcoming election. 

I recently had the chance to meet with a group of parliamentarians from Burma through the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, including U Shwe Maung, a Rohingya member of Parliament. 

He will not be able to run for election next month because the Election Commission says he is not a citizen. 

I thank the chairman for holding this important and timely hearing. It is our duty to encourage Burma to continue down the path 

7

of opening up and democratizing while we point out the serious 

and ongoing human rights violations in the country. Thank you, 

Mr. Chair, and I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you very much. 

Our panel this morning is made up of distinguished witnesses 

from the administration. First Assistant Secretary Daniel Russel 

joins us from the State Department’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and Assistant Administrator Jonathan Stivers joins us 

from USAID. We are thrilled to have you here today, and we will 

start with you, Mr. Russel. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL R. RUSSEL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sherman, members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the 

opportunity to testify on this important issue today and for your 

longstanding support of U.S. policy in the Asia Pacific region and 

vis-a`-vis the U.S. Burma relationship specifically. I am very 

pleased to be here today with my colleague Jon Stivers from 

USAID to speak about our support for democracy, for peace, and 

for human rights in Burma. 

I have been visiting Burma in my previous and current capacity 

regularly since December 2011, when I accompanied then Secretary 

Clinton, and I have seen reform in Burma create space for political 

debate, for an active civil society, and for greater press freedoms. 

Burma clearly has come a long way in 4 short years. That said, as 

the members have pointed out it obviously has much work to do. 

The elections on November 8th will be an important milestone 

for Burma’s transition. We want the entire electoral process, from 

the campaign to polling to vote counts, to the formation of the next 

government and the selection of the next President to be as credible, as transparent, as inclusive, as free and fair as possible given 

the challenges facing a fledgling democracy, and given the shortcomings in Burma’s current constitution and its system. That is 

why we have been providing assistance to political parties, civil society, media, the government and others, as Jon will describe, and 

it has made a difference. 

It is also notable that the Election Commission has welcomed 

international experts and observers to help advance the quality 

and the credibility of the upcoming election. But even if the election meets international standards, as of course we all hope it will, 

Burma’s transition to inclusive civilian democracy will be far from 

complete. 

As you have pointed out, the disenfranchisement of hundreds of 

thousands white card holders, mostly Rohingya, undermines universal suffrage. So does the disqualification of Muslim candidates. 

The seats in Parliament reserved for the military and the rules 

that bar Aung San Suu Kyi from the Presidency deeply concern us 

as well. That said, these structural flaws are not stopping her. 

They are not stopping the NLD or the 90-plus political parties and 

the 6,000 candidates who are competing vigorously, and by and 

large peacefully, for both local and national seats. 

8

What is unprecedented about Burma’s elections now, in 2015, is 

that no one actually knows who is going to win and that is a good 

thing. But while the elections can be a significant step forward for 

the country, they are only one step. The next government is going 

to have to accelerate reform, improve governance, heal religious 

and ethnic divides including in Rakhine State, advance the peace 

process, and address the constitutional obstacles to a full civilian 

democracy. 

Now I mentioned the peace process. Like the United States, 

Burma is a diverse union, and after nearly 70 years of ethnic based 

conflict, it knows very well that reconciliation is essential to Burma’s national development and its security. So we very much welcome last week’s signing of a ceasefire agreement as a first step toward a just and sustainable peace. Not all groups have signed, although they have agreed on the text of the document, and continued military action and a lack of humanitarian access in Kachin 

and Shan States shows there is still a lot of work to be done. 

I also want to raise, as you have, human rights. Despite the considerable progress documented in the State Department’s annual 

human rights report, over 100 political prisoners are in detention 

while over 400 are facing charges according to civil society sources. 

We have criticized the recent arrests of students, activists and journalists for exercising their democratic rights and freedoms, most 

recently Patrick Khum Jaa Lee and Chaw Sandi Tun. Likewise, we 

have privately and publicly objected to discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities. 

We are deeply, deeply concerned about the situation in Rakhine 

State. We are pushing hard for the protection, for opportunity, and 

ultimately a path to citizenship for the Rohingya, a path that respects their rights, their safety, and their dignity. And we are clear 

about the danger from measures like the race and religion laws 

and the rise in religious hate speech. 

Mr. Chairman, advocating for democracy and human rights is 

central to our diplomacy in Burma, across the region, and across 

the globe. President Obama, U.S. diplomats do it, you as Members 

of Congress do as well. I admit to being an admirer of the Burmese 

determination to make a historic transition from decades of military dictatorship, corruption and civil war, to a peaceful union with 

a civilian-led democratic government, and I believe it is in the best 

interest of the United States to help them to succeed. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Russel follows:]

9


97264a-1.eps
10


97264a-2.eps
11


97264a-3.eps
12


97264a-4.eps
13


97264a-5.eps
14


97264a-6.eps
15


97264a-7.eps
16


97264a-8.eps
17

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Stivers. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JONATHAN STIVERS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA, U.S. AGENCY 

FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. STIVERS. Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sherman, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the invitation 

to testify today on the role of USAID in advancing U.S. foreign policy goals in Burma. It is an honor to appear again before the committee and a pleasure to be alongside my colleague from the State 

Department Daniel Russel. 

The United States has a fundamental interest in the success of 

Burma’s reforms and remains a committed partner to those who 

seek greater freedom, prosperity and dignity. Decades of military 

rule and conflict have prevented the development of well functioning government systems and has negatively impacted Burma’s 

economic standing. Today it is one of the poorest countries in the 

world with a quarter of the population living in poverty and significant health challenges including some of the highest HIV, malaria 

and drug resistant TB rates in the region. 

Ultimately, Burma’s future will be determined by its people and 

that is why support for civil society is at the core of our efforts, 

from strengthening political reforms and furthering national reconciliation to expanding economic opportunity and improving the 

health and resilience of vulnerable communities. 

Most recently, democratic freedoms continue to be tested. I associate myself with the concerns of Assistant Secretary Russel in regards to the recent arrests, and one of the arrests was the spouse 

of a USAID grantee. They should be released immediately and unconditionally. While the people of Burma face many development 

challenges, I will focus on the election, the Rohingya, and the peace 

process. 

In terms of the election, we knew from the beginning that supporting the mechanics of a democratic election would be a tremendous challenge but it was a challenge worth accepting because the 

reformers in Burma asked for and needed our involvement. And despite the challenges, the people in Burma are actively participating 

in a vibrant and competitive election season with 93 registered political parties including 60 parties representing ethnic minority 

groups. 

The U.S. Government is providing more than 18 million in assistance to support the elections and political process. This includes assistance relating to the election administration, election observation, political party building, civil society, and the media. On election administration we are working through the International 

Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) to increase the capacity of 

the Union Election Commission. 

The Union Election Commission has made significant efforts to 

engage with civil society on election preparations, include ethnic 

representatives on the commission, improve the technical aspects of 

election preparations and support the deployment of independent 

election observers. In addition, through our partner, the International Republican Institute, IRI, USAID is helping to train politVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Dec 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\102115\97264 SHIRL
18

ical parties on managing effective party offices and ensuring that 

party policies are representative and inclusive. 

But despite the positive steps, many Muslim candidates were recently disqualified and hundreds and thousands of Rohingya have 

been disenfranchised. Steps that limit political participation run 

counter to democratic principles and raise questions about the 

inclusivity of the elections. 

