U.S. CONGRATULATES PEOPLE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA ON THEIR INDEPENDENCE DAY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Papua New Guinea Independence Day
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
September 13, 2013

On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I congratulate the people of Papua New Guinea on the 38th anniversary of your independence this September 16.

The United States and Papua New Guinea have enjoyed a close friendship, working together on issues such as the environmentally responsible use of natural resources, human rights and gender equality, and over-arching cooperation in the Pacific Region. It is my hope that we will continue to expand our joint efforts across a broad range of social and economic issues in the coming years.

The United States is committed to peace and prosperity for Papua New Guinea and the Pacific Region, and we join you in the spirit of our continuing friendship and cooperation. I send all the people of Papua New Guinea my best wishes for a year of peace, progress, and prosperity.

U.S. CONGRATULATES PEOPLE OF COSTA RICA ON THEIR INDEPENDENCE DAY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Costa Rica's Independence Day
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
September 13, 2013

On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I congratulate the people of Costa Rica on the 192nd anniversary of your independence. This day is a well-deserved opportunity for the people of Costa Rica to commemorate their heritage as a nation rooted in democracy and peace.

President Obama’s May visit to San Jose reaffirmed the longstanding bonds of friendship and partnership between the United States and Costa Rica. Together, we have worked on important issues, including democracy and human rights, economic growth, education, clean energy, and security. We look forward to deepening the partnership between our peoples in the year to come.

On this special day, we celebrate our close collaboration and honor the spirit of Costa Rica and its people. Pura vida, and happy Independence Day!

U.S. OFFERS BEST WISHES TO PEOPLE OF ANDORRA ON THEIR NATIONAL DAY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
On the Occasion of Andorra's National Day
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
September 5, 2013

On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I offer best wishes to the people of Andorra as you celebrate your national holiday, Our Lady of Meritxell Day, on September 8.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of Andorra’s constitution and its accession to the United Nations. On this special occasion, we are reminded that the relationship between the United States and Andorra is built on shared democratic ideals and a commitment to promoting human rights.

We appreciate Andorra’s valuable contributions to the international community and look forward to strengthening the friendship between our two countries.

I wish all Andorrans peace, health, and prosperity on this special day.

LUIS CDEBACA TESTIFIES BEFORE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON 2013 HUMAN TRAFFICKING REPORT

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 
The State Department 2013 Trafficking in Persons Report
Testimony
Luis CdeBaca
Ambassador-at-Large, Office To Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Washington, DC
July 11, 2013
As prepared

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bass, Members of the committee: Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to testify about the 2013 Trafficking in Persons Report, and thank you for your concern and leadership in our country’s effort to combat modern slavery.
Since I became Ambassador-at-Large four years ago, a lot has changed in this movement. More governments are living up to their responsibility to fight this crime. More stakeholders are contributing expertise and resources. More individuals are aware of the way modern slavery affects their lives.

But one thing that has not changed is the partnership across the U.S. government when it comes to fighting human trafficking—in both the Administration and on Capitol Hill, in both the House and the Senate, and on both sides of the aisle.

It’s a partnership that secured the renewal of our anti-trafficking law earlier this year. It’s a partnership rooted in the idea that we as a nation need to stand up for universal values—freedom, justice, the dignity of all people—here at home and around the world. Those are the values that drive our work to fight modern slavery.

At the same time, we have made combating trafficking in persons a priority in domestic and foreign policy because doing so is in our country’s strategic interest.

Trafficking in persons is a crime that threatens the rule of law.

It feeds the vulnerability of marginalized populations, creating further instability and damaging communities.

It corrupts the labor markets and global supply chains that are essential to a thriving global economy.

Fighting trafficking in persons is the smart thing to do, and as President Obama made clear in his speech at the Clinton Global Initiative Meeting last fall, “the United States will continue to be a leader in this global movement.”

At the State Department, we press this fight forward through assistance to organizations working on the front lines providing aid to victims and helping governments build up their capacity.

We bring more stakeholders to the table through our partnership efforts… harnessing the expertise of civil society, the resources and innovativeness of the private sector, and the commitment of groups and individuals who, like us, reject slavery in the 21st century.

And through our diplomacy, we urge governments to fully embrace their responsibility to deal with this crime and we offer to work with any government that takes this problem seriously.

