Senator Mitch McConnell & Burma on

[FreeBurma@xxxxxxx]

Subject: Senator Mitch McConnell & Burma on December 8, 1995 (Part.1 of 2)

Attn: Burma Newsreaders
Re: Senator Mitch McConnell & Burma on December 8, 1995 (Part.1 of 2)
-------------------

            BURMA (Senate - December 08, 1995)  
 
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last week, in yet another remarkable act of
 courage, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi announced her party, the National League for
Democracy, will not participate in the constitutional convention called by
the State Law and Order Restoration Council, SLORC.  
 
As many who have followed Burma in recent years know, remaining true to the
people who 
elected her and the NLD in 1990, Suu Kyi declared, A country which is drawing
up a constitution that will decide the future of the state should have the
confidence of the people.  
 
a standard SLORC clearly does not and cannot meet.  
 
In fact, SLORC has already stacked the constitutional deck against the NLD
and Suu Kyi. Convention participants have been forced to accept guidelines
that will preserve a leading role for the military in Burma 's political life
and would exclude anyone married to a foreigner from assuming the office of
president. As we all know, this would prevent Suu Kyi from assuming the
position she was elected in 1990 to fulfill since she is married to a British
scholar.  
 
Mr. President, at the end of my comments, I will insert two articles which
appeared on November 30 in the Washington Post and the New York Times
regarding the current situation in Burma -- there is no question that the
decision to boycott has increased the level of tension in Rangoon. SLORC has
now charged Suu Kyi and her supporters as engaging in confrontational
politics, but,  as Suu Kyi is quick to point out:  
 
What they have termed confrontational is that we have asked for dialogue,
which we want in order to prevent confrontation. To silence the views of
people whose opinions are different by putting them in prison is far more
confrontational.  
 
Let me assure my colleagues that Suu Kyi's understanding of the deteriorating
situation in Burma is not a lonely minority view. Last week the United
Nations, once again, took up the question of Burma 's political and human
rights record. Once again, the Special Rapporteur, Dr. Yokota, issued a
report which few may actually read, but it is a powerful voice for the
thousands and thousands of Burmese citizens who continue to suffer at the
hands of SLORC.

Let me briefly tick off the observations made in the report.  
 
In describing the constitutional convention, Dr. Yokota noted that in spite
of his efforts to meet privately with political leaders who still planned to
participate in the process, SLORC would only permit visits supervised by
SLORC officials. He stated in unequivocal terms, the National Convention `is
not heading toward restoration of democracy.'  
 
While the Special Rapporteur welcomed the release of Suu Kyi and three other
senior officials, he criticized the continued imprisonment of several hundred
political prisoners and the complex array of security laws allowing SLORC
sweeping powers of arbitrary arrest and detention--authority that they
continue to use--I might argue abuse--weekly.  
 
Yokota also condemned the severity of court sentences without regard to fair
trials, access to defense lawyers or any consideration of proportionality
between offense and punishment. After sentencing, he drew attention to the
fact that conditions in prisons are impossible to monitor because SLORC
continues to stonewall the International Red Cross Committee and its request
for access to detention sites.  
 
In his March 1995 report, Dr. Yokota confirmed that military officials have
carried out arbitrary killings, rape, torture, forced portage, forced labor,
forced relocation, and confiscation of private property--each and every act a
violation of international law. In this month's report he indicates that the
pattern continues and as before, takes place most frequently in border areas
where the Army is engaged in military operations or where regional
development projects are taking place. He added:  Many of the victims of such
atrocious acts belong to ethnic national populations, especially women,
peasants, daily wage earners and other peaceful civilians who do not have
enough money to avoid mistreatment by bribing officials.  

Dr. Yokota paints a grim portrait of Burma today--a picture which stands at
odds with the one the international business community would have us see. 
 
A few months ago, in my office, I listened as the chairman of a large
American oil company eager to do business with SLORC denounced as rumors and
gossip the idea that the SLORC was engaged in any forced relocations related
to his project. I respectfully suggest this month's U.N. report rises above
the gossip standard.  
 
Mr. President, I share the concerns raised by the U.N. Rapporteur. Let me
stress to my colleagues that he is not reporting on a situation that has
changed for the better since Suu Kyi's release, but one which is growing
progressively worse.  
 
Mr. President, I have taken the time to come to the floor to discuss these
events because I am deeply disturbed by twin developments--a major campaign
by American companies to enhance the political legitimacy of SLORC even as
SLORC attempts to crush the fledgling democracy movement inside Burma .  
 
In recent weeks, many United States businesses have engaged in an aggressive
campaign to persuade the public that SLORC is worth doing business with
because like Vietnam and China, Burma can be improved through economic
engagement.  
 
I think it is important to draw a key distinction. Unlike China and Vietnam,
Burma held legitimate elections and chose a leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. The
elections by all accounts were free, fair, and 7 million people made their
views absolutely clear.  
 
I must confess, I was appalled by a recent study produced by the National
Bureau for Asian Research which suggested these results were essentially
irrelevant. The report said, Suu Kyi was:  Obviously sincere, but it remains
to be seen how successful she will be in her attempts and whether her
supporters are helping her attain a position of leadership.  
 
Insult was added to injury when the report stated:  
 
Even assuming the time may come when she does have a say in how the country
is governed, it is an open question of how well equipped she is for such
responsibilities, and to what extent she would be able to rely on experienced
technocrats and administrators.  
 
These assertions are outrageously offensive. To imply she is incapable of
leading her nation offends every citizen who voted for her and more
importantly stands in stark contrast to her record. Suu Kyi has conducted
herself with dignity and courage uncommon in this century.  
 
