U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

88–625PDF 2014

SPOTLIGHTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN

SOUTHEAST ASIA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 9, 2014

Serial No. 113–187

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 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

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 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Lorne W. Craner (former Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State) ..................... 6

The Honorable Tom Andrews, president and chief executive officer, United 

to End Genocide (former United States Representative) .................................. 17

Ms. Janet Nguyen, supervisor, First District, Orange County Board of Supervisors ..................................................................................................................... 43

Thang D. Nguyen, Ph.D., executive director, Boat People SOS .......................... 48

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Lorne W. Craner: Prepared statement ........................................ 9

The Honorable Tom Andrews: Prepared statement .............................................. 20

Ms. Janet Nguyen: Prepared statement ................................................................ 45

Thang D. Nguyen, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ...................................................... 50

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 72

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 73

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 75

Thang D. Nguyen, Ph.D.: Material submitted for the record .............................. 77

(1)

SPOTLIGHTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN 

SOUTHEAST ASIA 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2014

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Royce (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This committee hearing will come to order. 

This hearing today is on human rights in Southeast Asia. America’s commitment to protecting human dignity and justice around 

the world is unparalleled. We do more than any other nation, and 

we should because this is the one country founded upon this ideal. 

But this commitment, which has long enjoyed bipartisan support 

here in the United States, is a key focus of this committee. We 

have taken legislative action on human rights violations, particularly Venezuela, Nicaragua, North Korea, and the People’s Republic of China. 

We are also working to strengthen the ability of the United 

States to promote human rights through international broadcasting. 

That is one of the reasons why this committee passed legislation 

to overhaul our international broadcasters so that those who are 

doing this surrogate radio broadcasting can send a message that 

teaches political pluralism, that teaches tolerance, that can have 

the kind of effect that we had in Eastern Germany and in the rest 

of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. 

Yesterday, the House passed legislation to reauthorize the 

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. As 

a body of experts who speak out on behalf of persecuted believers 

of any faith, the commission helps to ensure that the U.S. stands 

up for what many of us consider our first freedom. 

Unfortunately, now, when it comes to Southeast Asia, a strategically important region that is home to 620 million souls, the outlook on human rights is very troubling, in particular, with respect 

to Vietnam. 

In Vietnam, we have overwhelming evidence that the human 

rights situation is worsening, with the government continuing its 

severe crackdown on critics of the regime. We know that the Government of Vietnam suppresses virtually all dissent through intimidation, through physical violence, through very, very long prison terms. These young bloggers are typically getting 7 years in 

2

prison if they blog about ideas like freedom of speech. In my own 

travels to Vietnam, I have seen firsthand the lengths that the Secret Police will go to in order to stifle any form of free speech or 

religious freedom. I met with the Venerable Thich Quang Do, the 

head of the Unified Buddhist Church in Vietnam, as well as another religious leader, who was held in prison and, basically, saw 

firsthand what was being done to stifle religious freedom in the 

country. We have had 18 meetings now of the U.S.-Vietnam 

Human Rights Dialogue. There is no improvement in the human 

rights situation. I call on the Government of Vietnam to immediately cease its human rights abuses. We call on the Government 

of Vietnam to release the political prisoners there. 

In Burma, the regime’s early progress on human rights has given 

way to worsening conditions for religious and ethnic minorities all 

over that country. The plight of the Rohingya Muslims is well documented, thanks to groups such as United to End Genocide. The 

Government’s treatment of the Rohingya Muslims is beyond deplorable. Forced to live in what I would call concentration camps there, 

the Rohingya are systematically deprived of access to health care 

and threatened with physical harm as well as death. The expulsion 

of Doctors Without Borders, the only group providing health care 

to the Rohingya caused 150 people to die from otherwise curable 

diseases is another example. 

It is time that we take off the rose-colored glasses and see the 

situation in Burma for what it is. We cannot—we, the United 

States, cannot continue to lavish more incentives on the government in Burma in hopes that it will one day do the right thing. 

And that is why I have repeatedly called on the administration to 

work with this committee to improve human rights in that country. 

We must immediately cease military-to-military cooperation with 

Burma until the systematic persecution of Rohingya Muslims and 

other minorities has ended there. 

Too often the administration, like the administrations that preceded this administration, is more interested in not ruffling diplomatic feathers than carrying out the difficult, but necessary task 

of pressing for human rights. But human rights do not have to take 

a back seat to strategic considerations. The administration must 

recognize that its rebalance to Asia will be unsustainable without 

improvements in this area. Countries that do not respect their citizens’ fundamental human rights will not and cannot be true enduring partners for the United States. And this isn’t to say that we 

must cut off all ties when human rights abuses occur, but it is imperative that we speak out. And that is my point. It is imperative 

that we get in, lean in there, sit down with these governments and 

explain that these deplorable situations in Vietnam and in Burma 

need to be reversed. There is no excuse for silence on this issue. 

Now, before I turn to the ranking member, Mr. Engel from New 

York, for his opening remarks, I want to take the opportunity to 

welcome Janet Nguyen, supervisor of Orange County’s First District, to this committee. Janet’s story is a story of millions of Vietnamese who fled their homeland in search of a life free from the 

horrific human rights abuses that we still see perpetrated today in 

that country. Janet has come a long way from the dangerous journey that her family took on a 30-foot raft when she was just a 

3

small girl fleeing her war-ravaged homeland. Today Janet is the 

highest ranking Vietnamese-American to hold elective office in 

California. And just as important, Janet is a tireless advocate for 

the Vietnamese-American community in southern California and 

throughout our country. And we welcome her as well. 

Mr. Engel.

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this important hearing. 

And let me also thank our distinguished witnesses for joining us 

today. 

In late 2011, the Obama administration announced an American 

strategic rebalance or pivot to the Asia-Pacific region. While the 

contours of the rebalance is still taking shape, the logic behind the 

policy shift is clear. 

The Asia-Pacific is home to almost half of the world’s population 

and more than half of global trade and GDP. This region will be 

a key driver of global events in the decades to come and central to 

America’s international interests as a Pacific power. 

It is important that the United States continue to strengthen our 

relationships with key allies in the region, including Japan, South 

Korea, Australia and the Philippines. 

We should also deepen strategic partnerships with emerging 

powers in the region, like India and Indonesia, and take steps to 

further connect our people and our economies. 

Mr. Chairman, the Asian rebalance includes important political, 

economic, and strategic dimensions, and these priorities are inseparable from our obligation to promote greater respect for human 

rights, democracy and the rule of law. 

After all, when citizens enjoy full political and economic participation, it helps unleash a country’s full potential. 

Governments that are transparent and accountable, in turn, 

grow more responsive and effective. Nations become stronger partners on the world stage and project stability across regions. 

So for the United States, promoting human rights in the AsiaPacific is the right thing to do and it is also the smart thing to do. 

Some countries in the region have made significant progress in 

these areas. Others have not. 

As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in Vietnam, for example, the 

Communist government continues to place severe restrictions on 

political rights and religious freedom. Dissenters face restriction of 

movement, arbitrary detention and endless harassment. 

In Cambodia, human trafficking remains a serious problem, although we have seen some efforts to improve law enforcement efforts around this crime. 

Still, the Cambodian People’s Party continues to consolidate 

power, tighten its choke hold on the media, and silence human 

rights advocates. 

The Cambodian Government also has failed to stop illegal land 

grabs. In January 2013, 300 families living in central Phnom Penh 

lost their homes to developers and, after forceful, violent removal 

by security forces, were relocated to squalid sites outside of the 

city. 

4

With regard to Burma, I want to commend the administration for 

its efforts to work with the government there to enact some long 

overdue reforms. 

At the same time, I am very concerned about the systematic 

human rights abuses and ethnic violence in some parts of the country. 

The State Department reported last year—and I quote:

‘‘Extrajudicial killings, rape and sexual violence, arbitrary detentions and torture and mistreatment in detention, deaths in 

custody and systematic denial of due process and fair trial 

rights overwhelmingly perpetuated against Rohingya.’’

These horrendous acts of violence have displaced 140,000 

Rohingya within Burma and have pushed thousands to neighboring 

countries, including Thailand, Bangladesh, and Malaysia. 

We need to see real progress from Burma’s leaders on these 

human rights issues before we provide the military-led government 

with any further concessions. 

So as we can see, Mr. Chairman, many challenges remain across 

the region. Tackling them won’t be easy, but it is important that 

the United States prioritize human rights as part of a pivot or rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. 

I want to thank you again for holding this hearing, and I look 

forward to hearing from our excellent witnesses. 

I want to call out our former colleague, Tom Andrews, with 

whom we have both had the pleasure to serve, and welcome all the 

witnesses today. 

I look forward to all of your testimony. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. 

We go now to Mr. Chabot for his opening statement. 

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

I share your deep concerns about the human rights situation in 

Southeast Asia and strongly support your efforts to highlight the 

rampant abuses committed in the region. 

I am particularly concerned about the deteriorating situation in 

Burma and Cambodia, where the ruling regimes seem to be concerned more about investment opportunities than the fundamental 

rights of their own people. 