In treatment of the Rohingya, the United States remains deeply 

concerned about the humanitarian and human rights situation in 

Rakhine State and the treatment of minorities including the ethnic 

Rohingya population. More than 143,000 internally displaced persons remain in camps, with limited access to basic services, restrictions on their movement, and tremendous levels of poverty and 

malnutrition. 

U.S. Government assistance over the past year alone include 

more than 50 million in humanitarian assistance to vulnerable people, including the Rohingya in Burma and the region. Assistance 

includes access to safe drinking water, new sanitation facilities and 

hygiene promotion activities in these camps. And in response to the 

recent floods, USAID is providing more than 5 million in flood relief and recovery to the people affected in the disaster, reaching 

over 250,000 people with emergency food and supplies. 

The peace process. The long term stability of Burma and the success of the reforms hinge on national reconciliation and an end to 

the 65 years of armed conflict. The U.S. has provided 8.5 million 

for activities that bring together civil society and the government 

to engage effectively, to build trust among the key stakeholders, to 

ensure civil society and women’s participation in the peace process, 

and to provide training and support for civilian ceasefire monitoring. Since 2012, the U.S. has provided more than 100 million to 

conflict-affected communities through the provision of food, education, health care, protection, and other lifesaving services. 

In conclusion, we are clear-eyed about the challenges relating to 

these elections, the humanitarian and human rights situation in 

Rakhine State and the peace process. As the events unfold over the 

coming months, we will reassess the context and nature of our assistance to Burma in close consultation with the State Department 

and Congress. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and 

I look forward to your counsel and questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stivers follows:]

19


97264b-1.eps
20


97264b-2.eps
21


97264b-3.eps
22


97264b-4.eps
23


97264b-5.eps
24

Mr. SALMON. We thank the two panelists. We understand that 

the election process includes the campaign, election day and the 

transition to a new government, and it is not a single event. But 

reports as recent as yesterday have the estimates that up to 4 million citizens are unable to vote for varying reasons. That is more 

than 10 percent of the 33.5 million people officially eligible to vote. 

I would like to know on what will we base our assessment about 

whether this election is credible, transparent and inclusive? I have 

heard that it will depend solely on whether the Burmese people accept the election, but I have also heard that we will make the call 

based on what we observe. Could you provide any clarification on 

that, either of you, and what are we prepared to do if the election 

doesn’t meet our benchmarks? Mr. Russel, I will start with you. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are absolutely right 

in that the United States will call it as we see it. We will make 

an assessment based on the facts and we will calibrate our response to the elections based on our assessment of how credible, 

how transparent, how inclusive, how free and fair we think it was. 

We are not wearing rose-colored glasses here. We are very mindful 

of the fundamental structural defects that I mentioned. There is 

nothing fair about reserving 25 percent of the legislature for the 

military. There is nothing fair about disenfranchising the white 

card holders, the Rohingya. But Aung San Suu Kyi, the NLD, the 

parties, have decided to contest the election on that basis mindful 

of those defects. So we will assess, we will make our assessment 

based on what we hear and see, based on what we are told by Aung 

San Suu Kyi and the NLD, the other parties, and the election observers. 

It is important to note that not only IFES, but IRI, NDI, Carter 

Center, EU, are there in substantial numbers as are many thousands of domestic observers. We will listen to the Burmese media 

and we will listen to the Burmese people. We will apply these criteria, and we will also look at the morning after. 

It is critically important, Mr. Chairman, that all parties, including the military, accept the results of the polling and then proceed 

with the process of selecting a Parliament, government formation, 

as well as the choosing of a President in a way that is fully transparent. Our ability to assist the new Burmese Government, let 

alone to look at relaxation of sanctions or other measures, will depend on our assessment of the integrity of the overall process. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Stivers, do you have any thoughts? 

Mr. STIVERS. I think Assistant Secretary Russel explained it very 

well. There are obvious challenges with the election—structural 

challenges—before the voting even begins. But the outcome of the 

contested seats is extremely important and as we said before, there 

is an open and vibrant and competitive process over those seats. 

The challenges are daunting in terms of trying to administer an 

election in a country with 53 million people with limited experience 

with campaigns and democracy. And certainly the voter lists needed a lot of work, and we have been working with our partner, 

IFES, to try to improve those. 

And I have been there with IFES in Burma to see how that is 

done. Realize that there are 90 political parties, over 100 different 

25

languages, and you have conflicts in many of the areas where we 

hope voting will take place. So the challenges of administering an 

election in this context are extremely difficult and we are working 

with the UEC and our partners there to make it as transparent 

and credible as possible. 

Mr. SALMON. And Mr. Stivers, with the monsoon season, international observers and organizations expect Rohingya boats, boat 

flights to resume, what preparations has the Government of Burma 

taken in advance of this, and are other regional countries such as 

Thailand and Malaysia expressing concerns about the possibility of 

migrant boats landing on their shores? Has there been a wider 

ASEAN-level response to this, and how can the United States hold 

Burma accountable for the welfare of its own people given that 

Burma does not recognize Rohingya as Burmese citizens? 

Mr. STIVERS. There are a lot of questions there. I will try to get 

them specifically. In terms of the issue with the Rohingya and the 

Muslim minorities, that is obviously a concern and a reason why 

the election will fall short. And certainly we are providing assistance to the Rohingya there in Rakhine State. We are providing assistance as much as possible in some of the conflict communities, 

but certainly conducting an election in those areas is extremely difficult based on those realities. 

In terms of the flooding, we have provided a significant amount 

of assistance to help the most vulnerable people who have been affected, and as that moves forward we will try to make sure that 

that assistance continues. 

Mr. SALMON. Do we think that their government is prepared to 

deal with this, Mr. Russel? 

Mr. RUSSEL. To your earlier question, Mr. Chairman, we are 

working intensively with ASEAN as a group. I was in Kuala 

Lumpur 2 weeks ago for discussions on regional issues and raised 

the issue of irregular migration as the rainy season ends. 

We are also dealing directly with governments in the first instance with the Government of Burma and urging them to accelerate their efforts in Rakhine State to expand access by humanitarian organizations to facilitate the peaceful return of Rohingya 

and IDPs from camps to their homes, and in the meantime, to protect their security and to work on creating economic opportunities. 

We are also working bilaterally with the concerned countries in the 

region, specifically Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia. Secretary 

Kerry met with the Indonesian and the Malaysian foreign ministers over the last few weeks, and our effort there continues. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. Chairman Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, thank you, Secretary Russel. We have listed 

only one person, only one person, on the human rights ground on 

that list. I wonder why we aren’t using this tool to greater effect. 

It just seems that the balance is out of skew given what is at stake 

and given the magnitude of the human rights abuses. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Mr. Chairman, we work closely with our colleagues 

in the Treasury Department and in the intelligence community, as 

well as of course through our Embassy and our activist Ambassador in Rangoon, Derek Mitchell, to try and identify bad actors, 

including human rights violators, and develop legally viable cases 

26

for designation. We are actively on the hunt for candidates and for 

evidence that will be adequate, legally, to list——

Mr. ROYCE. Let me ask you another question then and that has 

to do with the ‘‘safe-zones.’’ Activists pushed for ‘‘safe-zones’’ in 

Darfur and in south Sudan, and that was the concept where places 

people could go to escape either Bashir’s aerial bombardment or to 

escape the Janjaweed, and you have the same debate going on in 

Syria today: Could we create safe zones to protect civilian populations from carpet bombing, and in that case done by Assad, by 

his regime? 

