ticular out of work and putting them into the occupation of becoming a sex worker out of total lack of desperation. Are we, as a government, as a people who care about human rights and women's rights, are we developing ways in which to reach out to these women, in particular, to turn that around, offer them hope and opportunity? I know we have challenges with the government, but if those women in particular, make it to Thailand, are we extending extra effort not punishing them for what they did to feed themselves and to feed their families, but helping them to turn their lives around?

Mr. DALEY. Two-part answer: First, if they do make it to Thailand, we will be very sympathetic and try to do whatever we can to help them through the kinds of programs that we have in place now. They will not be subject to discrimination because of steps that they may have taken and extremes to feed themselves and their families. Within Burma, some of our best information on this subject comes from international Noes that have been active in the specific neighborhoods where the textile industry has been predominantly located and we have received some very good reporting from them on this. It is my hope that within the relatively near future that we will receive some ideas from them on steps that can be taken directly to address the plight of these women, but we don't have that.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you gentlemen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And I really appreciate your comments on Laos although that is not the purpose of the hearing and pleasure to work with you on that. I concur with your view of that-what is happening there. Indonesia and the Philippines have been more forceful for pressing for Aung San Suu Kyi's release than the rest of ASEAN, especially Thailand. As President Bush prepares to head to Bangkok for the upcoming APEC summit, are we sending positive feedback to the Indonesians and Filipinos. What are we doing to pressure the Thai government? Do you know is the President planning to say anything about Burma during his ASEAN trip?

Mr. DALEY. With respect to Indonesia and the Philippines, we have been in an active dialogue that has been conducted not only at the working levels, at level, but this is the subject that the Secretary of State and the President have raised in their bilateral meetings and in multi lateral fora. Specifically, the President will raise this topic when he goes to Thailand. I would phrase our approach a little bit differently. I think we have to try to work with and support Thailand rather than to pressure them. I don't think an approach to pressuring Thailand is going to help us achieve the objectives we want. So I would use a different way of describing what it is we want to do, but I assure you that this is going to be a very important item on the President's agenda when he goes to Bangkok in his meetings with the Thai prime minister and others in Thailand who are in a position to be helpful.

Mr. PITTS. What diplomatic measures are we taking in the U.N. with Russia and China, Moscow and Beijing to raise the issue of Burma?

Mr. DALEY. The focus is on getting an updated resolution from the general assembly that will deal with Burma in a very strong forthright fashion. With respect to Russia, our principal concern

Russia has not-let me say, Russia has not been an obstacle to addressing this issue in a serious way in New York. Our actual highest priority concern with the Russians has been the shipment of advanced fighter aircraft to Burma and the apparent plan to sell a nuclear research reactor to Burma. We continue to look at that and we want to be absolutely certain that any such facility would not be directly usable for nuclear weapons and that it would be subject to the full panoply of international economic and energy safeguards.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. And you have been generous with your time and we want to wrap this up, just to follow up, Mr. Craner, when will you issue a report or decide on the issue of human rights abuses occurring in Burma? You are looking at the evidence. Do you have a time line in mind?

Mr. CRANER. As you know, we issue reports regularly. The most recent was posted on the Web about the rape issue. If you are asking what is my timetable to be able to tell you again it is a genocide or not. The answer is when I have the information to do that. I can't tell you it will be a week from now or a month from now or 3 months from now. If you are asking when I can declare a genocide, the answer is when I possess the information that enables me to do that.

Mr. PITTS. And will you talk directly to the representatives of the ethnic groups that go in and out of Burma or come from Burma? I talked to eye witnesses, when I was there, of slave labor by the thousands. I talked to the ladies who did the rape report. Are you in direct contact?

Mr. CRANER. I am in direct contact with them, not only on this job, but the previous job I had where I was trained to help them. As you know, in our annual human rights report, and again in my testimony today and in a speech I gave in February and testimony I gave 3 months ago on the Senate side, we have been very, very forthright and very, very honest about stating all the travesties and the disgusting practices that go inside of Burma. So we have not certainly not held our fire on those issues.

Mr. PITTS. We had testimony and pictures of children who had been shot, 8-year-old little girl, I think it was. There are a number of them who need medical attention. If we seek to bring them over for medical attention if it can be accomplished, would the State Department assist in facilitating that for medical assistance?

Mr. CRANER. Of course.

Mr. PITTS. We will submit the rest of the questions for the record if you would respond in writing. Thank you very much for your testimony and for what you are doing on behalf of the situation in Burma. And at this time, we will adjourn the hearing.