In Cambodia, we have seen land grabs and increasing crackdowns by the Hun Sen government. In Burma, we have been—excuse me—we have seen complicity by the ruling junta in an ethnic 

cleansing campaign against the Rohingya Muslims. 

I have worked quite a bit with one of our panel members, Mr. 

Andrews, and he has spent considerable time in Burma, working 

to expose the horrific conditions faced by so many Burmese and 

trying to get them the basic assistance, especially access to medical 

care that every human being deserves. 

Tom, thank you for your work there. We certainly appreciate it. 

And I will yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Any other members on this side of the aisle 

like to make an opening statement? 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Lowenthal, go ahead. 

5

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses for appearing here today 

on this very important issue. 

I especially would like to welcome Supervisor Janet Nguyen, who 

represents the cities of Westminster and Garden Grove in my district, home to the largest Vietnamese-American community in the 

United States. 

We have all seen, as has been pointed out by my colleagues, how 

the state of human rights in many countries across Southeast Asia 

has deteriorated in recent years to the detriment of millions of people who call the region home. I would like to highlight two countries in particular. 

In Vietnam, the one-party government rules without respect for 

the rights of its citizens enshrined in its own constitution. The Vietnamese Government has punished those who speak out and exercise their basic human rights with jail sentences. 

As a member of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, I 

have adopted the case of two prisoners of conscience: Blogger 

Nguyen Tien Trung and Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh. 

These cases highlight the Vietnamese Government’s trampling of 

free speech and religious freedom. While Trung has been released 

from prison to home arrest, Pastor Chinh and hundreds of other 

prisoners of conscience continue to remain in prison. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will go now to Mr. Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

calling this extraordinarily important hearing. And I will just bring 

focus on one issue, and that is Vietnam. 

In 2004, I authored the Vietnam Human Rights Act, passed 323 

to 45, no vote in the Senate. In 2007, the same bill passed 414 to 

3. In 2012, the Vietnam Human Rights Act passed unanimously. 

And then just recently, a year ago almost, 405 to 3. 

Four times I have offered the Vietnam Human Rights Act with 

strong support of virtually every member of this committee, totally 

bipartisan. 

And we have written Majority Leader Reid and asked simply for 

a vote. You can vote against it, Mr. Senator, but please don’t block 

a vote. 

This is an idea whose time has come. Vietnam is in a race to the 

bottom with the likes of China and even North Korea, particularly 

when it comes to religious freedom, as Hoang Van Ngai was tortured to death in July 2013 and then his cousin, Hoang Van Sung 

was tortured to death April 2014. 

Let me finally just say—because my time is running out—there 

is an active effort to suppress this legislation. 

The Podesta Group was hired last December. They were paid 

$30,000 per month through June 2nd, $180,000 in total. And I suspect the contract has been renewed, but the filings haven’t been 

shown yet. No wonder the Senate won’t take it up. 

And, unfortunately, the President—I know the President’s people 

are here—I hope you will take it back. This is a modest, well-calibrated, piece of human rights legislation, and the people at this 

dais, many of whom—Dr. Thang especially—helped us write it. So 

it is as accurate as the day is long. 

6

This is an idea whose time has come. Vietnam, like I said, is in 

a race to the bottom with some of the worst dictatorships throughout the world. It is time to pass this legislation. Just give it a vote 

in the United States Senate. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

This morning we are joined by a distinguished group of witnesses. 

I will start with Mr. Lorne Craner. He served as president of the 

International Republican Institute that oversaw elections around 

the world. He was Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor from 2001 to 2004. 

Some of us in our work and bipartisan effort—myself and Gregory Meeks and some of the other members here—had an opportunity to meet with Lorne. I think it was in 1999 when I co-led an 

election oversight team with General Powell on the Nigerian elections. 

And I was just reflecting—I just asked my staff—over the years 

we have heard Lorne testify a number of times between the Senate 

and the House, different committees. 

They did a quick tally back here, and they say you have testified 

over 25 times. I am glad your sons are here to hear you testify 

today, Lorne. Thank you. 

Mr. Andrews, Tom Andrews, president and chief executive officer 

of United to End Genocide, was our former colleague from the state 

of Maine. He most recently served as national director of Win 

Without War. 

Ms. Janet Nguyen, supervisor for the First District of Orange 

County, first woman supervisor to represent that district, first 

Asian-American, first Vietnamese-American to serve on the Board 

of Supervisors, as well as the youngest supervisor elected in the 

history in Orange County. 

And we have Mr. Thang Nguyen, executive director of Boat People SOS. Many of us know him from his humanitarian work over 

the years. He is also the co-founder of Coalition to Abolish Modern 

Day Slavery in Asia. 

Without objection, the witnesses’ full prepared statements will be 

made part of the record and the members will have 5 calendar days 

to submit statements and questions and other extraneous material 

for the record. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Craner, if you would like. We would ask 

you, though, to please summarize your remarks, if you could, and 

then we will go to questions. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LORNE W. CRANER 

(FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, 

HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE) 

Mr. CRANER. Mr. Chairman, members, thank you very much for 

the opportunity to testify before you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind words. 

The countries we are discussing are in different stages of democratic development, an important factor in considering policies toward them. 

7

Let me start with Burma, where we are all familiar with the 

country’s democratic opening, but large problems remain, including 

allowing Aung San Suu Kyi to run in the 2015 elections. 

Less remarked upon has been the violence between Burma’s 

Buddhists and Muslims. The Rohingya’s plight is different from 

other Burmese ethnic groups in that they are persecuted by the 

country’s religious majority, including many Buddhists, who had 

worked for a political opening. 

Led by Secretary Clinton, the administration did an exceptional 

job in rapprochement with Burma. That said, it was a front-loaded 

process that left us with few carrots to encourage Yangon today. 

In looking at influencing events, however, we need to remember 

the reasons Burma opened up: China’s tight embrace and the fact 

that the country was declining economically. 

The transition is delicate, but the likelihood of a return to China 

and isolation diminish by the day. We should think through 

thoughtful measures to help the Rohingya and encourage reform. 

First, we should add those responsible for violence and their families to our visa ban and SDN investment list. Second, we should 

limit contacts with Burma’s security forces. Third, with the spread 

of sectarian violence to Mandelay last week, the U.S. should look 

at reimposing some past sanctions. 

We need to work closely with our European, Australian, and 

ASEAN friends, some of whom are receiving large Rohingya refugee flows, particularly on visa and investment issues. 

Cambodia’s sad history continues, thanks to Hun Sen, who has 

essentially run the country in one way or another since 1985. 

The 2013 elections were clearly flawed even before they occurred, 

which is no small feat. After the election, the opposition CNRP, 

claiming widespread fraud, refused to take their seats in Parliament and began demonstrations, which were repressed by the 

police. The CNRP today continues its parliamentary boycott and is 

negotiating over arrangements for future elections. 

Two important trends were obscured by these events. First, the 

CNRP did remarkably well in the elections, winning 44 percent of 

the vote to the CPP’s 49. Second, there was higher-than-usual 

youth voter turnout, and that benefited the CNRP. 

Our pivot to Asia, which we have already mentioned here today, 

should not inhibit actions to support democracy in Cambodia. Hun 

Sen remains closely aligned with Vietnam, but he cultivates a close 

relationship with Beijing. 

The next National Assembly elections will occur in 2018, and 

looking at our U.S. aid funding there, there should be more youth 

civic education and a resumption of political party training. 

Third, a congressional review of U.S. training for Cambodia’s 

military is overdue. Fourth, we should limit contact with Hun Sen’s 

government until negotiations with the opposition are satisfactorily 

included. Again, we should ask our European, Australian, and 

ASEAN friends to do the same. 

On Vietnam, many of us had hoped that diplomatic relations and 

trade between our two countries would lead to more political openness. We were wrong. Vietnam is the most politically repressive 

country we are discussing, a one-party state that tolerates no opposition. 

8

There have been minor changes over the last decade, but they 

are limited to reforms within the existing political system, not reform of the system. And over the last few years, things have worsened, with a stream of arrests and trials for journalists, bloggers, 

and dissidents. 

We have a tendency to treat Vietnam as a special country, given 

our involvement there. To borrow an old phrase, in dealing with 

Vietnam on human rights today, we instead need to think of it as 

a country, not a war. 

The pivot to Asia has increased Vietnam’s strategic importance 

to the U.S. But given their long mutual antipathy with China, we 

need to keep in mind America’s importance to Vietnam. 

We should start by pressing harder for an end to the campaign 

against those who peacefully question the leadership and seek the 

release of those already in prison for such activities. 

There should be more broadcasting to Vietnam by our services. 

We should also push for structural changes in those laws and policies that penalize such activities, again, conducted in a multi-lateral way with European, Australian and ASEAN allies. 

Mr. Chairman, our economic and strategic interests are clearly 

trending toward the Asia-Pacific area. Our hope is to continue to 

shape a peaceful and prosperous future for the region. 