This has been suggested today in terms of Rakhine State. You 

have a state here where this minority population is persecuted and 

we don’t have access for non-governmental organizations, for humanitarian groups that want to come in and provide services for 

people that are in crisis. Is this a viable option in Burma? What 

steps would be needed to set up that safe zone for the Rohingya 

inside of Burma? Those were questions I was going to ask you. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is important to take 

as our starting point that Rakhine State—as poor and as desperate 

as it is—is not a war zone and our strategy focuses on pushing the 

Government of the Union of Myanmar, the Government of Burma, 

to fulfill its responsibilities to its own people. The people in Burma 

deserve the full protection of the government both at the local level 

and at the national level. That is what we are pushing for. 

The concern that I would have with safe zones, per se, is the risk 

of segregation. All people in Burma, all people in Rakhine State deserve to have their personal safety and security protected. There is, 

Mr. Chairman, significant dialogue now between the two communities. There is a process by which the Rohingya in the IDP camps 

are being assisted in returning safely and securely to their hometowns. I believe they don’t want to be segregated. They want to be 

integrated and that is the direction that we are and should be 

pushing. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, here is the problem. As I talk to representatives of humanitarian organizations, of course Doctors Without 

Borders was pushed out, but the argument is that that government 

is not doing that. It is not protecting religious minorities. So if you 

can have a carve-out of an area where traditionally they have lived 

there for generations, where the NGO community can go, that is 

better than state-sponsored attacks where the police look the other 

way. Anyway I just wonder when they will be reintegrated into 

Burmese society. Is the government there giving you some indication? I assume you are actively pushing for integration, right? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Yes, we are. We are pushing hard for the safety of 

the Rohingya, and the full access of humanitarian agencies. Doctors Without Borders and some of the major NGOs have been allowed to operate again. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, thank you. I am out of time, but thank you 

again, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Stivers, I want to focus a little bit about your 

agency’s financing of parts of the election. I would like to know how 

much money we have spent supporting the efforts to develop a 

voter list, and for temporary workers on election day and the other 

27

costs, whether or not we think that the money we spent to help 

Myanmar, Burma, develop the election lists has been well spent. 

And there is going to be 40,000 supposedly, roughly 40,000 temporary workers on election day. They are paid for by foreign donors. Does that include us? And are these 40,000 going to be securing the election or intimidating the regime’s opponents? 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you for that question, Mr. Sherman. The U.S. has provided $18 million to support the election in total, and 

I can get you that breakdown between the different components 

after this hearing. Those go to our partners, IRI, NDI, to work on 

things like party building, voter registration, and some of the technical aspects of running an election through the UEC. 

I think that when we had this opening and when they called for 

an election, we believed that this was a great opportunity to support the election. There are obviously many flaws, many challenges, but we have been calling for elections for decades in Burma. 

And the support we provide for these technical aspects shouldn’t be 

looked at as assistance to the government or some sort of budget 

support. This is democracy building technical assistance to our 

partners to help the government. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will ask you though from the philosophy which 

I support, we paid in part for these election lists. Are they good 

election lists, voter lists? 

Mr. STIVERS. The voter lists are challenged. As I mentioned before, there are 53 million people in the country. They haven’t had 

an election like this ever and there are significant challenges. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Another challenge. They do a good job, they don’t 

do a good job. Mr. Russel, you seem to have a comment. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Yes, I was in Burma when the voter lists were first 

displayed, and I think the consensus among the civil society groups 

that I met with was that this is a significant step forward, a huge 

step forward, both because they were posted online and because 

they were posted up in the townships and the facilities that created 

an opportunity for people to find mistakes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That is good to hear. What about the 40,000 temporary workers? 

Mr. RUSSEL. So I also met with the Home Minister who is in 

charge of this and pushed hard for him to accept that with respect 

to the poll monitors and security people, while we understood the 

need to supplement the very sparse police force, it was important 

that these people not be seen as agents of the government and not 

intimidate potential voters. So they have now begun a training program, something that we strongly encouraged. These will be unarmed people with no police powers. And we are continuing to push 

for transparency by the government in explaining the rules and the 

roles of the——

Mr. SHERMAN. Have they hired party activists for the insider 

party or have they hired people without a strong political view and 

record of activism, or do we just not know? 

Mr. STIVERS. In terms of the observers? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. STIVERS. Well, there are both domestic and international 

independent observers. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I am talking about the 40,000 domestic observers. 

28

Mr. RUSSEL. The individuals who are providing security in the 

polls? Let me take that question back. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay, I will ask you to come back with that because I have got another one, and this one is more difficult. The 

State Department has to have standards to evaluate human rights. 

Now there is, as I mentioned in my opening statement, a tough line 

between immigration law enforcement on the one hand and ethnic 

cleansing on the other. I will give you an extreme example. 

If the country of Romania were to expel its Hungarian minority 

on the theory that the Romanians have been there since the 

Roman Empire and the Hungarians moved there after the fall of 

the Roman Empire and apparently moved there without documents 

at that time during the Middle Ages, we would call that ethnic 

cleansing. I assume that is clear. But if a country were to deport 

a man who is 80 years old who had spent 75 years living in that 

country that would be the law of many or most democracies around 

the world. 

There are a number of countries that deny birth citizenship, 

some who deny citizenship to those whose parents were born in the 

country. Do we have a standard or is oppression like the Supreme 

Court referred to pornography, we know it when we see it? Do we 

have a model for what is fair treatment of ethnic minorities who 

have lived in countries for less than 1,000 years? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Let me speak to the specific issue of the Rohingya. 

Our standard is maintaining the human rights, dignity, and safety 

of all residents in Burma. We believe that particularly after generations of residency in Burma, or all of the Rohingya should be 

given a pathway to full citizenship. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Russel, if I could interrupt, not all the 

Rohingya have lived in—there are Rohingya who are born in Bangladesh. One of them might have moved last year without documents to Myanmar and you would draw a distinction. That is the 

distinction I am asking you to draw. 

Obviously everyone in the entire world including those that we 

deport should be treated with dignity. The question is has the 

State Department come up with a U.S. policy on whether it is a 

violation of human rights to deport someone who has lived in a 

country for one generation, family that has lived there two generations, a person who has lived in a country 75 out of their 80 years? 

Do we have standards or can you just—is it a matter of, obviously 

to you and to me, if a Rohingya family has lived in Burma for three 

generations it is wrong to deport them? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, we are not presuming to tell the Burmese precisely what standards they must apply in determining citizenship. 

What we are saying is that the Rohingya who live and have maintained families in Burma should be granted a pathway to citizenship that doesn’t force them to self-identify against their will as 

Bengali. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But we apply that to those who have been there 

a certain amount of time, which is most of them, and we are not 

applying that to those who have been there for only a few years 

and may have moved from Bangladesh just a few years ago. And 

we just don’t have a standard, a description of what is and is not 

a violation of—a deportation or a deprivation of full citizenship 

29

that violates human rights. We are just kind of calling it by the 

seat of our pants. 

