DOL ANNOUNCES $5 MILLION GRANT SOLICITATION TO COMBAT CHILD LABOR IN BURMA

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

US Department of Labor announces $5 million grant solicitation to combat child labor in Burma

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of International Labor Affairs today announced a $5 million solicitation for cooperative agreement applications to support Burma's efforts to reduce child labor.

The project(s) funded under this solicitation will develop pilot programs to remove or prevent children from exploitative labor and raise awareness in support of Burma's efforts to comply with international standards. Eligible applicants should propose research that yields much-needed credible, comprehensive data on the extent of child labor in Burma. The project will build the capacity of national and local organizations to advocate for a reduction of child labor and improve access to quality education and other relevant services for children and their families.

Applications must be submitted by Oct. 4, 2013, at 5 p.m. EDT electronically or as hard copies to the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Procurement Services, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room S-4307, Washington, D.C. 20210, Attention: Brenda White.

U.S. STATEMENT ON "WORLD REFUGEE DAY"

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

World Refugee Day
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
June 20, 2013　


Today, the United States joins the international community in honoring the resilience, courage, and determination of refugees all over the world, and the work of many countries in providing refuge, both temporary and permanent.

This year, the crisis in Syria has led to more than 4.25 million Syrians being displaced internally, more than 1.5 million becoming refugees, and millions more caught up in the unspeakable violence. Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey have opened their borders to those fleeing the bloodshed. We appreciate their generosity in hosting uprooted people and families, whether in refugee camps or local communities, and are proud that the United States is at the forefront of international efforts to provide humanitarian assistance.

The United States is the single largest donor to refugee relief efforts around the world, working to care for refugees displaced by other conflicts, including in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, and Sudan, and we have helped address protracted refugee situations around the world, including those affecting Afghans, Burmese, Colombians, and Somalis.

We have seen some progress this year, thanks to the hard work and commitment of diplomats and aid workers everywhere, including staff of the organizations we support, such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and many nongovernmental organizations. In 2012, two of the most protracted refugee situations in Africa came to a close, with Liberia and Angola now stable after bitter civil wars. We have also taken extra steps to ensure greater protection for refugees against sexual violence and exploitation.

The United States has a proud tradition of welcoming those fleeing violence and persecution, including more than 58,000 refugees from 66 countries who were resettled to the United States in fiscal year 2012 and the nearly 70,000 refugees who are expected to arrive in the United States in the coming fiscal year to rebuild their lives. Their presence makes our country more diverse, our culture richer, and our national character stronger.

STATE DEPARTMENT NOTE ON REQUIREMENTS OF INVESTING IN BURMA

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Burma Responsible Investment Reporting Requirements

Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
May 23, 2013
　

The Burma Responsible Investment Reporting Requirements have received final approval from the Office of Management and Budget and have taken effect. The first submissions in response to the Reporting Requirements, which apply to U.S. persons with aggregate new investment in Burma over $500,000, will be due July 1, 2013.

U.S. persons are required to report on a range of policies and procedures with respect to their investments in Burma, including human rights, labor rights, land rights, community consultations and stakeholder engagement, environmental stewardship, anti-corruption, arrangements with security service providers, risk and impact assessment and mitigation, payments to the government, any investments with the Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), and contact with the military or non-state armed groups.

The Department of State will use the information collected as a basis to conduct informed consultations with U.S. businesses to encourage and assist them to develop robust policies and procedures to address a range of impacts resulting from their investments and operations in Burma. We also intend the public report to empower civil society to take an active role in monitoring investment in Burma and to work with companies to promote investments that will enhance broad-based development and reinforce political and economic reform.

The United States supports the Burmese Government’s ongoing reform efforts, and believes that the participation of U.S. businesses in Burma’s economy can be a model for responsible investment and business operations, encouraging further change, promoting inclusive economic development, and contributing to the welfare of the Burmese people.

BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON BURMA SANCTIONS

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Background Briefing on the Administration's Policies Toward Burma Sanctions
Special Briefing
Senior State Department Officials
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
May 2, 2013

MODERATOR: Thank you. Thanks, everyone for joining us here for a background conference call on Burma sanctions. I’m going to introduce our two Senior State Department Officials. For your records only, they are [Senior State Department Officials]. And from here on out, they will be known as Senior State Department Officials One and Two. And with that, let me turn it over to them for an opening statement, and then we’ll take some of your questions.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, good afternoon, everyone. We really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you for a few minutes. Today, the U.S. Government has taken two measures in support of our calibrated approach to encouraging and strengthening the reform process in Burma. We’d like to explain what those two measures are.

Under something we call the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which we’ll refer to by its acronym, IEEPA, President Obama notified the Congress today that it is necessary to continue for one year the national emergency with respect to Burma. Also today, the Secretary of State terminated Presidential Proclamation 6925, also known by many as the 1996 visa ban. This allows us to facilitate greater bilateral engagement with Burmese stakeholders who are leading and contributing to reform efforts.

So my colleague here in a moment will address the broader authorities and requirements associated with IEEPA, but let me first just say a few words about our Burma policy and our specific actions today. From our perspective, Burma continues to make important progress in areas of core concern to the United States. This includes a range of actions, including the release of 850 political prisoners, efforts to pursue ceasefires with armed ethnic groups, and allowing freedoms of expression, assembly, and political participation. This has included overturning fiats from the previous military regime. Additional reforms include a review mechanism to assess remaining political prisoner cases and also allowing the creation of labor unions. There are many others, but these are among some that we wanted to highlight.

We’ve really welcomed this progress, the United States. We’ll continue political engagement and technical and capacity-building assistance to Burma’s reform efforts. We’re also substantially increasing our support of programs with an increased budget that advanced democratic reforms, promote national reconciliation, and facilitate broad-based economic growth in Burma.