We should seek to repeat our past successes and not our past 

failures in other regions by helping those who seek rights and 

democratic institutions. In the long run, this will be indispensable 

in advancing our interests in the region. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Craner. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Craner follows:]

9


88625a-1.eps
10


88625a-2.eps
11


88625a-3.eps
12


88625a-4.eps
13


88625a-5.eps
14


88625a-6.eps
15


88625a-7.eps
16


88625a-8.eps
17

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Andrews. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM ANDREWS, PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED TO END GENOCIDE (FORMER UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE) 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very 

much for convening this important hearing. It is an honor for me 

to be here. 

I also want to thank you for the leadership that you have provided in bringing what has been an inconvenient truth about 

Burma to the attention of this Congress and to the public: The systematic abuse, discrimination and assault on members of minority 

communities, from the Rohingya ethnic minority in the west, to the 

Kachin and Shan ethnic minority states to the east, to Muslims, 

who are finding themselves threatened and under attack in communities throughout Burma. 

I have traveled extensively in Burma over the last 3 years, and 

I can report to you, Mr. Chairman, that the brutal reality that I 

discovered in my travels contradicts the pervasive—the all-too-pervasive good-news narrative of a nation securely on the path to democracy, justice and the rule of law. 

I made several visits to what you aptly described as concentration camps in western Rakhine that house more than 140,000 

members of Rohingya Muslim community. These men, women and 

children were marched to these camps after violence destroyed 

their villages and neighborhoods in Sittwe. 

They have been confined there ever since, living wretched lives 

in isolation with virtually every aspect of their lives controlled by 

government security. 

Approximately 1,200,000 additional Rohingya live in other areas 

of Rakhine State. While their homes and villages have not been 

torched in ethnic violence, they, too, live in fear and face restrictions on their freedom of movement, on who they can marry, on 

how many children they can have, on access to education, and on 

the construction of religious buildings. 

These unbearable conditions have led tens of thousands of 

Rohingya to leave at sea. The U.N. Refugee Agency estimates that 

some 80,000 Rohingya have fled by boats since 2012. Of those, hundreds, if not thousands, are believed to have drowned. 

Those who have survived have ended up in surrounding countries, such as Thailand or Malaysia, who often fall victim to human 

traffickers who imprison them or force them to work on rubber 

plantations or as sex workers until family members come up with 

ransom. 

I traveled to Malaysia, where I followed and met with some of 

these people and their families, and they told me personally, Mr. 

Chairman, that the risk that they took was greater than the living 

hell that they were bearing within Burma. 

The suffering of—the decision that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, of the eviction of Doctors Without Borders from Rakhine 

State continues to this day. 

One hundred and fifty people, in fact, died in the first 2 weeks 

of that expulsion, and that was the end of February. It is unimagiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:16 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\070914\88625 SHIRL
18

nable how many people have died. But I have seen them. I have 

spoken with them. I took photographs and met with their family. 

And, Mr. Chairman, when you were advancing a resolution on 

the Rohingya on the Floor of the House, you displayed photographs 

that I took in those camps of these people. 

And I am afraid to say, Mr. Chairman, that some of those photographs of some of the families and people that you displayed on the 

Floor have since perished. 

The Government of Burma claims that it can fill the gap that 

has been left by the expulsion of Doctors Without Borders, but I 

can tell you that Doctors Without Borders last year alone provided 

more than 400,000 healthcare consultations and over 2,900 emergency referrals. There is no way the Government of Burma can 

meet that need. 

While the plight of the Rohingya in western Burma, of course, 

is the most egregious and urgent, anti-Muslim campaigns stretch 

across the entire country. 

The infamous so-called ‘‘969 Movement’’ of extremist Buddhist 

monks, led by Ashin Wirathu, the self-proclaimed Buddhist Bin 

Laden, systematically exploits and fans popular fear and prejudice. 

He calls Muslims dogs; African carp who breed quickly and are 

violent, and they eat their own kind. I am quoting now, Mr. Chairman:

Such dehumanization, the use of hate speech in well-organized campaigns, the denial of basic health care, and the 

systematic persecution of a specific people are all known 

precursors to genocide.’’

But Muslims are not the only people under siege. Over the last 

3 years, government forces tortured and raped many in the Kachin 

and northern Shan states. 

A report by Fortified Rights last month documented systematic 

use of torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment 

or punishment of more than 60 civilians by military authorities. 

Similarly, a report by the Women’s League of Burma has documented more than 100 cases of rape being committed by Burma’s 

military. It is being used, as they say, as a tool against ethic minorities. 

I was in Kachin State when, in fact, Aung San Suu Kyi was 

elected to Parliament, and I saw firsthand the violence that were 

occurring in those villages. 

It was a stark reminder to me of the dark side of developments 

of Burma that cannot be ignored even as we want to celebrate the 

positive reforms that indeed have been made. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the disturbing conditions and 

trends in Burma require a fundamental reassessment and recalibration of U.S.-Burma policy. I have outlined some of those specifically. 

One of them is the increasing number of high-level officials of the 

United States going to Burma. Secretary of State Kerry is scheduled to go there next month. President Obama is scheduled to visit 

Burma in November. 

19

I think all of these trips, these indicators by the United States 

of growing acceptance of conditions in Burma, need to be questioned and challenged and stopped. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing. I very 

much appreciate your concern for the people of Burma. And I will 

be very happy to answer any of your questions. 

Chairman ROYCE. Tom, we appreciate your work on human 

rights. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:]

20


88625b-1.eps
21


88625b-2.eps
22


88625b-3.eps
23


88625b-4.eps
24


88625b-5.eps
25


88625b-6.eps
26


88625b-7.eps
27


88625b-8.eps
28


88625b-9.eps
29


88625b-10.eps
30


88625b-11.eps
31


88625b-12.eps
32


88625b-13.eps
33


88625b-14.eps
34


88625b-15.eps
35


88625b-16.eps
36


88625b-17.eps
37


88625b-18.eps
38


88625b-19.eps
39


88625b-20.eps
40


88625b-21.eps
41


88625b-23.eps
42


88625b-23.eps
43

Chairman ROYCE. Janet. 

STATEMENT OF MS. JANET NGUYEN, SUPERVISOR, FIRST 

DISTRICT, ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

Ms. JANET NGUYEN. Good morning, Honorable Chairman Royce, 

and members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

I want to particularly thank Chairman Royce for your decades of 

leadership in support of the County of Orange and the cities and 

residents you represent, particularly your effort in fighting for 

human rights in Vietnam. 

I also want to thank Congressman Rohrabacher and, also, Congressman Lowenthal. Your representation and leadership in Orange County and, also, for the people of Vietnam is greatly appreciated. 

It is my honor to be here before this esteemed committee to comment on the continuing violations of religious freedom and individual rights in Vietnam. 

In the end, I request your assistance in fighting for greater respect for personal liberty by the Government of Vietnam and the 

release of human rights advocates, who are currently in prison 

throughout Vietnam, by supporting H.R. 4254, which has been introduced by Chairman Royce and which I have had the distinct 

privilege of assisting in drafting. It has also been approved by the 

Orange County Board of Supervisors. 

Despite Vietnam’s status as one of the U.S.’ normal trade partners, Vietnam has not reduced its oppression of its people, including journalists, dissidents and human rights advocates. 

As a county supervisor, whose district includes the Little Saigon 

community, which is the largest Vietnamese community outside 

Vietnam, I speak for many in voicing our concerns about the continuing political oppression which exists in Vietnam and hope that 

we in the United States will stand up and demand that Vietnam 

respect the basic tenets of freedom and democracy that we, as a 

Nation, expect from our trade partners. 

As a beacon of civil liberties around the world, our country has 

never shied away from its commitment to basic human rights. We 

will not stand idly by while tyrants repress their people, least of 

all our own trade partners. 

Access to our economy and the opportunity has for financial benefits that such access presents—must be earned through compliance with the basic rules of human dignity and fairness we live by. 

Unfortunately, Vietnam has continued to push the limits of our 

tolerance in this regard. Almost 4 decades after the Vietnam war, 

Vietnam has continued its use of force, intimidation and imprisonment to silence and oppress its people. 

The incarceration of songwriter Tri Minh Vo, also known as Viet 

Khang, who has been sentenced to 4 years in prison, is a prime example of the political oppression that the Vietnamese people must 

continue to live under. 

There are also other examples of oppression in legal detention 

and suppression of free speech and religious figures throughout 

Vietnam, such as the Venerable Thich Quang Do, Reverend 

Nguyen Van Ly, Reverend Nguyen Cong Chinh, Blogger Dieu Cay, 

44

also known as Nguyen Van Hai, as well as countless other human 

rights fighters. 

We believe the United States alone has the unique power to effectuate political change in Vietnam. And for that reason, we appeal to this committee to lend your support to this noble cause. 

As the highest ranking Vietnamese-American elected official in 

California, I humbly ask that you support H.R. 4254. This action 

will send a clear message to the Government of Vietnam and the 

officials engaging in the violation of human rights that United 

States has no tolerance for intolerance and political suppression 

and that we will hold those officials personally accountable for 

their actions. 

I hereby submit a representative number of signatures from 

thousands of community members from around the country which 

has been displayed to show the overwhelming support for H.R. 