Mr. RUSSEL. The focus, Mr. Congressman, is on the long term 

residents of Burma. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And multi-generational. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. The history of elections in Burma have been really something that has—it has been 

on my radar screen, but it has not been on many people’s radar 

screen, where they used to say there is a general election in Burma 

and that meant all the generals got together and decided who was 

going to be boss. And at least we have made some progress since 

those days, and we are happy to hear that. 

And it has taken a number of—a horrendous amount of effort on 

the part of our State Department and other human rights people 

throughout the world getting behind Aung San Suu Kyi even to 

achieve the progress that we have had. And now we are hopefully 

in the home stretch to coming to a point where Burma could foresee within a period of time to have an acceptable government to 

democratic, basic democratic standards. But we certainly, from 

what your testimony is, is that we have not crossed that line at 

that threshold yet but maybe this upcoming election if it is held 

correctly will put us into a position where we have at least crossed 

into the line of acceptability. 

In the past we have had the Karen and the Karenni and other 

ethnic minorities that have been oppressed. Is that oppression still 

going on with the Karen and Karenni? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, thank you, Congressman. First, I couldn’t 

agree with you more. The military dictatorship spent 50 years 

digging itself into a hole and it is going to be an arduous process 

for them to climb out of it. One election isn’t going to solve every 

problem, but we are working, and particularly our fantastic team 

in the field led by our Ambassador Derek Mitchell are working tirelessly to assist the Burmese civil society and——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Through this process I would hope that Mr. 

Sherman’s comments about having a definition that we can actually be creating definitions as we are working through this process 

and see what works and what doesn’t. And we will be anxiously 

awaiting to hear what you have to tell us as this proceeds. 

What about in the—okay, back to the Karen and the Karenni. 

Are they going to participate in this free election? And is there any 

indication that the repression, the level, the military activities 

against them have decreased? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, the signing of the ceasefire, the national 

ceasefire agreement with eight parties represents a very big step 

forward. There is still fighting in some of the ethnic areas. Polling 

will not take place in areas where fighting is underway. But all of 

the groups including the Kachin, including some of the outliers, 

have agreed on the text of the ceasefire agreement. Different 

groups have different reasons for not signing yet. 

What we are pushing for, Congressman, is for the military in 

Burma and for the government to exercise maximum restraint and 

30

to accord, even to the groups that haven’t yet signed, the care that 

they are according to the groups that have already signed. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let me just suggest that signing the 

document is okay. It is something we can say, here is a benchmark. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Right. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But it is the actual fulfilling of—I mean, 

somebody could have a ceasefire, and from what—I have sources of 

information from Burma say there is still a lot of military attacks 

going on the Karen. Let me just ask this then, okay. So we are 

going to—hopefully there will be the fighting will go down, there 

will be some polling going on there. 

What about over there with the, I guess you call them the 

Rohingya, in the western side with the Muslims from Bangladesh 

we have the opposite problem there. And with the Karen and the 

Karenni you have government officials and government military attacking these minority groups, but with the Muslims what you 

have is the government stepping aside and watching violent acts 

being committed against the Muslim population there in western 

Burma. So in one case the government is too anxious to use its 

military against its own people, but on the other side not willing 

to protect the human rights, basic human rights, of the Muslim 

population. 

So I hope that if there is any message that we send out from this 

hearing and it is to those Muslims who are under attack, you have 

human rights. We care about your human rights as much as we do 

about the Christians who are being under attack and the Karenni 

and the Karen areas of Burma. 

And I wish you guys a lot of luck, and I know that our government, that you and the State Department are very sincere about 

trying to bring peace to Burma after all of these years, and I am 

anxious to have a positive report a year from now about how the 

ceasefire and the election actually has moved forward in a way that 

is putting Burma on the right path. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. Mr. Lowenthal. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question, I have two 

questions, the first one following up about Rohingya. Has the National League for Democracy and Aung San Suu Kyi addressed the 

persecution of Rohingya, and would a government controlled by the 

opposition party, would that mean improved conditions for 

Rohingya? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Generally speaking, the NLD has stayed away from 

this issue which is a lightning rod, a hot button issue in Burmese 

politics. Burma is a country with over 80 percent Buddhism, and 

the subject of Muslims, the subject of Rohingya is very controversial. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. You mean everyone is against them. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Regrettably, this is not an environment where any 

political leaders seem prepared to step up and to speak out forcefully in defense of the rights of the Muslim minority and particularly of the Rohingya. 

Congressman Rohrabacher put his finger on a paradox, on a dilemma in Burma, which is that at the same time that the government and the leaders are putting a tremendous amount of effort 

31

into firming up the union by reaching ceasefire agreements and ultimately peace agreements with ethnic minorities such as the 

Karen and others, they are turning a blind eye to the prevalence 

of hate speech and divisive religious activities that will not 

strengthen the union but will in fact divide it. 

Now I was gratified when President Obama last visited Burma 

and stood side by side with Aung San Suu Kyi in a press conference. She spoke out clearly in defense of religious freedom and 

the responsibility of a democracy to protect minorities. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. I want to ask another, since we are 

talking about persecuted minorities, and I want to talk about the 

LGBT community. I want to raise that activists in Burma reported 

a high level of police abuse against LGBT persons and transgender 

people in particular. The State Department has programs to work 

with law enforcement in many parts of the world to help them improve their human rights records and their criminal justice system. 

What I am interested in is how can the United States Government work with Burmese law enforcement, ensure that they are 

not targeting or abusing people because of their sexual orientation 

or gender identity? And also, specifically, we have worked real hard 

to create a special envoy for LGBT rights, Randy Berry, in the 

State Department. Has he been able to address any of these issues? 

And specifically, there is the British era law that criminalizes homosexuality, Section 377. It is still on the books in Burma. Activists in Burma are working to get this antiquated law removed. 

What are we going to do about this? What can we do about this 

issue? 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal, for that question. Let 

me field it first because the protection of LGBTI individuals 

throughout Asia is a priority at USAID and certainly part of our 

overall human rights initiatives in the region. In Burma, specifically, we are working with civil society organizations who are developing the skills to prevent harassment. They advocate for equal 

protection under the law and support activities to give LGBTI individuals greater voices in their communities. So this is part of our 

overall strategy in Burma within——

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Will we be able to get rid of Section 377 which 

actually outlaws, criminalizes homosexuality in Burma? 

Mr. STIVERS. We are empowering civil society voices who are 

pushing for a stronger voice and adequate human rights for the 

LGBTI——

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I am almost out of time, but I would like the 

report back and I would like, really, how that is moving forward. 

Mr. RUSSEL. I know that my colleague Tom Malinowski when he 

visited Burma earlier this year met with various groups and raised 

these issues. We will get you an answer. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. I am very interested in that. And 

I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. Without objection, I would like to recognize Mr. 

Crowley for a question. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your indulgence here. I served for 12 years on this committee and I appreciate the opportunity to be back here again. I have tremendous concern about—I appreciate in particular the comments by Mr. RohrVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Dec 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\102115\97264 SHIRL
32

abacher who has worked for many, many years on this as well, and 

particularly appreciated the comment about the general elections 

as both said. 