We’ve also eased many sanctions. We’ve done so working very closely with Congress to reflect our move from quite general broad restrictions to a more calibrated engagement. And with the calibration, we target those who persist in hindering the country’s democratic transition. But it’s a fundamentally different approach to Burma than in past years. So the steps today acknowledge the important changes the Government of Burma has made, and encourage and empower the government and the people of Burma to continue on the path of political and economic reform.

Even as we recognize the government’s tremendous progress, we of course remain concerned that the nascent reforms remain vulnerable to elements within Burma that oppose a democratic transition. We’re also concerned about other challenges. This is a pretty bumpy process. For example, communal violence in Rakhine state; sectarian conflict elsewhere in the country; the need for greater efforts to achieve national reconciliation, something that’s alluded Burma since independence; the unconditional release of all political prisoners – not just the release, but that it be unconditional, and also severing all military ties with North Korea.

So what we’re doing in order to maintain the flexibility necessary to target specific bad actors and prevent backsliding on reform, even as we broadly ease sanctions at the same time, the President determined today that the national emergency with respect to Burma and the resulting authorities under IEEPA remain an important policy tool and should be continued for one year. For example, IEEPA provides the legal framework for us to exclude certain individuals or companies from benefiting from our renewed bilateral economic relations, because they either slow or thwart reform in Burma, commit serious human rights abuses, or propagate military trade with North Korea.

The United States will continue to review our sanctions policy as we monitor Burma’s progress on implementing additional political and economic reforms. And in fact, IEEPA authorities provide the U.S. Government with the tools necessary to waive certain restrictions to facilitate our support for reform.

We really want all of Burmese peoples, from Rangoon to Myitkyina in the north to other less developed areas of the country where many ethnic minorities reside in particular. We want them all to experience the benefits of inclusive economic development. And we recognize Burma’s successful transition to democracy depends in part on the government’s ability to deliver tangible benefits from its reforms.

Just a quick word on the presidential proclamation that the Secretary of State has terminated today – this is a perfect example of our review of our sanctions policies. The 1996 visa ban has been an important tool for many years to prevent travel to the United States by those associated with the former military regime who had impeded Burma’s transition to democracy. I think it’s quite well known that the regime had an abysmal human rights record and repressed all efforts towards democratization, including those of the pro-democracy National League for Democracy political party.

The visa ban of 1996, however, was imposed under conditions that have dramatically changed, especially over the last two years – 18 months to two years. Since 2011, the civilian-led government of Burma has demonstrated substantial progress on areas of concern that were emphasized in the 1996 proclamation. So in other words, they’ve answered the areas that we referred to in imposing that visa ban in 1996 – for example, most significantly in part, the legislative bi-elections a year ago, which the NLD contested and subsequently secured seats in Burma’s new parliament.

So terminating that visa ban from 1996 allows us to facilitate greater engagement with the Burmese by more narrowly defining who is prohibited from traveling to the United States. So it’s a very important message to the Burmese. Of course, at the same there are ineligibilities for visas under other restrictions – for example, the 2008 JADE Act – which will still apply. But it’s a much more narrow group that will be subject to those restrictions and review.

So that in brief are the two actions we’ve taken today. And then let me turn it over to my colleague on the IEEPA authorities.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to be able to speak with you today briefly about a couple of the decisions that were made today.

I just want to start by echoing what [Senior State Department Official One] was saying about the steps we’re taking today acknowledging the progress that’s been made to date by the people and Government of Burma ensuring that we as the United States Government maintain the authority to target specific bad actors who may be impeding progress in Burma, and prevent backsliding. And I think the two actions we’re taking today really support exactly the policy that we’ve been pursuing for the last 18 months with Burma.

IEEPA is a baseline statute in U.S. law going back to the late 1970s that the United States Government has used since the late 1970s to impose and maintain targeted sanctions in a variety of contexts around the world. Under the IEEPA statute, in order to maintain both the targeted sanctions under sanctions regimes established pursuant to IEEPA, and also to maintain the flexibility to, in a calibrated and responsive way, build on and waive those sanctions over time, the President is obligated to make a determination each year about whether to renew a specific national emergency that underlines a specific targeted sanctions regime.

So in this case, the President made the determination to renew the national emergency with respect to Burma that allows us to maintain the sanctions regime that has been in place over the last year or two, and to continue to calibrate these sanctions appropriately going forward. The regime was last – the national emergency was last renewed last May. And in order to prevent the expiration of our sanctions, and to give us the flexibility to continue our calibrated approach to sanctions, easing and applying sanctions where appropriate to target specific bad actors, the President renewed the emergency, the emergency that was last renewed last May.

MODERATOR: All right. With that, operator, we’ll go ahead and open it up to questioning, if you could remind us of the instructions.

OPERATOR: Very good. Absolutely. Ladies and gentlemen, if you do wish to ask a question, please press *1 on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone indicating you’ve been placed into a queue. You may remove yourself from the queue at any time by pressing the # key. Again, *1 for questions at this time. And one moment for the first question.

Our first question, then, is from the line of Shaun Tandon with AFP. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, hi. Thanks for doing this call. Basically, I know that this was addressed a little bit, but obviously there’s been quite a bit of concern recently about particularly the situation with the Rohingya. I was wondering what you thought about the timing of this decision, why the decision was made to take it now, and whether there could be any concern about the message that that sends at a time of concern about the status of the Rohingya.

And also, just sort of a technical question: I know it was mentioned that the JADE Act still applies. I was wondering, in terms of the number of people who would be excluded through visas, is there sort of a ballpark figure on how many are excluded now that – with only the JADE Act still being in effect?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, thank you. First, I think the actions today are quite separate from our concern about the situation in Rakhine state, specifically with the stateless Rohingya. On the latter, we have profound concern about repression, about broad discrimination, and the violence that reemerged last year in June and July and again in October. Clearly a very troubling situation with over 115,000 displaced, most predominantly from the Rohingya community, although some ethnic Rakhine were also displaced. So we have humanitarian concerns regarding shelter, regarding regular access. We certainly have concerns about security and the path to status for the Rohingya who have been unrecognized and lacking citizenship for many, many years.