4254. 

I also submit a list of names of Vietnamese citizens who we believe have violated the basic human rights of other Vietnamese citizens. A case summary with evidence of each of their violations is 

included for your review. 

Given their blatant disregard for human rights, these individuals 

should not be allowed entry into the United States of America, nor 

should they have the ability to use our financial system for their 

own personal benefit. 

Therefore, I urge you to consider adopting the list of individuals 

who are complicit in human rights abuses under H.R. 4254 and 

adding these individuals to that list for sanction. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to express the concerns 

of Vietnamese-Americans everywhere that, despite international 

condemnation, China has become more militarily aggressive 

against its neighbors over the past few years. 

China’s aggression has escalated and now includes the violation 

of Vietnam’s territorial rights and the capsizing of a Vietnamese 

fishing boat on May 26th this year with ten fishermen onboard. 

This conduct is unacceptable and poses a threat to the stability 

of the region. These actions are hostile and detrimental to the sovereign interests of Vietnam. 

An example of these actions include China deploying an illegal 

deepwater oil rig in Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone, ramming 

into Vietnamese private fishing boats, and firing a water cannon at 

a Vietnamese naval patrol ship, which injured several sailors. 

Given China’s increasing aggression, I am fearful that these aggressions could soon result in a loss of life and escalate tension in 

the South Asia Sea. 

I ask that this committee also look into this issue, as it may significantly impact our Nation’s interests in the Pacific Rim. 

Again, thank you for your time and your attention and for the 

opportunity to speak to you today. And I am available for any questions. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Supervisor Nguyen. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Janet Nguyen follows:]

45


88625c-1.eps
46


88625c-2.eps
47


88625c-3.eps
48

Chairman ROYCE. Thang, go ahead with your testimony, please. 

STATEMENT OF THANG D. NGUYEN, PH.D., EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, BOAT PEOPLE SOS 

Mr. THANG NGUYEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. 

Vietnam has one of the worst human rights records in Southeast 

Asia. From time to time, its government releases a number of prisoners of conscience. 

However, over the same period of time, they usually arrest and 

detain a lot more. So the list of prisoners of conscience has grown 

longer and longer. 

There is no freedom of expression, including freedom of Internet, 

or peaceful assembly or association in Vietnam, and that affects the 

entire society. 

Most affected are the faith communities, particularly those located in remote regions and those among ethnic minorities. 

Decree 92, which took effect in January 2013, has been used by 

the authorities to sanction and restrict religious activities and, at 

times, even to eliminate independent religious groups. 

On July 3rd of last year, for instance, the police in Tien Giang 

Province supported members of the Caodai Governance Council, 

which was set up by the government, to forcefully take over the 

Long Binh Temple using violence. And Long Binh Temple was one 

of the few temples that was still operated by independent Caodai 

followers. 

The attackers knocked down the front gate of the temple and assaulted with clubs and rocks the 20 Caodai leaders and followers 

who were conducting a religious ceremony inside the temple. 

And this is the picture of these attackers. They were surrounding 

the temple and, eventually, they took it over, with the support of 

the police. And, amazingly, the police arrested not the attackers, 

but the victims. 

The Vietnamese Government continues to force ethnic Christians 

to renounce their faith. For example, earlier this year, in January, 

the authorities in Dak Lak Province—that is in central Vietnam—

arrested, detained and tortured Pastor Y Noen Ayun and Missionary Y Jon Ayun—they are both Montagnards of the Vietnam 

Evangelical Church of Christ—until they had to sign a statement 

agreeing to renounce their faith. 

Likewise, the authorities have systematically forced Hmong 

Christians in central Vietnam and, also, in northern Vietnam to return to the so-called ancestral beliefs, which means forced renunciation of their faith. 

On March 17th of last year, the local authorities in Dak Nong 

Province, central Vietnam, tortured to death Hoang Van Ngai, a 

Hmong Protestant deacon. That is the case mentioned by Chairman Smith. And this is a picture of Deacon Ngai when he was still 

alive, standing right at the center here in front of his church. 

And then 3 months ago the authorities in Cao Bang Province, all 

the way in the north, detained Ngai’s cousin because he was suspected by the authorities of having initiated a complaint which was 

signed by all family members and relatives of Ngai about his 

death. 

49

Ten days later the police delivered Ngai’s cousin’s body in a 

sealed coffin to his family and ordered the family not to open it. 

The police stood watch until after the burial to ensure that the coffin was never opened. 

Then the police in both Dak Nong and Cao Bang Provinces—this 

shows clearly there is coordination among the provinces—went 

after all the relatives of Ngai who had signed the complaint. 

Last month our office in Bangkok received 55 relatives of Ngai, 

who had to flee their villages to Thailand to seek protection, along 

with Ngai’s children and wife. 

Those relatives of Ngai who remain in Vietnam are now being 

hounded by the police, harassed, threatened and persecuted by the 

local authorities. 

The situation of religions in Vietnam is best summed up by Hua 

Phi, a clergy member of the independent Caodai sect:

‘‘In Vietnam, only the religious sects that follow the directions of the government will be allowed to function. Those 

that do not will meet harassment and repression.’’

Over the next 6 months, there will be a number of opportunities 

for this Congress to act on Vietnam to make sure that human 

rights will be a cornerstone in U.S. policies toward that country, 

namely, the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with Vietnam, the lifting of the ban on sale and transfer of lethal weapons to Vietnam 

and, most importantly, negotiations with Vietnam on its participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. 

We should demand fundamental improvements, to include the 

unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience, the elimination 

of all the instruments of repression that have been used by the government in Vietnam to arrest and detain and imprison these dissidents and, also, the full respect of the right of workers to form 

and join free and independent labor unions. 

With that, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all the 

members of the committee. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Nguyen. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thang Nguyen follows:]

50


88625d-1.eps
51


88625d-2.eps
52


88625d-3.eps
53


88625d-4.eps
54


88625d-5.eps
55

Chairman ROYCE. I was reading this Human Rights Watch report, and it says,

‘‘The situation in Vietnam deteriorated significantly in 

2013. The year was marked by a severe and intensifying 

crackdown on critics, including long prison terms for many 

peaceful activists whose crime was calling for political 

change.’’

We are aware of that crackdown because we have had hearings 

and been shown photos of what has happened to those students 

and religious leaders who have called for religious liberty or freedom of speech. 

Supervisor Nguyen—you are in a unique position of speaking 

with people from Vietnam. A lot of people have family back in Vietnam. 

Do they see the trend lines in Vietnam? What do they share with 

you about their hopes, aspirations, what they think is happening? 

Maybe you could just give us the insight from the community. 

Ms. JANET NGUYEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Because of what is going on with China, there has been more 

and more willingness to come out and speak against China. 

However, the country of Vietnam has not been very supportive 

of that. So there is a greater mix of concerns within Vietnam that 

freedom and democracy are not going to change. 

In the United States, with your leadership and this committee, 

we need to force the country of Vietnam to allow the freedom of 

speech. 

Chairman ROYCE. How do you see efforts in Congress, such as 

H.R. 4254, the Vietnam Human Rights Sanctions Act, trying to target or list those who are involved specifically in human rights 

abuses—how do you see that impacting change in Vietnam? 

Ms. JANET NGUYEN. It will have a great impact, Mr. Chairman, 

because H.R. 4254 particularly targets individuals, not the country 

of Vietnam, but the individual who imposes these violations. 

Whether they are judges, elected officials, police officers, or chiefs 

of police, these individuals will now have a responsibility and have 

to think twice before taking any kind of actions against individuals 

and citizens of Vietnam. If not, they will not be allowed in our 

great country or be able to use our financial institution. 

And so now we are looking at targeting individuals, and, hopefully, this will make them think twice, three times before they impose actions against individuals. 

Chairman ROYCE. Targeting those who use the truncheons or 

those that order the beatings——

Ms. JANET NGUYEN. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE [continuing]. Or order the arrests of people, 

young bloggers, for simply talking about an issue like freedom of 

speech. 

Ms. JANET NGUYEN. Yes. And not only that, Mr. Chairman, but, 

also, individuals such as judges who do not allow the court system 

to be fair. 

Chairman ROYCE. Right. Right. Right. 

Okay. Let me ask Mr. Craner. 

56

Lorne, I was going to ask you about Cambodia. I have been 

speaking to our Ambassador there and our undersecretary about 

the situation that exists with respect to violence directed at the political opposition and the sense of fear and, again, you know, the 

amount of violence and the lack of respect for the political process, 

for the democratic process, by the government in power, to say 

nothing of the land grabbing or whatever you want to call the process whereby land is routinely taken from people in the countryside 

and turned over to those who are politically well connected to the 

government or to generals. 

What can be done in terms of additional pressure to call international attention to this and end this egregious process? Because 

it is affecting families all over Cambodia today. 

Mr. CRANER. I think a couple of things beyond the measures that 

I outlined. And I think one thing that we all have in common is 

a belief that the United States should not extend courtesies, recognition, by meetings and other methods, to governments like this, 

and I think in the particular case of Hun Sen. 