And especially in light of the fact that we look at that 25 percent 

of all the seats within the Parliament no matter what happens will 

still be held by the military. In fact, you would have to have every 

seat won by one party or in coalition with parties to in essence 

have any possibility of affecting change in terms of Burma’s constitution. Is that right, Mr. Russel? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, I was in Burma recently and met with Aung 

San Suu Kyi, and we took out a pen and pencil and started doing 

the math. Yes, the opposition would have to win 66 percent of the 

seats in Parliament in order to mitigate the structural bias built 

in by 25 percent allocation to the military. But she believes this is 

possible. The NLD is determined, notwithstanding the constitutional ban on her becoming the President. She said, and she said 

it publicly that she sees no bar to her being able to lead and direct 

the government. 

Mr. CROWLEY. But you would have no problem saying right now 

that the cards are pretty stacked, wouldn’t you? 

Mr. RUSSEL. My starting point in describing elections is to recognize the structural flaws. I would add, and I did earlier, Congressman, to that list, the disenfranchisement of Rohingya, the white 

card holders, and some of the other shortcomings. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And I appreciate the questioning by my colleague 

from California, but I think it is also important to point out that 

under Aung San Suu Kyi’s leadership, the NLD voted against all 

four bills discriminating against the Rohingya population. Is that 

not correct, Mr. Russel, or Mr. Stivers? 

Mr. RUSSEL. The four race and religion bills which have passed—

you know what, Congressman, I will have to fact check how the 

NLD voted on all——

Mr. CROWLEY. My understanding is they were the leaders in the 

opposition to that legislation. So I think it is important to point out 

in terms of the questioning to what degree Aung San Suu Kyi or 

her party have stood in terms of—this is a very sensitive issue, I 

recognize that, the sensitivity. But they have taken a courageous 

stand as a party in opposition to that discriminatory legislation. I 

just want to make that. And if you could get back to us for the 

record, but I am just stating for the record, my understanding is 

they did do that. 

And you have talked about what you are doing to deal with the 

election day challenges, and you acknowledge the separate structural deficiencies that we just mentioned like the 25 percent of the 

seats controlled by the military, but you haven’t said yet what you 

are going to do, or what the United States Government through our 

State Department is going to do to fix the structural differences. 

What are you going to do? What does the State Department plan 

to do to address the structural differences—deficiencies to address 

the core issues there? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, Congressman Crowley, the first order of business for a new government that takes office on April 1st in Burma 

is going to be dealing with the problems that the previous government has exported into the future. The disenfranchisement of an 

33

important segment of Burma’s population, these white card holders, the Rohingya, who have been allowed to vote—or before, the 

structural bias in terms of the 25 percent, the constitutional ban 

on Aung San Suu Kyi Presidency, these are among the issues that 

are going to have to be dealt with first and foremost by a new government. 

Before we get to a new government, sir, we have to ensure that 

the results of the polling are honored by all parties including the 

military. We have to ensure that the government formation period 

and that process is a fair process, a transparent process. We have 

to ensure also that the selection process, the election of the new 

President which is done by a fairly arcane system be a credible one 

as well. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Russel, do you believe we need to go back to 

action-for-action, the policy that was established during the Clinton 

time as Secretary of State? Do we need to go back to action-for-action? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, to the extent that we respond positively or 

negatively to what the Burmese do, I think that that principle has 

been sustained. But I do not believe that we are in a situation that 

warrants going back to the very basic point-for-point quid pro quo 

because of the momentum that has been built up in Burmese society toward reform and democracy. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the President has acknowledged there has been backsliding, and I think it is a direct result 

of abandonment, in my opinion, of the action-for-action that was effective in moving Burma forward. I am gravely concerned about 

this election process. The cards are stacked. I know that Aung San 

Suu Kyi and her party are putting on a great face moving forward, 

but they know the cards are stacked as well. I don’t believe these 

elections will really demonstrate the true intention of the people of 

Burma in the result of those elections given the fact that 25 percent of these seats will be held by the military no matter what. 

That needs to change, Mr. Russel, and I hope our State Department gets that message. Republicans and Democrats agree that 

there needs to be change in Burma. I will yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. I thank the gentleman. I thank both of the witnesses for their time. We will dismiss you now and seat the next 

panel. Thank you very much. 

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

Mr. SALMON. We are very appreciative to be joined by a private 

panel this afternoon as well. The Honorable Tom Andrews appears 

before us as the president of United to End Genocide and Ms. Jennifer Quigley as the president of the U.S. Campaign for Burma. 

Mr. Andrews, we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM ANDREWS, PRESIDENT, 

UNITED TO END GENOCIDE 

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

members of the committee. And thank you, Congressman Crowley, 

for your passionate and always diligent focus on human rights in 

Burma. We really appreciate it. 

It is so important that you are holding this public hearing, Mr. 

Chairman, at this particular time. As you have recognized, in 21⁄2

34

weeks the citizens of Burma will go to the polls in what the Burmese authorities are describing as democratic elections. Those who 

are fortunate enough to have the right to vote to cast ballots for 

those parliamentary seats that have not been reserved for the military or by a constitution that cannot be changed unless it is approved by the military, are grateful for the opportunity to cast their 

votes. 

But they could be forgiven for being highly skeptical of the elections that they are now facing. The last time there were national 

elections in Burma was in 1990. Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy had an overwhelming victory, and as 

a result of that they headed off either to prison, either to exile, or 

to house arrest where they remained for decades. I was elected to 

Congress in 1990. I went to Congress, Aung San Suu Kyi went to 

prison. It was a fundamental injustice. 

Ladies and gentlemen, since that time, the United States began 

to exert systematic, economic and diplomatic and political pressure 

on the regime. That pressure worked. Five years ago, the military 

government agreed to reforms that allowed for new freedoms. Aung 

San Suu Kyi went from house arrest to the campaign trail and 

then to a seat in Parliament. 

I have put in my written testimony where things stand today. 

Many of those points were echoed by members of the committee. 

I am very impressed with the fact of the level of awareness of this 

committee of the disturbing developments within Burma, but I 

want to emphasize a few major concerns. One is that the United 

States Holocaust Memorial Museum, after sending a delegation to 

Burma, has concluded Burma is at the very top of countries in the 

world, the single top country in which it is most likely that we will 

see mass atrocities and genocide in the coming weeks. Political 

prisoners are being newly detained in that country. At least 91 

prisoners of conscience are currently in prison while hundreds of 

activists await trial for their peaceful political activities. 

Burma continues to be designated as a Country of Particular 

Concern under the International Religious Freedom Act. The movement of extreme Buddhist nationalists, the Association to Protect 

Race and Religion, or Ma Ba Tha, is gaining strength across 

Burma as it relentlessly pursues a campaign fueling fear and bigotry against religious minorities. 

Now you heard from the testimony today there was a recognition 

of some of these problems. But there was also a good news narrative from the testimony you heard from the administration. One 

was that Doctors Without Borders, who the government kicked out 

of Rakhine State leaving many, many thousands of people without 

health care, I traveled to that area when that happened. I met 

these people and their families. I returned 3 months later, and 

most of the people I met had perished because of this governmental 

decision. 