One of our most important diplomatic tools is our annual Trafficking in Persons Report, and I’d like to say a few words about our major findings this year. My prepared testimony goes into greater detail, and I ask that it be included in its entirety in the record.

[Pause.]

Once again, this Report tells us that trafficking in persons affects every country in the world, and no government is doing enough to fight it.

Our major focus this year is the importance—and the challenge—of effective victim identification. When done well, victim identification opens the door to the support and services victims of trafficking need.

It leads to more investigations and prosecutions of traffickers. And it allows survivors the opportunity—if they choose—to share their experiences and have a voice in the way we shape our anti-trafficking policies and practices.

Victim identification is the critical first step in stopping this crime.

Yet only about 47,000 victims were brought to light in the last year, compared to up to 27 million people living in slavery. That massive gap represents the millions who toil unseen and beyond the reach of law, and it shows how far we have to go in this effort.

At the same time, we continue to see modest gains: more victims identified; more countries adopting modern anti-trafficking laws; more countries moving toward the whole-of-government approach to this crime.

Beyond the global trends, this Report includes assessments of 188 countries and territories on their governments’ effectiveness in combating this crime. This year we see an unfortunate reversal of the trend in the last few years: more countries were downgraded this year than upgraded, by a margin of roughly two to one.

This year, 30 countries, including the United States, are on Tier 1 in the Report, meaning the governments of those countries are complying with the minimum standards. I want to be clear: Tier 1 is a passing grade, not a perfect score. Every government can be doing more to deal with this challenge.

This year, 92 countries are on Tier 2. Their governments don’t meet all the minimum standards, but we are seeing some serious efforts in Tier 2 countries.

There are 44 countries on the Tier 2 Watch List this year. These are countries that, despite making some efforts to combat modern slavery, aren’t getting positive results, or the situation may actually be getting worse.

Tier 3 countries are those where the governments aren’t doing much at all to deal with this crime, and this year there are 21 countries with that status.

This Report doesn’t pull any punches. It’s thorough and candid. As Secretary Kerry said last month, “this report is tough, because this is a tough issue, and it demands serious attention.”

But it isn’t punitive. We aren’t claiming to have all the answers, because we know we don’t. We know that the better information we have about modern slavery, the better we’ll be in confronting it.

So we aren’t pointing the finger, but rather extending a hand to anyone who agrees that this is a problem we need to grapple with. This Report is a guide—for ourselves, for governments around the world, and for anyone who shares our goal of a world rid of modern slavery.

Thank you for your commitment. And your partnership.

PRESIDENT OBAMA MAKES STATEMENT ON REMOVAL OF EGYPT'S PRESIDENT MORSY

FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE


Statement by President Barack Obama on Egypt

As I have said since the Egyptian Revolution, the United States supports a set of core principles, including opposition to violence, protection of universal human rights, and reform that meets the legitimate aspirations of the people. The United States does not support particular individuals or political parties, but we are committed to the democratic process and respect for the rule of law. Since the current unrest in Egypt began, we have called on all parties to work together to address the legitimate grievances of the Egyptian people, in accordance with the democratic process, and without recourse to violence or the use of force.

The United States is monitoring the very fluid situation in Egypt, and we believe that ultimately the future of Egypt can only be determined by the Egyptian people. Nevertheless, we are deeply concerned by the decision of the Egyptian Armed Forces to remove President Morsy and suspend the Egyptian constitution. I now call on the Egyptian military to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible through an inclusive and transparent process, and to avoid any arbitrary arrests of President Morsy and his supporters. Given today’s developments, I have also directed the relevant departments and agencies to review the implications under U.S. law for our assistance to the Government of Egypt.

The United States continues to believe firmly that the best foundation for lasting stability in Egypt is a democratic political order with participation from all sides and all political parties —secular and religious, civilian and military. During this uncertain period, we expect the military to ensure that the rights of all Egyptian men and women are protected, including the right to peaceful assembly, due process, and free and fair trials in civilian courts. Moreover, the goal of any political process should be a government that respects the rights of all people, majority and minority; that institutionalizes the checks and balances upon which democracy depends; and that places the interests of the people above party or faction. The voices of all those who have protested peacefully must be heard – including those who welcomed today’s developments, and those who have supported President Morsy. In the interim, I urge all sides to avoid violence and come together to ensure the lasting restoration of Egypt’s democracy.