It’s a difficult, sensitive process inside the country, and we are strongly encouraging messages from senior authorities such as that by President Thein Sein on March 28th in which he talked about tolerance, mutual respect, and religious freedom. These are very important for the Burmese people to hear and to implement. And earlier this week, the government’s Rakhine Investigative Commission that’s been looking at that situation released a report with many recommendations, and we’re going to encourage implementation of those recommendations and efforts there to achieve longer-term solutions to a very difficult situation.

So our profound concerns are there and very well-known. The actions we have taken today, in the first instance with IEEPA, is an annual exercise. This – the renewal is only valid per year, and has to be renewed each year lest it lapse. And it dates back to 1997, I believe.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: 1997.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: ’97. With regards to terminating the proclamation, the effort here is to facilitate the kind of engagement that’s necessary to address concerns like the Rohingya. We have many of our officials now going to Burma on a regular basis to address these areas, to give advice and counsel, to provide assistance, to strengthen the reform efforts. And in order to facilitate that kind of engagement, we need Burmese stakeholders to come here to the United States. And the proclamation in 1996 was very, very broad, applied across the board to military officers, to officials, to many, many categories of government employees, to retirees who are receiving pensions from the government, and all of their immediate family members.

Now, clearly, many people in those categories are now contributing to the reform process and need to engage with our civil society here, with our Congress, with our NGOs and universities, and with the government. And so that’s why we’re trying to facilitate that.

In terms of what remains, it’s not just the JADE Act. There are a couple of other provisions in our law that apply and impose restrictions, including the Burma Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, Section 570 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act. That goes back to 1997. But it is considerably more narrow. In the past, our restrictions applied to anyone who implemented, facilitated, or benefited from military authoritarian rule. Now, the more narrow category under those other restrictions are those specifically who impede the reform process, perpetuate human rights abuses, or propagate military trade with North Korea. So it’s a more active role now where we target bad actors as opposed to very broadly in the past where it applied across the board.

MODERATOR: I think we’re ready for the next question.

OPERATOR: Very good. We’ll go next to Matthew Pennington with AP.

QUESTION: Yeah, hi, and thanks for doing this call. Regarding the lifting of the visa restrictions, does this mean military officers will be able to travel to the U.S.? And I’m wondering what the Administration’s thoughts are now on promoting military-to-military engagement with the Burmese. And secondly, I think last week the EU lifted its sanctions altogether. So are you concerned that the international community is kind of out of sync within itself on its policy toward engaging Burma?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, thank you very much. First of all, what we’re doing today in terminating the Presidential Proclamation from 1996 doesn’t address the whole range of potential ineligibilities. All Burmese still need to apply for a visa and qualify. There are requirements under the Immigration and Nationalities Act, for example, but also these other restrictions that I’ve cited. Under the JADE Act, for example, there are provisions that will apply to many in the armed forces in Burma. You also need to take into consideration our specially designated nationals list that is maintained by Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. All of the individuals on those lists, which include some military leaders and entities owned and operated by the military, would still be subject to these restrictions. We have the ability in many cases to seek waivers if it’s in the U.S. national interest to facilitate travel, but in general there are still these broad categories, including some in the military who would have to overcome those restrictions. We’re not going to issue visas in every case, and that’s why we have this calibrated approach.

Yes, we took note of the European action in the – with the EU members deciding to lift sanctions with some exemptions, as they seek a different relationship with Burma. I think we are largely in synch. Some of the specific legal tactics might differ a bit, but keep in mind in 2012 we substantially eased many of our core economic sanctions, including the existing ban on new investment, prohibition on the transfer of financial services, and also working very closely with Congress we eased back on our import ban with a couple of exceptions, jadeite and rubies, and we also normalized our relationship with the international financial institutions so that the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the International Monetary Fund can reengage in Burma, which they are now doing, and helping reform.

I think from our perspective we see ourselves quite in synch with the European Union, certainly with the objectives that we’re trying to pursue.

MODERATOR: Next question.

OPERATOR: Thank you. And as a reminder that it is *1 to place yourself into our queue. Our next question is from Paul Eckert with Reuters News Agency.

QUESTION: Hi, and thanks. I’ll just repeat my thanks. Two points. I was wondering, are there provisions that would prevent individuals who may not have been known or captured by some of these sanctions that are lifted but have been involved in the recent spates of communal violence. To the extent you can know them, are there ways of stopping them from getting through or traveling? That’s my question. I don’t have a second part, thanks.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Thank you very much. Let me just begin by echoing a point [Senior State Department Official One] had made. Obviously, all Burmese still have to apply for a visa to come to the United States, and there’s going to be a review of those visas consistent with the existing provisions of law that we walked you through. Those provisions of the law do provide authority to not allow into the United States – existing provisions of law do allow authority not to allow into the United States people who’ve participated directly in human rights abuses. And then as [Senior State Department Official One] was saying also, individuals who are on our SDN list, specific bad actors who are impeding progress in Burma or engaging in trade with North Korea or facilitating committing human rights abuses in Burma would not be eligible to be coming into the United States under the actions taken today.

MODERATOR: Next question.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question is from Steve Myers with the New York Times.

QUESTION: Hi, thanks for doing this. If I could just at the beginning, though, ask that we reconsider it being on background since there doesn’t seem to be anything particularly sensitive about the announcement or anything. And then my question is: The coming visit of the President Thein Sein here to Washington, presumably at one point he would have been on a visa ban list. But is doing this now at all related to the fact that we needed to or wanted to remove that stigma, if you will, before his visit? Thanks.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. First let me say I’m not aware of any announcement of a visit and would defer to my colleagues at the White House with sort of head of state level visits here to the States. But let me say two things.

One, we are very much encouraging engagement. President Obama went to Burma, a very historic visit, as you know, last November and delivered a very important message about support for reform but also the notion that this process is very nascent, very much in the beginning stages, and there are many difficulties on the long road ahead.