Now the administration says Doctors Without Borders is back in 

Rakhine State, but what they won’t tell you is that they are back 

under severe restrictions. That they don’t have—are not allowed to 

provide the people with the resources that they have available to 

provide their health care. And so more and more people are going 

to continue to suffer and die because of that government restriction 

35

on people who are willing to provide health care who are not allowed to do so. 

As you heard, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights came 

to Washington, met with Congressman Crowley and Lowenthal. 

They have just released a new report after sending a delegation 

very recently into Burma. It is in my testimony, in the written testimony. It is called Disenfranchisement and Desperation in 

Myanmar’s Rakhine State: Drivers of a Regional Crisis. 

What they are saying is that the U.N. Refugee Agency’s warning 

that we are likely to see a new wave of desperate people heading 

into rickety boats and heading into the sea. A fleeing from this persecution is likely to occur because we haven’t addressed the core 

reasons for them leaving and we have simply ignored the situation. 

And the only reason that these boats have not continued is because 

of the monsoon season, and the monsoon season is about to end. 

In 2012, President Obama made his historic visit to Burma. The 

President of Burma, Thein Sein, gave 11 commitments to the President for reform. The President invited him to the White House; 

President Thein Sein reiterated those 11 commitments. He has 

failed to keep all but one, including the basic right, the basic commitment for the United Nations to have human rights monitors in 

that country. We have not called him on this. We have not exercised the various tools that we have available to hold this government accountable and to hold those who are guilty of human rights 

violations accountable. It has been a systematic failure to do so. 

And I echo and thank Congressman Crowley for his comments raising that question. 

Yes, there has been progress in some areas, but there has also 

been backsliding. We are going in the wrong direction, and it is incumbent among this Congress and this administration to take action now. It is a matter of life and death for so many. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:]

36


97264c-1.eps
37


97264c-2.eps
38


97264c-3.eps
39


97264c-4.eps
40


97264c-5.eps
41


97264c-6.eps
42


97264c-7.eps
43

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Andrews. 

Ms. Quigley. 

STATEMENT OF MS. JENNIFER QUIGLEY, PRESIDENT, U.S. 

CAMPAIGN FOR BURMA 

Ms. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Chairman, Congressman Crowley. I 

would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today about 

the challenges to democracy, human rights, and peace in Burma. 

A week ago today, the Government of Burma touted the historic 

signing of a document referred to as a nationwide ceasefire agreement. It is not a nationwide ceasefire agreement. 

After a multi-year negotiation process, the Government of Burma 

refused to allow three small ethnic armed organizations to sign the 

nationwide ceasefire agreement. Many of the other ethnic armed 

organizations were clear that they would not sign a non-inclusive 

ceasefire agreement. Several of the largest armed ethnic organizations including the Kachin Independence Organization did not sign 

the nationwide non-inclusive ceasefire agreement. While diplomats 

and media converged on Naypyidaw to witness the signing of this 

agreement, the Burmese army launched an offensive against one of 

the non-signatories, the Shan State Army-North, displacing more 

than 3,000 Shan villagers, on the same day. 

The timing of the signing of the nationwide ceasefire was more 

important than the number of participants. The Government of 

Burma pushed forcefully for a nationwide ceasefire to be signed 

prior to the November 8th nationwide parliamentary elections. The 

upcoming election is part of the current government’s strategy to 

achieve legitimacy as a democratically elected government. 

The government has taken steps to eliminate its chances at failing to achieve its goal. The 2008 constitution guarantees 25 percent 

of the seats to the military. With only 75 percent of the seats contested, the USDP only needs to win 34 percent of the contested 

seats to form a government with the backing of the military. 

Whereas, Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy need to win 67 percent of the contested seats to have a simple 

majority and the potential to form the next government. 

To date, the Union Election Commission has actually cancelled 

voting for more ethnic minorities than they cancelled in the 2010 

election. The Union Solidarity and Development Party government 

is perverting religion to garner support from a majority Buddhist 

electorate. The already persecuted and oppressed Rohingya minority have been stripped of their voting rights, disenfranchising approximately 1 million people. Muslim candidates have been disqualified including U Shwe Maung, a current USDP member of 

Parliament from the 2010 election. Parliament passed the four race 

and religion discrimination laws this year to portray the USDP as 

the protectors and defenders of Buddhism. The fomenting of religious discrimination and tension raises grave concerns about election related violence. 

So despite the disenfranchisement of millions of ethnic minorities, exclusions of Muslims, and disproportionate advantage for the 

ruling USDP party ahead of the November 8th election, the international community has an outsized expectation for an acceptable 

election outcome and hope for an NLD victory. But regardless of 

44

the election outcome, there are significant obstacles to establishing 

a truly genuine democratic government in the country. 

The primary obstacle is a 2008 constitution. The military’s constitution guarantees the military has veto power over any constitutional changes. To specify, what normally gets left out is that you 

need more than 75 percent of the vote in Parliament to have a constitutional change, which means every single elected member as 

well as at least one member of the military block of seats. 

In addition, the constitution states that the civilian government 

does not have authority over the military; it does not provide for 

an independent judiciary; it continues the legal authority of all 

military junta laws, which means that that will continue the 1982 

citizenship law that denies the Rohingya citizenship as well as the 

law Mr. Lowenthal referred to against LGBT rights. So those cannot be changed without constitutional change, which means the 

military has to prove that change. In addition, it guarantees that 

the military has authority over almost all ethnic minority affairs. 

The persecution and oppression of the Rohingya minority continues to grow dire. Earlier this year, President Thein Sein invalidated the legal status of the Rohingya identification cards known 

as white cards. This has led to the Rohingya leaving Burma and 

taking to the sea. The United States must address both the root 

cause of the Rohingya’s plight in Burma as well as to continue to 

pressure regional governments to rescue and accept the Rohingya 

refugees who become stranded at sea. 

These deep structural and systemic problems should be the focus 

of U.S. Burma relations. For too long, the Obama administration 

has prioritized building and deepening a relationship with the Burmese Government in hopes of persuading through diplomacy, capacity building and investment. This approach has not worked. 

Nearly 3 years ago, President Thein Sein pledged 11 commitments 

on democracy, human rights, peace and humanitarian need to 

President Obama; to date only one has been fulfilled. 

It would be a mistake to predicate the future of U.S. Burma policy on the signing of a partial ceasefire agreement or a deeply 

flawed election. Congress should consider legislation that is forward-looking to address the problems Burma will face regardless of 

who wins the election. Binding benchmarks for further lifting of remaining sanctions or conditions for potential future engagement 

have been sorely lacking from U.S. Burma policy since investment 

and financial sanctions were lifted in 2012. Congress should create 

a legislative policy that clearly states U.S. expectations from the 

Government of Burma on key human rights and democracy indicators as a basis for the future of U.S. Burma relations. 

In my written testimony I included a list of what they could potentially include. The Burmese military remains the biggest obstacle to achieving these key democratic and human rights concerns. 

Whether the USDP or NLD wins the election November 8th and 

forms the next government, neither will be able to address these 

concerns and convince the Burmese military to change its ways 

without the international community and particularly the United 

States conditioning the future of bilateral and multilateral relations on these key democratic and human rights concerns. A genVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Dec 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\102115\97264 SHIRL
45

uine democratic Burma is in the best interest of our two countries. 