[Whereupon, at 9:30 a.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.]

APPENDIX

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES A. LEACH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OCTOBER 1, 2003

Let me express my appreciation to Chairman Gallegly and Representative Pitts for their leadership in holding this important series of hearings on the deplorable situation in Burma. Let me also extend a warm welcome to our witnesses today, most particularly the Burmese freedom activists, all of whom were forced to flee that country because of the repressive policies of the military regime. We honor your leadership and stand with you in a common determination to bring decent democratic governance and national reconciliation to Burma.

As this hearing demonstrates, what happens to Burma and the peoples of this extraordinary country matters deeply to America and affects the interests of the United States. Broadly speaking, our primary interests will of course continue to be focused on human rights, democracy, refugee assistance, and an end to Burmese production and trafficking of illicit narcotics. However, we also seek to reach out to the Burmese people with humanitarian assistance, including medical interventions to help stem the devastating spread of HIV/AIDS. In addition, Burma's uniquely rich biodiversity is jeopardized by ongoing civil conflict and the regime's naked exploitation of its natural resources.

Then there is the regional security dimension. Burma occupies an important strategic crossroads in East Asia, sandwiched between China and India, the world's two most populous countries. A stable and democratic Burma is not only less likely to be a source of tension and conflict in the region, but is also more likely to be an asset to our friends in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The great tragedy of the current circumstance is that in the early 1960s Burma was potentially the most prosperous country in Southeast Asia. Today, after forty years of military misrule, its economy is in a shambles, health and educational services are in precipitous decline, while its citizens continue to suffer human rights abuses and repression. The vexing dilemma for the United States and other interested outside parties is how to craft policies that can best help the people of Burma to move forward toward democracy and national reconciliation, as well as economic and social development.

At this time, we have chosen the route of economic sanction and diplomatic isolation. However, there are no guarantees that this policy will be effective. On the other hand, attempts by ASEAN and others at constructive engagement with the military regime have proven singularly ineffective.

Hence there is no alternative at this time but for the U.S. and other concerned members of the international community to continue to find ways to increase the pressure on the ruling Burmese junta, including family members and supporters. Only then will there be a credible prospect that the regime will release Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as other political prisoners, and engage with the National League for Democracy and the ethnic minorities to bring about national reconciliation and urgently needed domestic reforms.

RESPONSES OF MICHAEL MITCHELL, ORION STRATEGIES, TO QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE HONORABLE JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN ČONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Pitts' Question:

How have the policies of the government of India either helped or hindered the prospects for democracy in Burma?

Mr. Mitchell's Response:

India's long-standing policy of providing assistance to democracy activists (both monetarily and politically) seems to have ended. India has a long border and many security concerns with Burma. They are also deeply concerned about the influence of Chinese military and economic cooperation with the Rangoon regime and China's desire to project power into the Indian Ocean. China has provided military credits to maintain and update Burma's port facilities and operates a naval radar station on Burmese soil that monitors the strategic Straits of Malacca.

India has long touted itself as the world's largest democracy. However, their walking away from Burma's democracy movement and building political and economic bridges to the regime is certainly not in the finest traditions of Mahatma Gandhi. Moreover, India has sometimes sought to keep U.S._activists and non-government organizations (NGOs) involved in working with the Burmese democracy movement out of India by withholding visas. It is recommended that the issue of Burma become an integrated part of our ongoing diplomatic dialogue with Delhi. India can play a catalytic role in fostering and promoting the Burmese democracy movement and bringing permanent change that will bring peace, human rights and democracy to that country. Unfortunately, as it stands now it is moving in the opposite direction.

Mr. Pitts' Question:

What role should the United Nations play in resolving the conflict in Burma? Mr. Mitchell's Response:

More than three years ago, Razali Ismail was designated the Special Envoy to help broker an agreement that would bring an end to the political impasse in Burma. Since that time, there has not been any progress made in fostering a transition to democracy. In fact, the country is now worse off than at any time in Burma's history. The bottom line is that the regime has absolutely no interest-none-in giving up any power to the democratically elected National League for Democracy (NLD). Their actions have spoken volumes as to their intentions. Today, after the massacre of over 100 NLD members on May 30th, and the near murder and arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, the days of trying to negotiate with the regime should be over.