Previously, President Thein Sein visited New York last year in the context of the United Nations General Assembly, and we had some engagement at the Secretary of State level with him where we exchanged views and addressed many of our concerns.

Last year, in order to demonstrate our recognition that reform was serious and significant, the U.S. Government actually removed President Thein Sein from our SDN list in recognition of his leadership role on reform. We also removed a couple of other figures, including Thura Shwe Mann, the speaker of the lower house.

This is an important signal that for those who contribute to the democratization process, increased respect for human rights, and efforts to get Burma on the right track, they can benefit from easing of sanctions and a more normal relationship with the United States.

By the same measure, I hasten to mention that we have, over the past year, added several individuals and entities to the specially designated nationals list precisely for the reasons that we’ve talked about – either thwarting the reform process, perpetuating human rights abuses, or continuing the trade with – military trade with North Korea. So I think it’s very important that we made that move for President Thein Sein and Shwe Mann last year to recognize that they are leading a historic and substantial departure from authoritarian rule inside Burma.

MODERATOR: We have time for one more question.

OPERATOR: Very good. That question will by Rosiland Jordan with Al-Jazeera News, English Television.

QUESTION: Hi, thanks for taking the call. Very quickly, we’ve been running a report from my colleague Wayne Hay who has been in a part of Burma where there is a sizable Rohingya population, and the local officials and police are seen colluding on camera to prevent these people from receiving necessary medical care. Is that part of the situation that would fall under continued denial of visas to those officials, whether or not they might have been seen as – perhaps being more reform-minded in the past?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, I think with regards to the situation in Rakhine state and the communal, sectarian violence that has sadly taken place elsewhere in the country, this is quite significant, and it’s part of what we indicate when we talk about the difficult aspects of transition in the country. Many of these problems are longstanding. The new civilian-led government has inherited problems that were exacerbated by the military regime. The military regime, for half a century, would respond to conflict with more violence and repression. This central government is trying to do things differently.

But I think your question gets at, indeed, some of the problems that we are observing and hearing from very credible sources in civil society, from nongovernmental organizations. There are credible reports that, at the local level, local authorities, local security officials, local religious leaders have been contributing to the problems not the solutions, and we are very troubled by that.

And it’s a message that we are delivering firmly to the government at the central level and the local level. And indeed, where we can gather credible information, and we collaborate closely with human rights community – where we can gather credible information, we will certainly deny these individuals the benefits of our easing and of travel to the United States.

The designation process for the SDN List is one that requires ample evidence and documentation, and we look to our partners in civil society to help build the case where merited. That tool will remain very flexible going forward, and that’s part of the reason the IEEPA authorities are extended today, so we have that tool.

But indeed there are still problematic areas inside Burma. At the top of our discussion today I mentioned many of those concerns. And where there are human rights abuses perpetuated, we are going to remain very much eyes wide open, very cautious as we move ahead, very calibrated, very principled. We are normalizing the relationship with Burma, but we have not fully normalized. And so we want to address these challenges in every way possible.

QUESTION: And a quick follow-up. How long do you estimate that in a country that had been under military rule or under a dictatorship for so many decades that the process actually does, to use an economic phrase, trickle down to the local level, where minority rights are respected, where human rights are respected?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, that’s a very complex question, and I think as President Obama said in November, clearly the country’s at the beginning of a long process. There are a number of milestones on the horizon that will be very important. Next year, Burma will chair for the first time the Association for Southeast Asian Nations. The country will hold the first national census in three decades. The following year in 2015, Burma will hold its next national election, a very important milestone – truly the perhaps the first opportunity in a generation for a free and fair mechanism of the expression of public will.

So it’s going to take some time. At the same time, we want to recognize how far they’ve come. Just three years ago, it was still illegal in Burma for more than three people to gather without a permit. That was a pretext for arrest and imprisonment, and indeed that was applied in hundreds of cases. There was no free press. There was no expression of free speech. And the gulag of prisons and labor camps were populated with thousands for the expression of political views. That has changed substantially, with political prisoner releases, with new freedoms of expression and assembly.

Just last December, with U.S. assistance, among other donors, there was an MTV EXIT concert in Rangoon to address trafficking in persons. Nearly 100,000 Burmese gathered in People’s Park for the first sort of rock and roll concert in memory, perhaps ever, in a park where people were prohibited from gathering just two and a half years ago. The peace talks and the peace process has yielded ceasefire arrangements with 10 of 11 armed groups, and there are talks underway to address the 11th.

These, we have to recognize, are the very actions that we have been asking Burmese authorities to take for the past two decades-plus, so they’re important moves. But they are very much at the beginning. This is a country replete with enormous challenges, and it is a very bumpy process. The difference now is we are in a position, along with others in the international community, to help the stakeholders, to help the government, to help the parliament, where Aung San Suu Kyi, just two and a half years ago a prison in her own home, is now a leading member in parliament, where she leads the opposition, but also a committee on rule of law. And her fellow party members of a party that was once banned are participating in the process, much like former political prisoners and exiles who have returned to Burma.

So there are many ingredients for us to work with and to help. But in the questions that you have all posed today, we are certainly of the position that, indeed, there are many significant challenges ahead as we try and help them address these problems.

MODERATOR: All right. Thank you all for joining us today. Let me remind you that this call is on background, attributable to a senior State Department official. And if you have any follow-up questions, feel free to contact us in the State Department Press Office. Thanks, and have a great day.

 

STATE DEPARTMENT TESTIMONY BEFORE TOM LANTOS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Human Rights in Burma
Testimony
Michael H. Posner
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Statement Before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission
Washington, DC
February 28, 2013

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for the Commission’s sustained concern about Burma over the years. I am particularly grateful to the late Tom Lantos himself, who played a critical role in shaping U.S. policy. I appreciate the opportunity to outline for the Commission the administration’s views on human rights and democracy in Burma.