Let’s ensure Burma achieves genuine democracy. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Quigley follows:]

46


97264d-1.eps
47


97264d-2.eps
48


97264d-3.eps
49

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. Just prior to you, we had a chance to 

hear from our administration and their policy on Burma. Mr. Andrews, what is your opinion on the U.S. Government’s role in 

Burma? How effective has the U.S. been on assisting the Rohingya 

humanitarian crisis, the democratic transition, the ceasefire negotiations, and what do you think the United States should do? What 

role should we play in the coming months? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is an excellent 

question. As Mr. Russel pointed out in his testimony, the administration has given voice to the concerns that he outlined. That is 

true. He explained that the administration is pushing for relief for 

the horrendous situation affecting the people in Rakhine, the 

Rohingya. 

But what he didn’t specify is what specifically the administration 

is doing to push for these changes and these reforms. The first 

thing that they could do is give voice, the President could give voice 

to the fact that he was personally given 11 commitments, and only 

one of those commitments have they come through on. I mean that 

was 3 years ago, Mr. Chairman, and we haven’t heard anything 

about those 11 commitments from the administration. 

We can also begin to apply targeted sanctions against the individuals who are responsible for the human rights violations in that 

country. The administration has the authority to do so, the SDN 

list. But despite the fact that those human rights violations have 

spiked, not a single living human being has been added to that 

SDN list. In fact, the only discussion we seem to be hearing is how 

people can get off the SDN list. 

The administration could also look at issues like military to military relations, GSP preferences. There is a whole range of things 

that the administration could hold out or hold off depending upon 

the behavior of the Government of Burma, but it hasn’t. I think 

that Congressman Crowley’s call for action-for-action approach is 

exactly what is needed and is exactly what is missing. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. Just last week, we had a number of arrests of Burmese citizens because they expressed their political 

opinions on social media. This is despite the fact that the Burmese 

Government has dedicated itself to improving human rights and 

freedoms in the country, and despite the fact that the international 

community is watching this democratic transition slowly. 

Based on your experience with Burma, how would you assess the 

conditions of civil society, Ms. Quigley? Are people free to express 

their own political or religious thoughts? And to me, the recent four 

race and religion protection laws, which egregiously violates religious rights and freedom, impedes progress on this front. The law 

doesn’t just discriminate against Muslims but other religions as 

well. How do we respond, and what will the Burmese Government 

do about this? 

Ms. QUIGLEY. So civil society in Burma would say that there are, 

you can call it a tale of two civil societies. Those who spread hate 

and Buddhist extremism and nationalism have free reign. They can 

hold events, rallies, protests. They can spew hate online on social 

media. Whereas, the space for those who want to show criticism or 

concern for the national education law or for the LGBT community 

or those who want to speak up against the four race and religion 

50

discrimination laws, those are the ones that find themselves being 

arrested and facing charges for violation of some of the new laws 

that have been put in place. 

And so it is sort of a tale of two very different civil societies and 

two very different responses. It is one of the reasons why there has 

been an extreme limitation of voices in the country against the persecution of the Rohingya or against the race and religion discrimination laws, because they fear death threats. 

There is actually a coalition of women’s organizations who did 

publicly speak out and call on Parliament and President Thein 

Sein to not pass these laws, and the leaders of that have faced 

daily death threats as a result of doing that. And so it is sort of 

a tale of two civil societies in Burma as a result. And it is something that our country needs to recognize and condition our relationship on a change in which you see prosecution of any hate 

speech that incites violence and help to enable civil society to find 

more space where they are not prosecuted for exercising what, 

here, would be fundamental rights and freedoms. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. Mr. Crowley. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for the indulgence. I really do appreciate your calling this hearing. I also want 

to thank and commend both Congressman Andrews and Ms. 

Quigley for your own personal faithful dedication to democracy in 

Burma, but in particular I want to really point out the work of the 

U.S. Campaign for Burma historically as well. Not only because the 

guy is sitting behind me, but because I just think you have all done 

such wonderful work. 

And Tom, you have been incredible in terms of your own personal safety. Not easy for you to travel, and yet at the same time 

you have taken it upon yourself to go to some of the more difficult 

areas to diverse in many different ways in Burma and show great 

courage in doing that. And I just want to state for the record that 

without regard for his own personal safety, he has done remarkable 

work in trying to expose the truth of what is happening the people 

of the Rakhine region, the Rohingya in particular. Chairman Salmon, I think if you don’t know it, you ought to know it as well. 

Tom, just going back, how much of the geopolitical, or geopolitics 

at play at State Department plays a role, in your opinion, in terms 

of how they approach Burma? Moving from the action-for-action, in 

my opinion, there is almost like a race to get to Burma. Can you 

just maybe comment in your opinion in terms of the geopolitic that 

is going on? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, Congressman, thank you, first of all, very 

much for your comments. There was a great battle here in the halls 

of Congress, as you recall, when those of us who believe that economic and diplomatic pressure should be exerted upon the military 

regime of Burma. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Looking over my shoulder seeing three of the portraits that I served under, one in particular had that. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, indeed. And there was enormous pressure 

from the business community to not exert this pressure. And there 

was also geopolitical concerns regarding China and the overall region and the positioning of the United States. So the good news is, 

is that we overcame those obstacles and we demonstrated that with 

51

pressure you can see progress. The other good news is that there 

are some great champions of human rights and democracy that are 

working within our government, I am very, very happy and proud 

to say, and those voices are heard inside of the State Department 

and the White House. 

But the fact of the matter is, is that the China card, the instability of the region, the location of Burma, the fact that it has such 

a large population, it is a very significant country. And so those 

voices both of economic pressure and diplomatic pressure remain 

today, and I think we have to remain ever vigilant. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Is some of the pressure coming from Europe, our 

allies? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. There have been. In fact, it was only until 

the United States took the lead in exerting diplomatic and economic pressure that the Europeans then followed. So there have always been those voices coming from the other side of the pond as 

it were. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Ms. Quigley, how many political prisoners do you 

estimate are still in prison in Burma? 

Ms. QUIGLEY. So I would say that there is three categories now 

as opposed to one big number. One is those who are deemed political prisoners and that is a little over 100, then there are those 

who are pending charges who are not necessarily in prison but facing charges and that is over 100 as well, and then there is the 

Rohingya and it is unknown how many, if we are looking at only 

several hundred or if we are looking at over 1,000 Rohingya who 

since 2012 have just been detained in prisons that people do not 

have access to that we have no idea what their status is. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Tom, in terms of the 11 commitments the administration told us that they would hold the Burmese accountable to 

in terms of the government, they also said that they would release 

all political prisoners. In your estimate, do you believe they have 

followed through with that? 

Mr. ANDREWS. No, they haven’t. In fact, they are re-arresting or 

arresting new political prisoners for speaking out. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And Ms. Quigley, by your statement you would 

agree that they have not fulfilled that promise, have they? 

Ms. QUIGLEY. Yes, they haven’t fulfilled it, and the one that 

seems to get lost in all of this is that they maintain their criminal 

records and these are actually just as if they are out on parole. And 

so all their original sentences remain intact, and so if they step one 

toe out of line they will be re-imprisoned to serve the remaining 

sentence from their original convictions. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, as you know there is so many 

issues in regard to Burma, the 5 minutes doesn’t give enough time 

to really expound upon them. But in terms of the ceasefire that 

was intimated to, Ms. Quigley, you made mention of, on its face regardless of the fact that not every party is a party to it, can you 

give an assessment of your view on terms of how strong it is? 