The Burmese people voted--they, like Suu Kyi, have earned our respect and
support. The fact that the results were rejected by a handful of ruthless,
self serving generals does not undermine the validity of the elections or the
outcome.  
 
When recently pressed by a representative of the U.N. Secretary General to
engage in a dialog with Suu Kyi, SLORC officials dismissed the request point
out, Suu Kyi was now:  
 
An ordinary citizen, that in 1990 there were as many as 230 political parties
with which it would be impossible to establish dialogue and it would thus not
be even handed to single out any one of them.  
 
Well, she is the one they elected.  
 
Two hundred and thirty political parties did not carry the elections--the
National League for Democracy and Suu Kyi did. She has earned the right to
negotiate a timetable for the restoration of democracy for her people. It is
her right and our obligation as the beacon of democracy to support that
effort.  
 
To make the argument that the United States should resign itself to dealing
with SLORC to bring about change, compromises the very core of beliefs that
define our history and guide this Nation.  
 
We do not yield to vicious dictators--we do not abandon those who strain
against the barbed wire shackles of repression.  
 
It absolutely sickens me that any respectable academic organization--for that
matter any American company--would suggest that economic opportunity and
political expediency should impel the United States to accept SLORC as the
representatives of the Burmese people.  

It is not just the campaign that is being waged here at home to enhance
SLORC's political credentials that has brought me to the floor of the Senate.
I am also concerned about recent events in Burma .  
 
Not only has SLORC repeatedly and publicly rejected Suu Kyi's call for a
dialog on national reconciliation, last week a senior official threatened to
annihilate anyone who attempted to endanger the military's rule. This week,
the noose tightened a little more and Suu Kyi was directly threatened. The
official military newspaper called Suu Kyi a traitor who should be
annihilated.  
 
Rhetoric has been matched by an increased willingness to restrict Suu Kyi's
role. In October, the National Democracy League voted to reinstate Suu Kyi as
General Secretary along with a slate of other officials. In yet another
effort to work peacefully with SLORC, the NLD submitted the leadership list
to the junta for approval.  
 
SLORC rejected the results as illegal and refused to recognize Suu Kyi's
position. Is it any wonder her party has decided they cannot participate in
the constitutional convention process?  
 
Last week--like every week since her release--thousands of people gathered
outside Suu Kyi's home to listen to her speak. Each Saturday and Sunday
spontaneous crowds have made the pilgrimage to her compound and left inspired
by her courage, her confidence, and her commitment to their freedom and
future. It is a crowd described in the U.N. report and in news accounts as
large and peaceful with a sense of purpose and discipline.  
 
Unfortunately, 2 weeks ago, there was a sharp change in the SLORC's tolerance
for these gatherings. In an apparent attempt to restrict access to Suu Kyi,
police began to erect barricades around her home. I understand three young
student supporters were arrested when they tried to intervene. According to
Dr. Yokota's report, corroborated by newspaper stories, the three were
charged and sentenced 2 days later to 2 years imprisonment. 
 
These arrests were followed by another ominous development. When the NLD
announced it would not participate in the constitutional convention, the
party's senior officials woke up to find their homes surrounded by armed
soldiers. 
 
Democracy activists are not suffering in Burma alone. Last week nine members
of the New Era newspaper staff were detained in Thailand. The New Era is an
underground newspaper with wide circulation inside Burma --apparently being
caught with a copy results in immediate arrest. Bowing to pressure from
SLORC, in anticipation of an upcoming visit by a senior junta official, Khin
Nyunt, Thai officials apparently have detained the New Era
journalists--including a 71-year-old editor and his 65-year-old wife.  
Reports from activists inside and outside Burma suggest a broad crack down on
democratic activists is imminent. I hope this is not true and urge the
administration to make clear United States opposition to any such actions.
However, the evidence suggests there is credible reason to be concerned.  
 
It is clear that the fledgling democracy movement in Burma is under siege. I
find the words of Suu Kyi's fellow democrat, NLD Vice Chairman U Tin O,
chilling. On Wednesday night, after the boycott announcement, six soldiers
surrounded his home and another soldier now follows him everywhere.  
 
A political prisoner for years, the 68-year-old vice chairman said with a wan
smile, `We have no worries at all. I have been in prison before. They can
detain me, do whatever they want. This is not a democratic country. We have
to face some costs for the legitimate rights of a democracy.'  
 
It is my hope he, Suu Kyi and the NLD will not bear the costs alone or for
long.  
 
Mr. President, in the near future the United Nations will take up a
resolution regarding Burma . I have been advised that the United Nations
will, once again, condemn the human rights and political situation in clear
and compelling terms. I commend Ambassador Albright for her efforts to assure
our support for Suu Kyi and democracy in Burma are spelled out in the
resolution.  

However, for more than a year the administration has argued Burma and SLORC
has a choice--they must immediately improve their human rights record and
move promptly to open the political process or they will face further
international isolation. I agree, but my definition of prompt and immediate
seems to differ with theirs.  
 
I think we have given SLORC ample time to make a decision. Given recent
events, it is clear they have no intention to relax their ruthless grip on
power.  
 
So in conjunction with the U.N. resolution it is my intention to introduce
bipartisan sanctions legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support this
effort as I see no other way to support Suu Kyi and the restoration of
democracy in Burma .  
 
There is no question that sanctions and further isolation of SLORC is an
initiative she supports. Indeed, once again this week Suu Kyi denounced the
increase in foreign investment and urged companies to wait until democracy
has been restored before bringing business to Burma .  
 
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article, which included her
remarks, be printed in the Record and that the Yokota report and Amnesty
International report on the current situation be printed along with that.  
 
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
---------------

To be continued on Part.2. (fb.120995.usc)