As the members of the Commission are aware, the last 18 months have brought a number of changes to Burma—from the release of hundreds of political prisoners to the revision of several repressive laws—that many would have said were unthinkable just two years ago. Of course the many activists and advocates who have been pushing for and laying the groundwork for the beginnings of a democratic opening in Burma didn’t accept change as unthinkable—they maintained their struggle and their courage for decades. And today, the United States seeks to support the government and people of Burma as they seize the opportunity of change, we recognize that here, as elsewhere, change has come and will come principally from within.

As President Obama said at Rangoon University during his historic visit last November, "I came here because of America’s belief in human dignity. Over the last several decades, our two countries became strangers. But today, I can tell you that we always remained hopeful about the people of this country, about you. You gave us hope and we bore witness to your courage."

During his visit, President Obama welcomed the progress made in beginning a transition to democracy, and urged further action. The government used the occasion of his visit to commit to eleven substantial steps to deepen and advance the reform process, including the creation of a credible process to resolve remaining political prisoner cases, providing unhindered access by the ICRC to all prisons and labor camps, and inviting the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to open an office in Burma.

In the 18 months since his government assumed office, President Thein Sein has driven a reform agenda aided by a group of reform oriented Ministers in his Cabinet, two reform-minded parliamentary speakers, and by the hard work of many others within and outside government who share a vision for a stronger, more prosperous, fair, and peaceful Burma. I would also highlight that these developments have been a vindication of Aung San Suu Kyi’s stalwart support for reform and opening in Burma. With the tide of reform she helped put in motion coming in, Daw Suu remains a unique symbol of hope and freedom in Burma, even as she immerses herself in the difficult daily work of improving the quality of democracy as a parliamentarian in her country.

The United States needs to continue to support and push for reform. Despite the progress that has been made in many areas, such as the release of political prisoners and the successful by-elections last year, many serious problems remain. The road to reform will be long and challenging; it will continue to be bumpy. But the United States should remain committed to serving as a long-term partner in the reform process as long as it continues to move forward. Our engagement should extend from our longstanding, strong commitment to promoting continued progress on democracy and human rights.

I've just returned from my fourth and final trip there, where I followed up on the President’s visit and on the first-ever bilateral human rights dialogue, held in October in Naypyitaw. That discussion, which covered everything from legal reform to responsible investment to the protection of civilian populations in war zones, featured a Burmese interagency delegation including three ministers, members of the military, opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as our own delegation including representatives from the White House, the Pentagon, and several other agencies.

Last week, U.S. Ambassador Derek Mitchell, Deputy Assistant Secretary Daniel Baer and I met with a range of civil society actors, including representatives from the Kachin, Rohingya, and Rakhine ethnic communities and former political prisoners. We met with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, now in her eighth month as a member of parliament, as well as key actors in the government in Naypyitaw. By now, we have become accustomed to the open, candid, and constructive exchanges we are able to have with government officials – previously unthinkable.

I want to recap for the Commission where progress has been made and where progress still needs to be made in four key human rights areas: 1) the status of political prisoners; 2) legal reform; 3) the situation in Kachin State, Rakhine State, and the prospect for a broader national reconciliation; and 4) the political economy of democratic reforms.

I. Political Prisoners

The U.S. government first engaged directly with senior Burmese government officials on this issue based on an extensive list of political prisoners we compiled in 2011. In several stages over the last 18 months the government has released nearly 800 political prisoners, including its most high profile dissidents—leaders of mass movements, journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders, people like Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi, U Gambira, Hkun Htun Oo and others. They walked out of prisons across the country to cheering crowds and weeping family members.

While the release of these prisoners was historic, the story of political prisoners in Burma did not end there. Nearly a year later, the government has formed an official "Political Prisoner Review Committee," which held its first meeting in February in Rangoon. This Committee, led by the Office of the President, is composed of eight government officials and eight former political prisoner representatives. The work of this committee will not be easy. But its existence is a major step forward and the key to finding out the facts, healing wounds of the past, and moving forward towards national reconciliation.

The Committee has the potential to achieve three objectives critical to the country’s democratic transition. First, it can accurately determine the number of remaining political prisoners in detention and prompt their unconditional release. Our hope is that Committee members will have access to information and organizations that allow them to ascertain relevant facts about remaining prisoners. This includes access to prisons, prison records, court records, and prisoners themselves so that the Committee can make truthful determinations about the status of these prisoners. In addition, the Committee may wish to consult with organizations such as the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Myanmar, the Special Rapporteur for Arbitrary Detention, and other experts. By operating in a systematic and transparent manner, including by establishing a mechanism for current prisoners to contact its members, the Committee should be able to gain the public’s trust in its processes.

In the course of its investigations, the Committee will be asked to address cases of prisoners from various ethnic nationality areas who have been involved in or associated with the armed struggle against the government. Our hope is that the Committee will find a way to address these cases in a way that is consistent with the goal of national reconciliation.

Second, the Committee’s consideration of specific cases should give it an opportunity to identify laws that need to be reformed going forward and to make recommendations to that end. This is not in the Committee’s initial mandate, but can be an important collateral benefit as the government and civil society work together to implement legal reform and build the rule of law.

Finally, the Committee has the potential to help advance efforts to provide care and facilitate the reintegration of released prisoners. Many former prisoners experienced extremely harsh conditions, many years of solitary confinement, and denial of medical care. A number of these former prisoners are struggling to reintegrate into society. They lack housing and medical care, and many suffer from PTSD or depression. In some cases, the government has denied them passports or prevented them from continuing their educations or obtaining credentials they had already earned, so they lack the degrees and certificates necessary to find jobs. Since release, several former prisoners have died from severe medical complications developed while in prison. These released political prisoners need greater attention to these needs and hopefully the Prisoners Committee can help shape the government’s response to this set of needs. The United States stands ready to provide technical assistance and funding to support such initiatives.