No transition to democracy comes without difficulty, but in the end it must stay true to the will of the people. An honest, capable and representative government is what ordinary Egyptians seek and what they deserve. The longstanding partnership between the United States and Egypt is based on shared interests and values, and we will continue to work with the Egyptian people to ensure that Egypt’s transition to democracy succeeds.

STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL'S CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY ON ETHIOPIA

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 
Ethiopia After Meles Zenawi

Testimony

Donald Y. Yamamoto
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs

Before the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations

Washington, DC

June 20, 2013

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the situation in Ethiopia since the death in August 2012 of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. Post-Meles Ethiopia presents the United States with a significant opportunity to encourage Ethiopia to improve its human rights record, liberalize its economy, and provide increased space for opposition parties and civil society organizations. Post-Meles Ethiopia also presents a significant challenge since Ethiopia plays an important role in advancing regional integration and mitigating regional conflict in Somalia and Sudan. Our partnership with Ethiopia balances these interests by focusing on democracy, governance, and human rights; economic growth and development; and regional peace and security.


Ethiopia and the United States enjoy strong ties on several levels. More than one million people of Ethiopian origin live in the United States. Many of these individuals are returning to their homeland to expand the political and economic ties between our two countries. A wide range of groups and individuals in the United States provide humanitarian support to Ethiopians. Ethiopia is also home to one of the oldest Peace Corps programs.


Democracy, Governance, and Human Rights
Ethiopia’s weak human rights record creates tension in our relationship and we continue to push for press freedom, appropriate application of anti-terrorism legislation, a loosening of restrictions on civil society, greater tolerance for opposition views, and religious dialogue. The ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) controls all aspects of government, including the legislative branch where the EPRDF and its allies hold 545 of 547 parliamentary seats. Political space in Ethiopia is limited and opposition viewpoints are generally not represented in government. In recent years, Ethiopia has passed legislation restricting press freedoms and NGO activities. On June 2, several thousand demonstrators calling for the release of political prisoners, an end to interference in religious affairs, action on unemployment and corruption, and an end to illegal evictions marched peacefully through the capital, without government interference. This was the first such political demonstration officially permitted by the Ethiopian Government since 2005.


Economic Growth and Development
Ethiopia ranks among the ten fastest-growing economies in the world, averaging 10 percent GDP growth over the last five years. State-run infrastructure drives much of this growth. Our bilateral trade and investment relationship is limited by investment climate challenges and the lack of market liberalization. The main sectors of interest to U.S. companies are telecommunications, financial services, logistics, and wholesaling. U.S. firms have a significant competitive advantage in these areas. These sectors, however, are closed to foreign investors and U.S. firms are discouraged by Ethiopia’s relatively weak private sector and state-dominated economy. These issues are compounded by macroeconomic challenges that include volatile inflation, a shortage of foreign exchange, lack of capital, financing, and logistical bottlenecks. Despite the challenges, however, there are clearly opportunities and U.S. business is taking advantage of them. Currently about 100 U.S. companies are represented in Ethiopia. Total U.S. exports to Ethiopia in 2012 were $1.29 billion; imports from Ethiopia totaled $183 million. Ethiopian Airlines is an important customer for Boeing, with over one billion dollars in recent purchases, supported in part by the Export-Import Bank. Ethiopian Airlines was the third airline to purchase the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the first to get it back into service following the Federal Aviation Administration’s temporary grounding. Ethiopia will also host the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act Forum on August 12-13 this year, as we begin the dialogue on renewal of AGOA in 2015.

Ethiopia is a significant recipient of U.S. foreign aid, having benefited from over $740 million in FY 2012 assistance, primarily in health (under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the Global Health Initiative, and the President’s Malaria Initiative), agriculture and food and nutrition security (through Feed the Future and the G-8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition), basic education, and food aid. Other major donors include the United Kingdom, the World Bank, the European Union, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria. As a matter of policy, the Ethiopian Government is focused on eventually eliminating the need for donor assistance. The Ethiopian Government co-hosted the Child Survival Call to Action and has emerged as a leader on the push to end preventable maternal and child deaths.