I think in this case, also, we need to bring in our European allies 

and our regional allies, Australia and ASEAN, in trying to put 

pressure on the Cambodian Government to begin to open up the 

system. 

It is one thing if the U.S. is pushing for that. It is another thing 

if we can get other countries engaged. But we need to recognize, 

I think, as long as Hun Sen is in control in Cambodia, very little 

is going to change. 

And he is saying that he intends to stay until he is 74 years old, 

which is another 13 years. So we also need to be engaged, as I outlined, in trying to make the democratic system better there. 

Chairman ROYCE. So his intention would be violence against protesters calling for fair elections, continue to subvert the elections, 

as he has, for the next 13 years? 

Mr. CRANER. The CPP has learned that they either hang together or they hang apart. And for all the years since 1991, they 

have been a very cohesive group. 

Until there is more political openness and the possibility of political change in Cambodia, that is not going to—that is not going to 

change. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yeah. The problem is that, with the opposition, candidates can’t even go into these areas to campaign because 

the police and ruling party supporters come out and block passage 

and beat people. 

And so, you know, you don’t have an opportunity to conduct a 

fair election——

Mr. CRANER. And that is why——

Chairman ROYCE [continuing]. To say nothing of the ballot count, 

which is truly preposterous. 

Mr. CRANER. Yes. That is why all of the countries—Europe, the 

United States, Australia, Japan and others—and, hopefully, people 

in the region—countries in the region need to be engaged before 

the next election. 

And it is especially important that, as the rules are drawn up in 

terms of the National Election Commission for the next election, 

57

that all of these countries remain engaged to try and make it a better system. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yeah. 

Let me go to Mr. Engel of New York. 

Thank you, Lorne. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Why don’t I start with you, Mr. Craner. I believe that the promotion of human rights and democracy and the rule of law cannot 

be separated from our foreign policy toward the Asia-Pacific region. 

Would you agree with that statement? And how can we improve 

our efforts to ensure that the respect for human rights is part of 

our larger Asia pivot strategy? 

Mr. CRANER. You have a critical role in doing that, both in terms 

of the resolutions that you offer, in terms of the aid decisions that 

you make, in terms of visits by all of you to these countries. 

But most of all—and I can tell you, having been in the bureaucracy a couple of times—there is nothing like a hearing to focus the 

mind of an executive branch diplomat on what should be happening. 

And if every time somebody—the Assistant Secretary for Asia or 

DAS from Asia comes up here they are questioned intensely by you 

on human rights, I can guarantee you they will return to the State 

Department and say, ‘‘We really need to look into this because I 

don’t want to be up there again 3 months from now getting hammered on this issue.’’

So you have a critical role to play in that. Absent that, the incentive in the executive branch is to get along with a country, good, 

bad or ugly. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Andrews, the Constitution forbids Aung San Suu Kyi from 

running for President next year. 

Given the popularity, what impact will this provision have on the 

elections or stability in Burma? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, Congressman Engel, first of all, let me 

thank you for your leadership and concern on what is happening 

in Burma on a full range of issues. But the one that you mentioned 

is a very important one. 

Burma is not a democracy. Let’s be very clear about that. The 

military of Burma have a guarantee of 25 percent of the seats in 

the Government of Burma. They are not going to give that up. 

They have a guarantied veto over any changes to the Constitution 

in Burma. 

In order for Aung San Suu Kyi to be eligible to run for President, 

that constitution is going to have to change, and there has been absolutely no indications if they are going to allow that to happen. 

So many of the repressive policies and practices in Burma are 

being driven by a very unbalanced political system, a very unfair 

political system. 

And, really, those that were responsible for many of the atrocities that we have discussed and many of those that existed before 

this major reform are still there. 

They might have changed their clothes. They may no longer have 

their uniforms on. But they are still in control, and that remains 

the fundamental problem. 

58

Mr. ENGEL. Let me ask you another question about Burma. We 

mentioned—I mentioned it in my opening statement. 

Can you explain why the government is instigating violence 

against the Rohingya and why does the government apparently feel 

it is to their benefit to do so. 

Mr. ANDREWS. It is a very good question, Congressman Engel, 

and I have asked of that many people. 

There is a variety of reasons. But one of them relates to your 

first question, and that is this idea that the military likes to discuss what they call disciplined democracy, that if you allow too 

much freedom, too much democracy, that things can get out of 

hand, there can be violence, and, therefore, a justification for an increased role and a strong role for the military and a further excuse 

not to move forward with these reforms. 

This is not the first country in the world in which politicians 

have appealed to the darker nature of human beings, to bigotry, to 

racism, to fear, and that is very much in effect. 

And what my deep concern is is that this is going to continue 

and intensify as we move forward to the 2015 elections and political leaders and military leaders feel that they need to continue to 

use that card as those elections get closer. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Let me ask Ms. Nguyen or Mr. Nguyen questions about Vietnam. 

Two things. 

Does worsening China-Vietnam ties present an opportunity to 

the United States to fully engage with the Vietnamese Government 

on human rights issues? 

They are actually appealing to us to side with them against 

China. China’s being very aggressive in the South China Sea, and 

both Vietnam and the Philippines have been besieging us to help 

them. 

Does this present an opportunity for us to say, ‘‘Okay. You want 

our help, we want to see an improvement on your human rights 

abuses’’? 

Ms. JANET NGUYEN. Congressman, absolutely. This is the opportunity to tell the country of Vietnam and the Government of Vietnam that, ‘‘We are here to help and support your cause and to protect the Pacific Rim, but you also need to honor our own liberty 

and our rights and everybody’s rights.’’ And so, yes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Nguyen, would you agree with that? 

Mr. THANG NGUYEN. Yes. I fully agree with the assessment of 

Supervisor Nguyen. And I think there are two reasons why this is 

a golden opportunity for this country to demand a certain minimum standard of human rights as a contingency for Vietnam to 

expand ties with the U.S. 

One is that, for a long time, there has been an opinion among 

some decision-makers in our own Government that, if we are too 

strong on Vietnam in terms of human rights and democracy, then 

that might push Vietnam further into the orbit of China. That argument or opinion no longer has a basis because there is no way 

for Vietnam to come any closer to China at this time. 

Secondly, Vietnam now needs the U.S. not only because its economy is in shambles, but also because Vietnam needs legitimacy, 

needs recognition by the U.S. and the free world as it faces China. 

59

So this is a great time for us to demand that Vietnam makes real 

and irreversible concessions on human rights. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Let me ask one final question on Vietnam. Because I am old 

enough to remember the Vietnam war, and I think that it is ironic 

that China and Vietnam are clashing and that Vietnam is now 

looking for protection from the United States for China. I think 

there is a lot of irony in there. 

But we keep getting reports of increased infighting within the 

Communist Party of Vietnam. And would any of you care to comment on the tensions? And with this infighting, will it have any effect on human rights issues? 

Ms. JANET NGUYEN. I believe so, Congressman. One other thing 

that we should ask of Vietnam: To immediately release the people 

who have been speaking out against China’s aggression the last 2 

years. 

They have been put in prison by the Government of Vietnam just 

for those reasons, trying to protect their own homeland. So the 

Government of Vietnam ought to—the very first step is to release 

those whom they have imprisoned for protecting their own country. 

That is the first step. And we need to take this opportunity. 

The infighting within the Vietnam Government and the people of 

Vietnam is rising, but they need the support of the United States. 

It is our opportunity to say, ‘‘We will help, but only, and only, 

when you start setting the stage for releasing individuals for exercising their basic human rights and allow the people of Vietnam to 

enjoy what we enjoy in the United States.’’

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Mr. THANG NGUYEN. Yes. My take is that there might be internal differences among the members of the Politburo. However, they 

still act as one block. They make decisions together. 

However, there are very few options left for the leadership of 

Vietnam these days. They cannot lean on China anymore, and the 

only option is to come closer with the U.S. 

And, therefore, this is the time for us to shift the entire block of 

the Politburo membership toward the west. And we have seen some 

movement in that direction. Now we need to expedite that process 

further. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

I know my time is up. I just—not asking a question. I just want 

to say that we are in the process of negotiating with them, with 

Vietnam and other countries, the TPP, the Free Trade Agreement. 

I personally think this is also a good time to put pressure on them 

because they really want this agreement. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. 

Mr. Smith. 

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

Let me ask—and maybe start with Dr. Thang—four basic questions and then go from my right to left. 

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s report on Vietnam couldn’t be clearer. They say the Vietnamese Government continues to imprison individuals for religious activity or 

religious advocacy. 

60

They talk about the fact that the situation remains poor for all 

human rights, including religious freedom, and has deteriorated, it 

is going in the wrong direction. 

They make a very strong recommendation that the Country of 

Particular Concern designation be applied to Vietnam. 

After the bilateral agreement where there was undue euphoria 

that somehow things would matriculate from dictatorship and repression to an openness and it absolutely has not happened. It has 

gotten worse. And some of the worst of the worst offenders have 

gotten richer and now have large bank accounts because of that. 

So CPC, your thoughts on that. 