In short, the prisoner process represents a double opportunity—not only can it bring the release of remaining political prisoners, it also can provide an example of how government and civil society can work together in an open and credible process to tackle difficult problems. It won’t be easy but the potential is tremendous.

II. Legal Reform

An important element of strong, democratic societies is adherence to the rule of law, which in turn depends on a strong constitution that has broad public support. Civil society actors, ethnic nationality representatives, and international human rights experts alike have repeatedly called for changes to Burma's 2008 Constitution so the document may better reflect the country’s new democratic aspirations. The Constitution is the foundational document of any society — in the run up to the 2015 national elections there is an opportunity for the people and government to debate and decide how best to address these issues.

Revision and repeal of flawed laws and regulations is another key area to which the government – both executive and legislative branches – should pay attention in the coming years. In the last two years the parliament has drafted, and the executive has signed, a series of new laws that constitute the first important phase of legal reform. During this period the government has passed laws criminalizing forced labor, legalizing labor unions, and allowing the opposition to run in the April by-elections. However, a number of other laws remain in place, many are hold-overs from the colonial administration that are inconsistent with international human rights standards. The government has begun to review and revise these laws, for example by repealing two problematic laws last month, one banning public gatherings of more than five people and another banning daily newspapers.

Broadly speaking, these remaining laws fall into three categories: 1) media and "electronics" laws that restrict freedom of expression and the press; 2) laws that are inconsistent with the freedom of association by restricting membership in associations of which the government does not approve; and 3) vaguely defined national security laws that give the government overly broad authority to arbitrarily arrest citizens. While the government has mostly ceased enforcing these laws, reforming outdated legal statutes should be a high priority for the parliament and the executive.

For example, the 2011 Law on Peaceful Assembly and Procession legalized protests for the first time in 20 years – a major step forward for freedom of association. However, the new law also contains provisions that have proved problematic, for example, the requirement to apply five days in advance with detailed information about a planned protest or demonstration. According to the law, the right to protest will be denied if "the security of the State, rule of law, public tranquility and the existing laws protecting the public are to be breached." Any protest for which permission is denied is deemed illegal under the law, and anyone taking part can be arrested and sentenced for up to a year in prison. Dozens of protesters have been arrested, and many have been charged and are awaiting trial for violations of this law since its adoption in 2011.

We met a Kachin activist on our recent visit who faced charges that could land him in prison for six years under the Law on Peaceful Assembly and Procession for joining a peace walk through Rangoon calling for peace in Kachin State. He received one count worth one year for each of the six townships through which he walked.

Independence of the judiciary also is critical to advancing reforms. There is no independent bar association, and we are told that there is not one lawyer on Burma’s Supreme Court. The justice system also lacks a number of basic elements of due process. For example, defendants are not guaranteed the right to a state-appointed attorney except in capital (death penalty) cases. Improvements need to be made in the quality of legal education, training of legal professionals and investigators, accessibility of laws and of electronic and forensic evidence. We stand ready to assist in these areas.

The government has taken several promising steps in recent months. Dozens of lawyers who were previously disbarred for taking politically sensitive cases have had their licenses restored; government officials have stated that those still without licenses will be able to seek reinstatement. We understand also that there are plans underway to create an independent bar association. In addition, efforts are underway to train prosecutors and other government legal staff on international standards and the rule of law. Going forward, as long as we see signs of genuine political will to make these and related reforms, we stand ready to provide technical assistance and support. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights can also, among other functions, provide key technical assistance and training to the government and civil society actors to support the rule of law and legal reform.

At our October 2012 bilateral Human Rights Dialogue in Naypyitaw senior government representatives were open and candid in their assessment of the challenges in the legal system and in expressing their intention to undertake wide legal reform. We also urged the government to take steps to sign and ratify key human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture. We raised our concerns about legal and other restrictions on religious freedom and our desire to collaborate to address them. We look forward to working with the government and with civil society to lend support and technical expertise in this important process.

III. Kachin State and Rakhine State Updates

Many of the country’s vast natural resources are located in its ethnic nationality regions, particularly in Kachin State, where war is being waged for both reasons of political autonomy generally and control over these resources specifically. This ongoing fighting has contributed to human rights abuses and social instability. In the past when the military and business join forces, often we have observed patterns of land confiscation, forced labor, environmental destruction, and severe human rights abuses on local populations around these projects.

The government has signed ten ceasefire agreements with armed ethnic groups in the past year, including with the Karen National Union with which it had previously been at war for over 60 years. Still, the government’s previously longest running and most stable ceasefire with the Kachin broke down 18 months ago and fighting has intensified in recent months. In December, the military used helicopters and jets to attack Kachin Independence Army positions, marking the first use of air power against an armed ethnic group in decades. The Army continued using heavy artillery to shell KIA positions. Estimates are that tens of thousands of Kachin IDPs remain cut off from international humanitarian aid since July 2012. In our talks with the government, I stressed the urgent need to grant immediate access for humanitarian organizations to all those in need. Since the December escalation both sides have tentatively returned to the negotiating table, though a ceasefire will not be reached easily. In the immediate term we have pressed for, and the government has committed to, restoring international humanitarian access to IDPs both in government and in KIA-held territory.

There have been recent signs of improvement: major international humanitarian groups such as ICRC and UNOCHA have recently regained limited access to deliver aid to Laiza and Hpakant in Kachin State; we are hopeful that these initial visits will produce the long-term sustained access these organizations need. Smaller community based Kachin organizations we spoke with have emphasized the need for these larger organizations to continue to fund smaller service delivery groups who do not need government permission to deliver assistance to IDPs in difficult to reach places. We have continued to press the government to allow ongoing humanitarian access for all groups which is crucial not only for delivering assistance but also laying the groundwork for the kind of trust that a ceasefire requires.