Regional Peace and Security
As chair of the African Union, Ethiopia will play a key role in determining AU priorities on peace and security and development and governance. Ethiopia views Somali instability and al-Shabaab and other Islamic extremist groups as serious threats to its national security. Though not a troop contributing country for the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), Ethiopia expends significant resources to support the AMISOM-led campaign against al-Shabaab including deploying its own forces to fight alongside the Somali National Army and AMISOM. Expansion of U.S. funding of Somali National Army forces in the Gedo region is appreciated by Ethiopia and helps keep Ethiopia active in the fight against al-Shabaab. Ethiopia maintains strong relations with both Sudan and South Sudan and is the sole troop-contributor (4,200 increasing to over 5,000 shortly) to the UN Interim Stabilization Force in Abyei (UNISFA), where an Ethiopian peacekeeper was killed and two others were seriously injured in an attack on May 4. Since he took office, Prime Minister Hailemariam has organized two summits of the leaders of the Sudan and South Sudan to facilitate negotiations; pressed Sudan to negotiate with rebels from the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement – North; and urged Sudan to allow humanitarian aid into Blue Nile and South Kordofan. The Government of Ethiopia has also contributed more than 2,000 personnel to the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). Ethiopia continues to receive and welcome a stream of refugees from Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan.


Advancing Our Relationship
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, Ethiopia is an important U.S. partner and we value continued cooperation on a range of mutually important objectives.

As Secretary Kerry noted when he met with Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn at the 60th anniversary of the Organization of African Unity summit on May 25, Ethiopia plays a crucial role in fostering peace and stability across the volatile Horn of Africa, particularly in weakening al-Shabaab in Somalia and helping mitigate conflict between Sudan and South Sudan. While the country boasts one of the fastest growing economies in the world, our evolving commercial and business relationship is limited due to restrictions on foreign investment, investment climate challenges, and the Ethiopian Government’s strict control of the economy. In advancing our policy objectives in Ethiopia, we focus simultaneously on improving cooperation in security and counterterrorism, strengthening economic growth and development, and pushing for greater respect for human rights, stronger governance, and democratic principles.

We appreciate Ethiopia’s influential role in ensuring regional peace and security, and we will continue to work closely with Ethiopia to coordinate cooperation in Somalia, in the Sudans, and throughout the region.

We are also committed to expanding our bilateral trade and investment relationship, as a key driver for broad-based economic growth. To that end, we will encourage Ethiopia to work toward greater market liberalization, including progress towards World Trade Organization accession. Recent successes on the economic front include a May 13-15 trade mission sponsored by the State of Illinois and a November 2012 agricultural investment conference sponsored by the Corporate Council on Africa. We are working closely with a major U.S. company to secure multimillion dollar deals in support of several key infrastructure development projects, and American companies have signed letters of intent and committed to investments in support of Ethiopia’s country Cooperation Framework under the G8 New Alliance.

On democracy and human rights, we recently secured agreements to do media development training and open two community radio stations. Mechanisms such as our bilateral Democracy, Governance, and Human Rights Working Group, bilateral Economic Growth and Development Working Group, and Bilateral Defense Committee are useful tools for advancing our policy objectives in our three focus pillars. At the same time, we are public in our support for an improved environment for civil society, those we believe to have been subjected to politically motivated arrests, inclusive democratic processes, and rule-of-law. Making progress on this area will continue to be challenging and will require a great deal of creativity.

Thank you very much. I will be pleased to take your questions.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL'S TESTIMONY ON U.S.-VIETNAM BILATERAL RELATIONS

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Relations
Testimony
Daniel Baer
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
As-prepared statement to House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
Washington, DC
June 5, 2013
　

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing. We appreciate your concern about the human rights situation in Vietnam, and are pressing the government for needed reforms.

The Department of State recently submitted to Congress both the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and the Report on International Religious Freedom. These two reports prepared by my bureau with collaboration from colleagues at posts around the world, provide a detailed snapshot of the facts underlying our concerns relating to human rights in Vietnam. I commend them to you.

In April I led a delegation to Vietnam that included representatives from the White House and the Department of Homeland Security for the U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue. We emphasized that 2013 represents an opportunity for the government of Vietnam to choose to improve its human rights record, and laid out some of the urgent areas for work.

We acknowledged positive steps such as the release (albeit with restrictions) of activist Le Cong Dinh, facilitation of a visit by an international human rights organization, and a modest uptick in church registrations in the Highlands. We welcomed discussions between the government and the Vatican, and also what appears to be potential positive movement for the human rights of LGBT persons. We are watching with great interest the flood of public comments about the draft Constitution and are encouraged by the government’s decision to extend the comment period. It is now incumbent upon authorities to give those comments serious review and to incorporate citizens’ concerns into the revised text of the Constitution.