Ms. QUIGLEY. It is not very strong. I think that it left a lot of 

issues undealt with that they are supposed to deal with in a political dialogue process that is supposed to start within 90 days. And 

so I think the next 90 days will show whether or not the groups 

52

meet with the government and whether or not they will make 

progress on huge gaping issues. 

The presence of the militaries, demilitarization, all those issues 

were not dealt with and so they will have to be dealt with in the 

next 90 days, and time remains to be seen whether they will actually go through with that. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. I would just point out, Mr. Chairman, 

before I yield back the time that irony is not lost in Burma either. 

And the fact that those four laws that were put into place to really 

discriminate against a particular population, the predominantly 

Muslim Rohingya population, basically making them a people without a country. Not wanted in Bangladesh, not wanted in Burma, 

forced to flee because of fear of death or maybe worse in terms of 

being put to death, starvation and depravity. 

Where the irony is of this, Mr. Chairman, you might want to 

know a member of Parliament of the ruling party, a man by the 

name of Shwe Maung, was elected as a parliamentarian. Because 

of the change in law his citizenship was withdrawn and was removed and he was forced out of Parliament, and he is a part of the 

ruling party, which I found very ironic. 

There is a lot of bad things happening in Burma, whether it is 

the Kachin or the Chin region, things that are going on even with 

the ceasefire. This upcoming election that is taking place, and I 

don’t want to describe my feelings as to whether it will be fair or 

unfair, we will let the results speak for themselves. These laws 

have been put in place to discriminate against a people, creating 

more boat people, people without a country, refugees, children, men 

and women suffering and dying. 

I once again just want to applaud the work of both of you. And 

Mr. Chairman, I can’t thank you enough for holding this timely 

hearing. You don’t know what you have done to help this cause. I 

think, I suspect, one day you will. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The Rohingya people live both in Burma but also 

in Bangladesh. Some of them from Bangladesh are fleeing as well. 

Do they face—the position of some in the Burmese Government is 

that the Rohingya are Bangladeshi. What is the position of the 

Bangladeshi Government toward the Rohingya? I realize that is literally just outside the borders of the purpose of this hearing. 

Ms. QUIGLEY. It is horrible the way that the Bangladeshi Government treats the Rohingya, and that is actually not something 

new. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So this is a people that is persecuted on both sides 

of the border? 

Ms. QUIGLEY. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And a people that is not only discriminated 

against in a predominantly non-Muslim country, they are Muslims 

who are discriminated against in a predominantly Muslim country. 

Ms. QUIGLEY. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And the Burmese Government takes the position 

that the discrimination is warranted because these folks are really 

Bangladeshi. What does the Bangladeshi Government say about 

the Rohingya? 

53

Ms. QUIGLEY. So they say that they are not Bengali. That they 

basically in essence are refugees from Burma, and—yes, yes. This 

is the position of the Bangladeshi Government. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So the position of the Bangladeshi Government is 

that these folks are really Burmese who have fled to Bangladesh, 

the position of——

Ms. QUIGLEY. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Wow. And so the discrimination by the 

Bangladeshi Government is more ethnic rather than religious. 

Ms. QUIGLEY. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. There are not religious differences, no doctrinal 

differences between one type of Islam and the other, it is purely——

Ms. QUIGLEY. And they view it as an immigration issue. 

Mr. SHERMAN. How does the Burmese Government treat its 

Christian minority? 

Ms. QUIGLEY. Not well. So for years, the government has persecuted the Christians mainly because they are from the ethnic minorities, so you have sort of like the double issue of being an ethnic 

minority and a religious minority. It hasn’t reached the level of 

persecution that it has faced the Rohingya, but you do have destruction of churches. You do have human rights abuses that take 

place against them, and sort of forced merit making, which is a 

process in which like they are forced to give money to build pagodas. 

And so it is sort of like—or if you can’t afford to go pay for state 

schools, Buddhist schools you don’t have to pay for. And so it is 

more of an attempt to remove Christianity from the country than 

it is to persecute them on the same level of extinction that you 

would say for the Rohingya. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So Mr. Andrews, they are taxed and they are 

forced to pay for Buddhist religious activity? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, and they are literally under siege. One of the 

members of the delegation of MPs that came here from Southeast 

Asia 2 weeks ago and testified before the Tom Lantos Human 

Rights Commission was from Kachin, was Christian, and testified 

that in fact they are building Buddhist temples on Christian 

church sites. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Are they tearing down the church building or——

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. They have destroyed the church buildings 

and they are replacing them with Buddhist temples. I have traveled in that part of the world. I have seen entire villages just completely vacated because of being under siege, literally under siege 

by the Burmese military, and seeing the refugee camps just filled 

with Christians who are literally under fire by this government. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, Aung San Suu Kyi is a hero to those who 

read articles about human rights. Has she or her party stood up 

for the Christian minority? We have talked in the first panel about 

the Rohingya, but has she stood up for the rights of these other minorities, ethnic and religious? 

Ms. QUIGLEY. I think only through the sense of the catch-all of 

sort of like religious freedom and in their opposition to the four 

race and religion discrimination laws, most recently. 

54

Mr. SHERMAN. The chairman pointed out to me that you need 

government permission to have an interfaith marriage in Burma? 

Ms. QUIGLEY. It is one of the four laws. Women, Buddhist 

women, need to get permission from the government to marry outside of their faith. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And the opposition party or parties supported that 

legislation or not? 

Ms. QUIGLEY. No, the NLD was the lead in opposition to those 

bills and voted against them. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Will the gentleman yield for just a moment? Mr. 

Chairman? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I think it is also important to point out that they 

paid a price for that. There have been tremendous protests led by 

extremists within the Buddhist community, Buddhist monks who 

have protested Aung San Suu Kyi and her party. This is an incredibly sensitive issue. There is diverse discussion within their own 

party about it. 

But I do think, I don’t want to make too much of it to some degree because of the sensitivity in the elections, but I think Aung 

San Suu Kyi has stood for principle, and I think that has to be 

mentioned. It may not be as vociferous as some may want to be, 

but she has stood and paid a penalty for that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. She has done more than others who have power 

in Burma, and at the same time because of her status around the 

world we expect even more. And I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. I thank the distinguished panelists for sparing the 

time, and I thank the members up here for their interest. We have 

got to shine a light on this kind of thing if it is going to be fixed. 

We have to get that message out and let the administration know 

that we are not happy with the status quo. And so I really appreciate the time. And without further objection, this meeting will now 

be adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.] 

(55)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

56

f


97264n.eps
57

f


97264m.eps
58

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE TOM ANDREWS, 

PRESIDENT, UNITED TO END GENOCIDE


97264e-1.eps
59


97264e-2.eps
60


97264e-3.eps
61


97264e-4.eps
62


97264e-5.eps
63


97264e-6.eps
64

[NOTE: The full report is not reprinted here but may be found on the Internet at 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104074]

f


97264e-7.eps
65


97264f-1.eps
66


97264f-2.eps
67


97264f-3.eps
68


97264f-4.eps
69


97264f-5.eps
70


97264f-6.eps
71

Æ


97264f-7.eps