Secondly, on human trafficking, a few weeks ago the TIP Report 

came out, and I applaud much of what is in the TIP Report. I think 

Secretary Kerry has done a wonderful job with regard to most 

countries. 

I disagreed with China, but also with Vietnam, which was designated as Tier 2, even though the narrative makes very clear that 

NGOs report that trafficking-related corruption continues to occur 

and there is minimal progress in prosecuting labor trafficking. 

Even though they cite the new law and very often the law becomes a pretext for easing up on designations, it is all about implementation. 

They signed U.N. covenants. They passed laws. Certainly their 

Constitution looks a lot like ours in terms of respect for fundamental human rights, but that is the old Soviet game. You put it 

on paper. It is a paper promise that does not have meaning. 

I have visited many of the people who are now in prison, many 

of whom are under pagoda or house arrest, on one of many trips 

to Vietnam: The Venerable Thich Quang Do, he was under pagoda 

arrest; Father Loi, under house arrest in Hue; and Father Ly. 

And Father Ly, as we all know, was re-arrested and has been 

subjected to unbelievably cruel and harsh treatment just for speaking out. And he submitted testimony to this Congress several years 

back—an unbelievably brave move—and for that he gets more prison time as part of a cumulating, ever-worsening situation for him 

vis-a`-vis the Government of Vietnam. 

So Tier 2, do you believe it ought to be Tier 3, as I do? 

I wrote the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The minimum 

standards prescribed in that act couldn’t be clearer: Government 

complicity. It is government complicity and then some. 

We have had several hearings. Dr. Thang testified at one and 

was very eloquent at pointing out both sex and especially labor 

trafficking, how things have actually gotten worse there. 

Third, the Senate vote on the Vietnam Human Rights Act, we 

have asked with deep respect to Senator Reid. Just post it for a 

vote. Your thoughts on that. 

And, finally, the Podesta Group I mentioned in my opening, they 

are getting $30,000 per month to advise the government in Vietnam and the Embassy here on how to handle these issues. 

And I believe they are icing the puck over on the Senate side. 

Just don’t bring it up. There is no vote. And that will be the end 

of it. 

So your thoughts, Dr. Thang. 

61

Mr. THANG NGUYEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

address the first two questions first and go to the others if there 

is still time. About the CPC designation, I think that Vietnam 

clearly deserves to be redesignated as a Country of Particular Concern. Clearly, the atrocities against the communities of faith have 

exceeded the threshold for designation. We talk about the forced renunciation of faith; we talk about torture, sometimes leading to 

death; we talk about the wiping out of entire religious communities, such as the Con Dau Parish or the Hmong villages or Christian villages in the northern western region of Vietnam. 

So clearly, however, I think that our own State Department has 

been duped into believing that the increase in the number of registration of religious organizations is a good benchmark. It is not, 

for one good reason: These organizations that have been registered 

by the government in Vietnam to officially operate are usually 

those set up by the Government of Vietnam itself as instruments 

to control the independent groups. And therefore, with Decree 92, 

these independent religious communities may not even conduct activities at home, in their own privacy at home. 

So they have only two choices: Either to join the governmentsanctioned and registered churches or they have to go out of existence. So that is not freedom of religion. That is controlled religion. 

So we are asking Vietnam to increase its control of religion. So we 

are asking the wrong question. And therefore I would propose that 

we demand that Decree 92 be abolished. And, two, we should 

present Vietnam with a list of genuine religious organizations, and 

we would want to see those and only those to be registered. 

In terms of human trafficking, thanks to the ranking of Russia 

in Tier 3 last year, the Government of Russia stepped up its crackdown on a number of sweatshops owned by Vietnamese around 

Moscow in the last 4 months of 2013. The Government of Russia 

raided almost 60 sweatshops owned by Vietnamese in Moscow, liberating almost 6,000 Vietnamese workers held in slavery. 

And we are talking about slavery, because many of these victims 

had never seen sunlight for 2 or 3 years. They are kept in captivity 

underground. And yet, none of them has been—and all of them 

have been repatriated—and none of them has been recognized by 

the Vietnamese Government as a victim of labor trafficking. No 

labor export company has been investigated, let alone prosecuted. 

So clearly Vietnam hasn’t done its job at all to fight human trafficking. 

Ms. JANET NGUYEN. Congressman, thank you for your questions. 

I have been an advocate for years, have asked our Government to 

put Vietnam back on the CPC. Violation of human rights, religious 

rights, and also human trafficking, as you have stated, have increased. They have not decreased. They need to be placed back on 

the CPC. We need to put the human trafficking issue at Tier 3. 

H.R. 4254 seeks to achieve specific targeted goals to achieve greater human rights in Vietnam and does not interfere with our Nation’s bigger strategic concerns. We need to put these individuals 

who violate the human rights and religious freedom of the people 

of Vietnam on target—tell them you will not be allowed in the 

United States, nor will you be allowed to use our financial system. 

62

And with regards to human trafficking, it is not just human trafficking for labor, but children are exploited for tourism, for sex 

slavery. So many, it is incredible. I have two young children. I cannot fathom the idea that anything could happen to my children or 

any children in the world to be used in these ways. So we need to 

protect those children, give them a future, give them a life. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, Mr. Smith, if I could explain a point. You 

are raising this issue in terms of people registering, but the problem, for example, the Buddhist text, the head of the Hoa Hoa 

Church, as well as Thich Quang Do, both showed me copies. Their 

Buddhist texts don’t match up well with the Communist Manifesto. 

And so the problem was the party rewrote the text, and so as a 

consequence they feel that their faith dictates that they keep their 

historical text. And so as a consequence, they can’t be registered. 

So this is not really religious freedom. And for our Government 

to be talking about the fact that, look how they have signed up, we 

have got these different religious leaders that the party is putting 

forward, the recognized leaders of both of those churches are not 

on the list because they are in prison, as you visited them both. 

We will go now to Mr. David Cicilline of Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the witnesses for this very important testimony. 

I would like to first ask you, Mr. Andrews, and Mr. Craner, there 

has obviously been a lot of reporting about the human rights and 

democratization reforms in Burma and that they have stalled and 

there has been significant backsliding. And, in fact, a former U.N. 

Special Rapporteur for Human Rights said that there was an element of genocide in the attacks against the Rohingya population. 

So I want to ask you whether you think that is an accurate assessment, and what can we do as a country to effectively encourage 

the Burmese Government to stop engaging this kind of mistreatment of a very vulnerable population? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, thank you, Congressman. Let me go first. 

I have in my testimony and certainly will be happy to discuss 

with you further the report that we issued after one of my trips, 

‘‘Marching to Genocide in Burma.’’ The people in Burma, the Muslim minorities and others, they are being targeted not because of 

anything that they have done, but because who they are, their ethnicity and the God that they pray to. And because of that, all the 

things that we have described have been inflicted upon them, and 

that is not simply a matter of inter-ethnic tensions or religious tension. This is being done systemically with the support of the government. And that is where I think the United States needs to play 

a role. The Government of Burma needs to be held accountable. 

President Thein Sein of Burma made 11 specific pledges to President Obama back in November 2012. He has come through with 

only 1 of those 11 commitments, including the commitment to allow 

the U.N. Office of High Commissioner to have free access to the 

areas that are under siege, to restore the healthcare services to 

Rakhine State that we just mentioned, to allow credible independent investigations into these areas. 

And by the way, people that told me about the problem of having 

Doctors Without Borders thrown out, they said it is not just that. 

63

It is these independent eyes that have now been expelled from 

those very areas where this violence is continuing. 

So it is incredibly important that we establish those standards 

and then take action. I mean, there are various tools that we have 

at our disposal. We mentioned them. I mentioned them very specifically in my testimony. Specially Designated Nationals list needs 

to be identified, whether or not you qualified for the General System of Preferences. 

Having standards for the military-to-military relations and not 

allowing it to go further unless those standards are met, for example, the Burma Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2014. Congressman Chabot is the sponsor of that. H.R. 4377 outlined specifically the conditions that we would set in order for there to be continued relations between the two militaries. All of these things 

could help to move us in a better direction. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. 

In addition to the concerns that this hearing has raised with respect to Burma and Vietnam, I also want to focus for a moment 

on another human rights situation in the region, that is in Thailand. I am particularly concerned about the prevalence of human 

trafficking in that country. In the State Department’s most recent 

TIP report it downgraded Thailand to Tier 3. It was reported that 

there is a significant portion of labor trafficking victims within 

Thailand, that they are exploited in commercial fishing, fishing-related industries, low-end garment-production factories and domestic work. And many of these workers are coming from other countries in the region, such as Vietnam and Burma. 

American consumers should not be incentivizing this horrendous 

behavior. And so I would like to know whether you think we are 

currently doing enough to ensure that goods that are produced by 

forced labor or even trafficked labor are not available on the U.S. 

market. That is for anyone who has a view on that. 

Mr. THANG NGUYEN. Well, we have operations in Malaysia and 

Thailand and Taiwan to fight human trafficking. We do not have 

the full expertise on human trafficking in Thailand, however. But 

we know in cases that we have worked on in Malaysia where Thai 

fishing vessels have been intercepted and very young boys, underage, Cambodians, have been kept for years on those vessels, and 

we rescued them. 