I am disappointed to say that Razali's actions have provided cover for the regime on a number of fronts to carry out their brutal repression against the democracy movement. For example, his visits create the illusion of a political “dialogue;” protect the junta from tough action by states and international organizations through his continual urgings to give "dialogue a chance;" and violated his mandate of neutrality by voicing his endorsement of a political "road map" offered by junta member Khin Nyunt-while the leader of the Burma's democracy movement, Aung San Suu Kyi, sits in jail. This is the same "road map" Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (NLD) walked away from in 1995 because the plan was so heavily titled to enshrine permanent military control over the country. His approval of this plan is outrageous. Razali's silence after the massacre of more than 100 NLD members on the night of May 30th continues to be deafening. He conveniently has overlooked any mentioning of their fate or condemned the regime for this barbaric action preferring instead to divert international attention to the release of Suu Kyi. Razali has compromised his mission through his collective actions and leaves one to seriously question if he has placed his business interest with the generals before the interests of the Burmese democracy movement.

We need to keep in mind the context of the re-release from house arrest of Suu Kyi when Razali first began his mission. This was not due to the junta's efforts at finally beginning a meaningful dialogue. It stands not as a measure of Razali's negotiating skill. It represents yet another cynical attempt at manipulating the international community into believing that political progress is being made in Burma and economic ties and foreign aid be restored.

We need to move beyond Special Envoys. We need a strong U.N. General Assembly resolution that directly empowers the Secretary General to take a decisive role in using all the resources of the U.N., including the Security Council and the instruments at its disposal, including sanctions, to enforce the will of the international community in recognizing the results of the 1990 elections.

Mr. Pitts' Question:

What is your perspective on the testimony from the Administration officials regarding the current situation in Burma?

Mr. Mitchell's Response:

I am puzzled by Deputy Assistant Secretary Daley's reference in his testimony to the impact of U.S. sanctions on Burma's migrant workers and the sex trade. Although carefully worded, it leaves the impression that the U.S. Congress's legislation and President Bush's policy are responsible for any job losses that occur due to the imposition of economic sanctions and driving some women into the sex trade. To the best of my knowledge, there are no factually accurate numbers on job losses due to the U.S. taking action against the regime. According to labor union representatives with contacts in Rangoon, no such numbers exist. The military junta has a long history of pumping out statistics that have absolutely no basis in fact to try and cloud a true understanding of the sorry state of the Burmese economy or trumpeting a political point.

Information coming from non-government organizations, although able to provide vignettes on the impact of sanctions, would not be able to thoroughly document the social impact of the U.S. sanctions and issue accurate numbers without substantial effort over a longer period of time. It is spurious to believe that economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. are driving women into the sex trade industry. According to the Department of State's Trafficking In Person's Report, Burma's regime is listed as a Tier III country. A Tier III designation meaning "Countries whose governments do not fully comply with the minimum standards [of the Act] and are not making significant efforts to do so." This from the report:

"The Government of Burma does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so. The military is directly involved in forced labor trafficking. The ILO's attempts to work with the government to address forced labor abuses have had only limited success. Burma's failure to make progress on forced labor more than offsets the government's improving, but still inadequate, record of combating trafficking for sexual exploitation."

Clearly, Burma's trafficking problems stem not from any U.S. economic sanctions, but from the regime's destruction of the Burmese economy and their decision to allow and support both forced labor and the sexual trafficking of women and children.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

OCTOBER 2, 2003

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this very important and timely hearing to examine the current situation of human rights in Burma. The witnesses here today, as well as organizations who have submitted statements for the Record, will share only a glimpse of the horror experienced by the people of Burma at the hands of the military dictatorship. As it is clear from so many past and current reports, the situation is not getting better. The military dictators use forced labor, systematic rape, forced human landmine sweepers, destruction of villages, destruction of food sources and fields, and cold-blooded murder to impose its illegitimate reign over the people. Unfortunately, the regime is not held accountable for its widespread, deliberate human rights violations against the people. Sadly, the international community has failed to act strongly to make it clear to the military dictatorship that its time in power is coming to an end.

The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 is an important step in making clear the response of the United States government to the violations of the Burmese government. The economic sanctions, freezing of financial assets, and visa restrictions help increase the pressure on this regime. However, the international community needs to respond much more strongly. It is vital the United Nations Security Council begin to address the many issues related to Burma and the current ruling regime: human rights violations, its contribution to regional instability, its leading role in drug production and trafficking, its inaction to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS, and other issues.

The regime's shocking attack in May against Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD members is a reflection of its basic character. I strongly urge the regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi from detention and house arrest. Över the years, there has been reported "progress" in establishing a United Nations-facilitated dialogue between