We remain concerned about the situation in Rakhine State, which has resulted in more than 100,000 IDPs since violence erupted in June and October. This violence broke out quickly and included attacks on non-Rohingya Muslim communities such as the Kaman, one of the country’s 135 officially- recognized national races. The Rohingya, unlike the Kaman, are not recognized as an ethnic nationality and with an estimated population of 800,000 inside Burma, they are the world’s largest stateless population. Hatred of, and discrimination against, the Rohingya are widespread, with little public support to recognize them as an ethnic nationality. The central government played a key role in stemming the violence in June and October 2012, although local Rakhine security forces were often cited as contributing to if not inciting violence. But the medium and long term solutions to the Rakhine crisis present very difficult political obstacles. Practical interventions to prevent further violence along with training in conflict mediation, dialogue facilitation, and community dialogue are necessary. For now, the U.S. approach has focused on delivering humanitarian aid to both the Rakhine and the Rohingya communities in IDP camps and diplomacy with the government on longer term solutions to ensure that these temporary solutions do not occlude comprehensive reintegration and reconciliation of both the Rohingya and Rakhine communities. We will watch with great interest the findings and recommendations of the government’s Rakhine Commission report, which is due in March.

On the religious freedom front we are deeply concerned about reports of continuing human rights and religious freedom violations in the ethnic nationality regions, including reports of sexual violence, the use of churches as military bases by the Burmese army in Kachin State, and coerced religious conversions in Chin state. We have engaged the government on this issue both during the human rights dialogue and in subsequent meetings, and encourage the Government of Burma to promote religious freedom and tolerance throughout the country and to hold accountable those who commit violent acts against religious minorities.

IV. The Political Economy of a Rights-Respecting Democracy and U.S. Sanctions Policy

At the turn of the 20th century, Burma was one of the wealthiest states in Southeast Asia, boasting vast reserves of fossil fuels, rubies, gold, jade, tin, copper, timber, teak, and a plentitude of other natural resources. Today it is the poorest country in the region in per capita GDP. This reversal of fortune is the result, at least in part, of decades of self-isolation, repression and regression in the rule of law and quality of education coupled with economic mismanagement and civil war. The military-business nexus is still strong despite recent political reforms. There is still insufficient transparency relating to revenues from natural resource or into where these revenues end up. Some critics allege that the country’s natural wealth, auctioned off to highest bidder, continues to be siphoned to offshore accounts rather than flowing into the national budget. Investment in many natural resources are still controlled and financed by military controlled enterprises, such as the Myanmar Economic Corporation and the Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited or their sub-entities. Our sanctions remain in place on these entities for this reason. If Burma is to develop the political economy of a modern, rights-respecting democratic state, the government will have to tackle this nexus with the tools of transparency—auditing, public disclosure, and full accountability for corruption. The Government of Burma has committed to join both the Open Government Partnership and the Extractives Industries Transparency Initiative, both of which will provide opportunities to enhance transparency and ensure broad based development.

President Thein Sein’s government has pledged to do business differently, and the United States has committed to supporting these efforts through our calibrated easing of economic sanctions to support political and economic reforms. In 2012, we broadly authorized new investment in Burma for the first time in 15 years, including in Burma’s multi-billion dollar oil and gas sectors. However, to ensure that military-owned enterprises would not benefit from this opening, investment in military-owned companies remains off limits. Similarly, U.S. companies are not authorized to make payments to the military to provide security for their investments, as the military is the primary driver of the worst human rights abuses. We also instituted the Reporting Requirements for Responsible Investment, which require U.S. persons making investments over $500,000 to report on their human rights, environmental, labor, and anti-corruption due diligence procedures. Companies without such due diligence procedures in place may nevertheless invest in Burma, provided they report that they do not have these policies in place. Our expectation is that companies that report a lack of adequate human rights policies will face pressure from civil society actors here and in Burma to develop them, and our hope is that companies will develop policies in collaboration with these groups.

Some have argued that these reporting requirements are too onerous and discourage investment, while others argue that they are too permissive and do not providing adequate human rights safeguards. But we’ve also heard from large American companies and members of Burmese and U.S. civil society who strongly support them. Our intention is to strike a balance, guarding against an economic free-for-all that would funnel investment to the military and its companies while still incentivizing responsible investment that contributes to Burma’s economic modernization, job creation, and widely-shared prosperity.

Bottom-up Action to Match Top-down Reform

President Thein Sein’s government and the parliament have admirably created a top-down reform process that has pushed through a range of important initiatives at a rapid pace. These changes have opened important and unprecedented political space. But open political space will not bring meaningful change unless more people throughout the country and in all segments of the society move into this space and start to use it.

Making Burma a home for all of its people will require broad, grassroots engagement by the widest possible range of its citizens, from ethnic leaders and bloggers, to lawyers and lawmakers, to factory workers and human rights advocates.

All of these groups will need to push for structural changes from the bottom up, at the same time as the political leadership works to push reform from the top down.

Where these two forces meet is not for the United States to say. It’s up to the Burmese to build trust on both sides and to negotiate a space where they can coexist peacefully, and in so doing to begin to make durable, systemic change.

Reforming the system from within is an immense task. It will require political will from the top down, dynamism from the bottom up, and for those who have profited from power to share it.

I am optimistic about Burma’s future. Our optimism should not result in easing up on our efforts to promote further reform or putting blinders on about the profound challenges ahead in the country. But it does mean that we reconsider long held assumptions, recognize the dynamic change that is occurring, and seize the opportunities to support the Burmese people – and especially its politically active civil society – as they pursue real, sustainable reforms from within.

SEC. OF STATE CLINTON SAYS U.S. STILL CONCERNED ABOUT VIOLENCE IN BURMA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

Violence in Burma's Rakhine State

Press Statement

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

June 11, 2012

The United States continues to be deeply concerned about reports of ongoing ethnic and sectarian violence in western Burma’s Rakhine State and urges all parties to exercise restraint and immediately halt all attacks. The Burmese Government has announced a State of Emergency and curfews in Rakhine State, but reports of violence continue.