Yes, there are some adults from Cambodia and other countries, 

the Philippines and Vietnam, who are on those vessels. And I 

think, I am guessing, that there is a lot more of those incidents 

that haven’t been caught. 

So that is an area that is very murky because we don’t know 

which country has jurisdiction, and therefore we really need to step 

up, and there ought to be a region-wide effort to fight that form 

of trafficking on fishing vessels. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Yeah. And also we need to be doing more to make 

sure that we are not making those products available in the U.S. 

markets. 

I just want to, with my few seconds left, ask one remaining question. I recently introduced H.R. 4907, the Global Respect Act, 

which would ban entry into the United States of those who commit 

serious human rights violations against members of the lesbian, 

64

gay, bisexual, and transgender community. And while the region 

has a good deal of positive news, a number of countries, such as 

Malaysia, Indonesia, and particularly Brunei, are moving in the 

wrong direction. And I am particularly concerned about efforts in 

Brunei to further criminalize same-sex relations and possibly to include the death penalty. 

And I wonder if the witnesses could share whether or not you 

think we as a government and this body as the Congress are doing 

enough to support the human rights and fundamental freedoms of 

LGBT persons throughout the world and what more can and 

should be done to protect basic human rights of people from this 

community. 

Ms. JANET NGUYEN. Congressman, I just think in general our 

country needs to do a lot more when we have trade partners 

around the world. They need to also honor our liberty, our rights, 

and human rights that we give to our people. And so regardless of 

the individual, I think everybody deserves their human rights and 

basic human freedom. And so I think that we should demand more 

from these countries. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We go now to the chairman of the Asia Subcommittee, Steve 

Chabot from Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you very much for holding this important hearing. I really think we 

are discussing an awful lot of very important issues, and I want to 

thank the panel and you for that. 

Earlier this year, I introduced bipartisan legislation, which Mr. 

Andrews has referred to already, along with our colleague Joe 

Crowley, H.R. 4377, the Burma Human Rights and Democracy Act 

of 2014, to prohibit military assistance to the Burmese Government 

and restrict engagement with the junta until certain necessary reforms in that country are made. 

Mr. Andrews, I want to thank you for your support of that particular measure. 

Engagement with the Burmese military ignores the fact that the 

junta still has considerable leverage over the government, is obstructing constitutional reforms, and is complicit in human rights 

abuses against ethnic and religious minorities, something that has 

not changed and unlikely, unfortunately, it appears to change anytime in the near future. 

Tom, in your testimony, you described in great detail the abuses 

being committed against ethnic minorities, particularly the 

Rohingya Muslims in Burma. Would you go into more detail about 

the Burmese military’s role in these abuses and what they are 

doing to impede further democratic reforms? And also would you 

comment on our military-to-military engagement with Burma and 

perhaps give your thoughts about the legislation that we have discussed as well? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that 

I think that the legislation, 4377, is extremely important, and I 

think it is important for all of us to recognize the difference between the relationship between our Congress and our military and 

what happens over in Burma. I used to serve on the Armed ServVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:16 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\070914\88625 SHIRL
65

ices Committee. And in Burma, the military is not accountable to 

the Parliament; in fact, the military has veto power over the constitution of the country. They have enormous economic power. So 

they are not being held accountable. 

And one of the key provisions of your legislation is the demand 

that there be constitutional reforms so that there is accountability 

of this military and it does come under the government and the 

Parliament, much as our military functions here in the United 

States. It is extremely important. And the role that they play in 

all of these various areas is multiple. 

Mandalay, last week, the violence in Mandalay, I got calls and 

emails from Mandalay. As you know, there was religious violence 

there. Wirathu had one of his rallies. He posted on his Facebook 

page that there was a jihad that was happening, a Muslim jihad 

right then and there and they were out to destroy all of the Buddhists. Mobs formed and violence ensued. One of the people who 

I knew and worked with there was killed on his way to a mosque. 

What I heard was, was that the security forces, while they eventually came in and had a curfew, it took them quite a while. They 

were very close by to where this violence occurred. It took them 

quite a while to appear, and that is the pattern that we have seen 

in many other places. 

But perhaps one of the most egregious examples is in Kachin 

State where I visited a few years ago. I mean, literally, these villages, I went into villages that were completely wiped out, not a 

single person to be seen. I mean, there were literally shells falling 

while I was in Kachin State. And the attacks on these villages by 

the military and the systematic use of rape as a means of intimidation and control continue to this day. So it is an out-of-control institution that has too much power, and we have got to address it directly or we are not going to see the kind of changes that we want. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. Craner. 

Mr. CRANER. It is way premature to be having relations with the 

Burmese military. I noticed that there was a senior U.S. delegation 

through Yangon about 2 weeks ago, including I believe it was the 

Chief of Staff for the CINCPAC, and some State Department officials paving the way for U.S. military training of the Burmese military, which I just think at this point is, as I said, extremely premature. We have already frontloaded this Burmese process, trying 

to have a rapproachment with them. We don’t need to keep adding 

to it. 

Mr. Royce referred earlier to a Human Rights Watch report. 

There is another one on what are called the Angkor Sentinel Exercises, which are joint U.S.-Cambodian exercises, that I think is 

worth your looking at. Their congress imposed restrictions, saying 

that the training could only be about human rights, democracy, et 

cetera. And Brad Smith of Human Rights Watch has shown that 

that is not what is going on in our training of the Cambodian military. That is a cautionary tale for working with Burma’s military. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

We go now to Mr. Alan Lowenthal of California. 

66

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

You know, Mr. Chair, you mentioned earlier the importance of 

broadcasting in alternative views into countries that have great 

human rights violations. And I want to raise to either Secretary 

Craner or Supervisor Nguyen or Dr. Nguyen, the Broadcasting 

Board of Governors recently issued numerous cuts to shortwave 

broadcasting across the globe, including the cessation of all shortwave into Vietnam. 

Do you think this was a wise decision, and do you think shortwave as a medium for disseminating independent information is 

important at this time? The issue is, how important is this? We 

have just received this notice. I would like to be able to respond 

to that. And so I would like to hear if there are any points of view 

on the cessation of shortwave broadcasting into Vietnam. 

Mr. THANG NGUYEN. I believe that that decision was made on 

the assumption that now the Internet is widespread everywhere, 

but that is not the case at all. For the Hmong Protestants, for instance, that we are talking about, all the way up in the mountains, 

the northwestern region of Vietnam, for the Montagnard Christians 

in the Central Highlands, or the Khmer Krom all the way down 

south, in remote areas, they don’t have access to the Internet. So 

shortwave radio is the only windows to the outside world. So I 

think it is very imperative that Radio Free Asia, for instance, continues to broadcast into Vietnam. And not only in Vietnam, but in 

other countries in Southeast Asia. 

I would like to take this opportunity to again commend the chairman and the committee members here for holding this hearing at 

this time. This is very critical time, because countries in Southeast 

Asia, 11 countries are taking steps to come together as one single 

bloc in the model of the European Union. So this is the time for 

us to really influence and promote human rights and democracy, so 

that we will see one day a stable, trustworthy, democratic bloc 

being our ally in the region instead of seeing the entire region descending into the darkness of dictatorship and chaos. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Supervisor. 

Ms. JANET NGUYEN. Thank you, Congressman. 

Limiting any kind of broadcasting limits the freedom of speech 

and views. So I absolutely agree that we need to allow shortwave 

radios across the country because that is when we allow the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press to be able to give different opinions to the people of Vietnam. And so we need to support allowing that. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

I have a question for Secretary Craner. You mentioned the numerous flaws in Cambodia’s recent elections and some of the 

issues. And the question I would like to know is, what specific actions—and you talked about what we might do—but what specific 

actions do you think the United States at this moment can do to 

promote free and fair elections in Cambodia, and what are the options, and do you think the prospects for international monitors in 

future elections? 

Mr. CRANER. International monitors had visited past Cambodian 

elections. The reason they didn’t visit this most recent election in 

2013 was that the U.S. and the Europeans both said there is no 

67

point in going. This process is already so flawed because of the 

voter registration list, the intimidation of the opposition, that even 

if the election day looks good, it is an illegitimate process. 

What can we do to help——

Mr. LOWENTHAL. What can we do, specifically? 

Mr. CRANER. What can we do to help make it better? There is 

no reason for any country these days not to have a technically good 

election. And here again pressure needs to come, more pressure 

from the United States, but also pressure from Europe and pressure from countries within the region to say there needs to be a 

decent election in Cambodia. There hasn’t been a good election in 

Cambodia since 1993. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Should we be calling for an earlier election? 

Mr. CRANER. No. That is between the, I would say, between the 

opposition and the government to decide in their current negotiations. But as I said, there shouldn’t be any high-level contact with 

Cambodia until those negotiations are resolved well. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I would also like to ask Supervisor Nguyen and 

Dr. Nguyen, we talked about trade relations between the United 

States, and I think Ranking Member Engel brought up the TPP. 