We join others in the international community and call on authorities to work with local leaders—together with Muslim, Buddhist, and ethnic representatives, including Rohingya—to halt the on-going violence, begin a dialogue toward a peaceful resolution, and ensure an expeditious and transparent investigation into these incidents that respects due process and the rule of law.

The United States has welcomed Burma’s recent reform efforts and the important steps President Thein Sein, Aung San Suu Kyi, and other leaders inside and outside of government have taken. The situation in Rakhine State underscores the critical need for mutual respect among all ethnic and religious groups and for serious efforts to achieve national reconciliation in Burma. We urge the people of Burma to work together toward a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic country that respects the rights of all its diverse peoples.

U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON COMMENTS ON NEW GOVERNMENT IN BURMA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Burma - National League for Democracy and Parliament
Press Statement Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Washington, DC
May 2, 2012
Only eighteen months ago, Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was under house arrest. Today, the pro-democracy leader and several other members of the National League for Democracy have taken their newly won seats in Burma’s parliament. For the first time in the country’s history, Aung San Suu Kyi and members of her party will have a role and voice in government.

I would like to send my congratulations to these pro-democracy leaders, other newly elected Members of Parliament, and the hundreds of thousands of voters for their courage and commitment to achieving a more representative and responsive government. President Thein Sein and his government have also taken important strides toward democracy and national reconciliation.

This is an important moment for Burma's future. A genuine transition toward multi-party democracy leading to general elections in 2015 will help build a more prosperous society. I encourage all political parties, civil society representatives and ethnic minority leaders to work together to address challenges and seize new opportunities for a more democratic, free, peaceful, and prosperous future.

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON REMARKS ON FILM "THE LADY"

Remarks at "The Lady" Film Screening
Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Motion Picture Association of America
Washington, DC
April 9, 2012

Well, thank you all very much. And you are in for such a treat. This is a terrific movie, one that I had the great privilege of watching on my way to Burma.
And I particularly would like to thank the director for that honor, and also it’s wonderful to see Michelle here as well. So I am thrilled to look out and see so many people who care deeply about this issue. And I came in as Derek Mitchell and Melanne Verveer were finishing up their remarks.

But as Michael just said, movies have such a powerful voice in our culture, in every culture. And it is both exciting and profoundly moving that filmmakers use it to do more than just entertain, although entertainment is a very important part of the human experience. But the kind of educational and inspirational mission that Michael referred to is very important in today’s world, and this film portrays a woman whose story needs to be in theaters and living rooms across the world.

I want to thank Chris Dodd for sponsoring the showing here tonight. And I just really wanted to come by to underscore how important this moment in the history of Aung San Suu Kyi and Burma happen to be. The personal side of Suu Kyi’s story that you will see tonight is one that is so moving when you look at what she gave up, the difficult decisions and sacrifices that she made for her country on behalf of freedom with the hope of democracy.

And it is certainly the case that whoever meets her knows how famous she is, how iconic she is. But what you come away with is how human, down-to-earth, personally engaged she happens to be in everything she’s doing, which makes her story even more painful. Because having met my share of famous people over a long period of time now, there are some who get so caught up in their cause and their mission that you do get the sense that, for them, the human relationships, the one-to-one personal connections with family and friends and colleagues have been totally subordinated to the larger mission. To a great extent, that is necessary, especially in the circumstances in which she found herself. But watching her interact with the people around her, the people who took care of her, the people who were there with her through all her years of house arrest and struggle, makes you know that this is someone who was very well aware of the pain and the sacrifice that she was undertaking.

Now, just a few days ago, we joined the world in celebrating her election. I did tell her in one of our recent telephone conversations she was moving from an icon to a politician. (Laughter.) Having made sort of the same journey to some extent, I know that that’s not easy because now you go to a parliament and you start compromising, which is what democracy is all about. It is not a dirty word. You cannot expect to have one person or one party – one leader – be the repository of everything that is true. And so you have to work with other people, some of whom you disagree with deeply. (Laughter.) But it is part of the commitment you make to a democratic process, even one as fragile as that being embraced by the leadership and the people of Burma.
As they grapple with transitioning from authoritarian military rule to a more open political and economic system, there are going to be a lot of difficult days ahead. President Thein Sein and his government have taken courageous steps. They’ve made this progress possible in many ways. They’ve helped to launch their country on this historic new path. But there is still a lot to be done.

I see Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell, with whom I’ve worked closely on this whole process and project almost from the beginning of our time in the Obama Administration. And we will continue to press for all political prisoners to be released, for those already released to be given unconditional freedom. We will continue to work to end in a just way the ongoing ethnic conflicts.

We have told the government there that we will match action for action as they take steps. And last week, I outlined a number of the action steps the United States is prepared to take, including sending an accredited ambassador, reestablishing a USAID mission, enabling private organizations to engage in a broader range of non-profit activity supporting the people, beginning a targeted process of easing the ban on exporting U.S. financial services and restrictions on investment and travel.

It is something that we enter into with our eyes very wide open but with our hearts very hopeful. And certainly, we are guided by the partnership that we have with democrats, including most famously, Aung San Suu Kyi.

So tonight is an opportunity to celebrate this extraordinary woman’s struggle to bring democracy to her people. And we should also remember – and you’ll see some images in the movie of the many heroes in the pro-democracy movement who have sacrificed their freedom and even their very lives. There are hundreds and thousands of people working alongside Aung San Suu Kyi inside Burma and around the world, including in this room as I look at some of the faces who have been stalwart supporters and activists of behalf of a better, more democratic, peaceful future for the people of Burma.

So this film honors them as well. And after decades of war and turmoil, we do look with hope – realistic but nevertheless hopeful aspirations – for what can happen. So again, I want to thank Luc Besson and Michelle Yeoh and everyone associated with this film. And I personally want to thank you for going to so much effort to get it to me so that I could watch it as I was traveling to actually meet the real person. And it was a very moving experience for me, and I think it will be for all of you. So thank you very much. (Applause.)