What would you like to see this Congress do in terms of the TPP 

negotiations between Vietnam as one of the 13 nations in the TPP? 

Would you like us to take a statement on that? 

Mr. THANG NGUYEN. Yes. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Either one. 

Mr. THANG NGUYEN. Yes, yes, definitely. This is the time for 

Congress to come out and make a very strong statement, unmistakably clear to Vietnam, and also to our own administration, that 

human rights concessions to the extent that they should be irreversible be considered as a condition, precondition for any further 

approachment with Vietnam on TPP, and it should be part of the 

ongoing negotiations with Vietnam. 

For instance, the basic, fundamental rights of Vietnamese people 

must be respected. That is the freedom of expression, the freedom 

of peaceful assembly, and the freedom of association. And also, 

there should be benchmarks. For instance, the release of all prisoners of conscience or the vast majority of the prisoners of conscience before Vietnam be admitted into TPP. 

The abolition of all instruments of violence and force that have 

been used by the Government of Vietnam to repress, arrest and imprison dissidents must be in effect. In November of this year, the 

National Assembly of Vietnam will convene and that would be a 

great opportunity for them to revisit all these laws that, by the 

way, are now out of line with their new constitution. And clearly, 

they should respect the full freedom of all workers to form their 

own free and independent labor unions. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

I have used up my time, so, Supervisor Nguyen, do you just want 

to briefly respond to that? 

Ms. JANET NGUYEN. Yes. I agree, as well. We need to make Vietnam accountable. In order for them to enjoy the trade with our 

great Nation, they have to also honor our liberty and give the people of Vietnam basic rights and release the prisoners. 

68

Mr. LOWENTHAL. So if you were looking at the actions by the 

Congress, you would not support a fast tracking of this agreement 

unless there were definite changes in their human rights? 

Ms. JANET NGUYEN. Yes. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. 

We go now to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank you for the leadership you have provided. When we are talking about broadcasting, we are actually talking about Ed Royce 

over there. I mean, he came to Congress with the idea we are going 

to make sure that we broadcast the word of freedom to the people 

of the world, especially Southeast Asia. So he put a lot of time and 

effort into that, and we are very grateful to him for it. 

In terms of Burma, and, Mr. Andrews, thank you for your testimony today. I think it is really significant that we have Muslims 

and Christians being attacked. This is a military attack on the 

Christians, I understand that, and perhaps with the Muslims what 

we have is the government standing back and letting mobs of people murder Muslims. We need to make sure that message gets 

through to the Government of Burma that they are now not considered a government in transition to freedom as long as these murders are taking place. And I have been watching this very closely. 

Thank you for your testimony today. 

Let us hope the people of Cambodia understand they are not 

being forgotten, as well, today, because what we have had in Cambodia is a regime that actually exploits the tyranny on its own borders because people then come there and are exploited by people 

who are in a clique with Hun Sen, and Hun Sen has run that government as his own personal clique for a long time. 

The fact is there isn’t democracy in Thailand today, and we want 

the people of Thailand to understand that is of grave concern to us 

that they are in a state where the military now is controlling their 

government and that we are watching that very, very closely and 

care about it. Thailand was such a wonderful example of what 

could work for so many years. 

And finally, about Vietnam, I find it fascinating that we have 

this dedication to Marxism-Leninism that motivates these people to 

murder and to suppress religious believers in that country. Yet, 

they are not so dedicated to Marxism-Leninism that they can’t 

make deals with businessmen and set up corporations in order to 

rip off people who aren’t able to form labor unions and to negotiate 

their contracts or to have strikes or to even criticize the government or those businesses. 

So this type of hypocrisy that we see in Vietnam, I join with you 

today in calling for the Government of Vietnam, at the very least 

they should, if they no longer are committed to Marxism-Leninism, 

which is clear by their economic policies, let them step back from 

the part of Marxism and Leninism that has motivated them to attack people’s religious freedom. Let religious freedom go off of their 

agenda. They have felt compelled to force people to renounce their 

faith, as we heard in testimony today. This is absurd for a governVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:16 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\070914\88625 SHIRL
69

ment that is permitting big business to come in and set up business in their country. 

And finally, Ms. Nguyen, Janet, your concept of making sure that 

our very first demand on Vietnam is they let those, especially 

young people go, who are doing nothing more than standing up 

against Chinese aggression is a very significant point that I share; 

I join you in that demand. 

And finally, I just would like to say about the Montagnards, because I spent some time in the Montagnards in 1967, and to hear 

that they are now being tortured and being basically forced to renounce their faith is appalling. They are wonderful people. These 

are basically native peoples to that part of the world, friendly, and 

have a wonderful and positive and peaceful culture. So I am sorry 

to hear that. And I hope that we pay back some of the debts that 

we owe to the Vietnamese people and to the Montagnards for what 

they did to stand beside us in the battle against Communist tyranny when the Cold War was at its hottest. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

I believe there was a follow-up. Two of the members of our panel 

had been asked a question, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. And you wanted that question answered, I 

think, by the other two. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

To Congressman Andrews and Secretary Craner, on the CPC for 

Vietnam, secondly on trafficking, I believe it ought to be Tier 3. 

Your thoughts? The point that I brought out about the Podesta 

Group getting $30,000 per month to kill the bill in the Senate, the 

Vietnam Human Rights Act, your thoughts on that? 

And then an appeal to Majority Leader Reid to just post it for 

a vote. It has been since 2004. Republicans owned the Senate then, 

so this is a bipartisan angst that I have had that we have not been 

able to get this bill up for a vote in the Senate, and it has been 

iced, and now we know the Podesta Group is playing a key role. 

Your thoughts? 

Mr. CRANER. First of all, I never understood how Vietnam got off 

CPC status. We had an Ambassador For Religious Freedom at that 

point, as you will remember. I believe it happened in about 2005, 

something like that. But I never understood how they managed to 

get off. 

Your TTIP bill was incredibly well constructed because it actually has penalties if you are in Tier 3, as you know. And so my observation, while I was in government, was that the State Department and countries involved would do almost anything to get out 

of Tier 3 and that by doing almost anything they could get out of 

Tier 3. In other words, you don’t have to do much to get out of Tier 

3, and I think that may be the problem. 

I don’t think I ever saw as many cables go between here and 

Uzbekistan as I saw one summer when they were threatened with 

Tier 3 status. It was pretty amazing. So it was a well-constructed 

bill, like I said. It is amazing to me that the VHRA cannot get 

through the Senate, that it can’t even be brought up for a vote. I 

think that is stunning. And I would hope there would be some peoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:16 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\070914\88625 SHIRL
70

ple with good conscience over there who would be willing to help 

out. Thank you. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Congressman, I think, first of all, you are right, 

I think Tier 3 is appropriate. But from my vantage point, focusing 

on the case of Burma and the families who have been trafficked, 

in fact I actually, when I was traveling in the region, tracked down 

traffickers and talked to them about how they make their living 

and the booming market that exists for them, just horrendous. 

I also believe, and I would encourage Congress to focus also on 

the supply side of this, that the reason that this trafficking has occurred and there is a significant increase coming from places like 

Burma is precisely because of the conditions in Burma. And when 

I sat down and met with some families in Malaysia, for example, 

who by the grace of God made it through and were safe, I said, how 

could you put your—and I am sitting there with young children, a 

mother and a father who put these kids on a boat and risked their 

entire family’s life to get out of the country. And they said, you 

know, we had a family meeting about this. We knew we might die. 

But if we died on the sea we would die together. We are dying in 

these camps right now. It was a horrendous thing. 

So if we can deal with the supply side, if we can confront the conditions that are driving these people out of places like Burma, we 

would be doing a major, major service and making major strides in 

a very important issue that you that you have championed, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. So nobody wants to raise the Podesta Group or speak 

to that? Okay. 

Mr. THANG NGUYEN. Well, talking about Podesta Group I have 

a tangential answer only. 

To also add on to the answer to the question that was posed by 

Mr. Chairman sometime ago about the two issues that are on the 

mind of most Vietnamese-Americans these days are (1) the acts of 

aggression of China in the South China Sea; and (2) human rights 

in Vietnam, violations of human rights in Vietnam. So those are 

the two major issues on the mind of most Vietnamese-Americans. 

And next week there will be about 500 Vietnamese-Americans coming from across the country to walk the halls of Congress and to 

meet with Members of Congress, and that is our way to counter the 

Podesta Group. 

Chairman ROYCE. I want to thank all our witnesses for making 

the trip out here today to testify. And this committee hearing 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(71)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

72

f


88625n.eps
73


88625m-1.eps
74

f


88625m-2.eps
75


88625e-1.eps
76

f


88625e-2.eps
77


88625g-1.eps
78

f


88625g-2.eps
79

[NOTE: Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Tom Andrews, president 

and chief executive officer, United to End Genocide (former United States Representative), titled ‘‘Marching to Genocide in Burma: Fueled by Government Action 

and a Systematic Campaign of Hate Aided and Abetted by the Diverted Eyes of the 

Word,’’ is not reprinted here but is available in committee records.]

Æ