But these steps are not enough to reverse a years-long trend of deterioration. Nor have the isolated positive steps formed a consistent pattern. In increasing numbers, bloggers continue to be harassed and jailed for peaceful online speech and activists live under a continual cloud – activists such as Nguyen Van Dai and Pham Hong Son, whom authorities blocked from meeting with me in Hanoi.

The human rights situation reflects a systemic lack of fairness that has implications for every aspect of the relationship. Let me outline a few of our concerns.

Many of Vietnam’s more than 120 political prisoners are in jail for exercising their right to freedom of expression. Cu Huy Ha Vu, whose wife I met with in Hanoi, criticized publicly the corruption associated with bauxite mining and was sentenced to seven years in prison. Ta Phong Tan is in prison for writing online about police corruption. Nguyen Van Hai, or Dieu Cay, peacefully expressed his views online and protested his country’s policy towards China and is now serving a 12-year sentence. The state has deemed these individuals a threat, a national security concern – a charge clearly unfounded when you sit down and have a conversation with individuals such as Father Ly, whom I was able to meet in prison. Do Thi Minh Hanh, Doan Huy Chuong, and Nguyen Hoang Quoc Hung were arrested in February 2010 for distributing pamphlets calling for democratic freedoms. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention advised their release.

Development of a modern, successful, and fair country requires the free flow of information—the exchange of ideas and innovation. Yet Vietnam seeks to control information, even as that control is increasingly slipping. We are very concerned about Vietnam’s Internet policies of blocking, hacking, surveillance, and its detention of bloggers. Draft regulations on Internet content management, seek to restrict the flow of information further.

Nonetheless, Vietnam’s Internet penetration continues to grow, and the country has seen a blossoming of blogs that continue to attract the interest of large numbers of reform-minded Vietnamese – including Dan Luan and Thong Tan Xa Vanh Anh. Other reform-minded websites, such as Anh Ba Sam have been targeted with hacking and disabling.

A frequent refrain I hear whenever I visit Vietnam is the need for better implementation of laws that are on the books. Constitutionally, citizens have the right to free speech, freedom of religious belief, and other human rights. But we all know, for example, that many members of Christian, Buddhist, and other groups face harassment and are required to, but then not allowed to register. The new Decree 92, which came into effect in January could be implemented in a manner that further restricts, rather than promotes, religious freedom guaranteed in the constitution.

Vietnamese laws guarantee access to a lawyer and guarantee defense lawyers’ equal standing with the prosecutor. Reality, though, plays out differently. I have heard repeatedly from the lawyers of political prisoners who are not permitted access to case files, who are given unequal accommodations in courtrooms, are not allowed to use computers, and are not allowed time to defend their clients.

And some laws clearly need to change—laws that run counter to international human rights norms such as Articles 79 and 88, which are used to detain political activists critical of the state.

In closing, I’d note that over the 18-plus years since normalization, ties between Vietnam and the United States have improved – through trade, travel, and cultural connections. Those on both sides of the ocean have benefitted, but in particular, Vietnamese living in Vietnam, where the standard of living has increased as the population becomes better off and more educated. As we talk about human rights, we should all remember that our concerns are really echoes of the concerns being voiced and discussed by millions of people inside Vietnam. They get it. They know the status quo won’t do. They see that although Vietnam has become a more prosperous country, without progress on human rights, there are limits to what Vietnam can achieve.

We want to reinforce them, and we want to work closely with Members of the Committee to push Vietnam to improve its protection of human rights.

Again, thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward to working with you, and am happy to take your questions.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY COMMENTS ON LGBT PRIDE MONTH

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

LGBT Pride Month

Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
June 4, 2013
　

The Department of State joins people around the world in celebrating Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month. Forty-four years after Stonewall, we see incredible progress in the fight to advance the human rights and fundamental freedoms of LGBT people, both here in the United States and globally. Protecting universal human rights is at the very heart of our diplomacy, and we remain committed to advancing human rights for all, including LGBT individuals.

Unfortunately, recent events underscore that we can’t be content with the progress we’ve made. We still have a long way to go. All over the world, people continue to be killed, arrested, and harassed simply because of who they are, or who they love. There are LGBT people of all ages, all races and all faiths, citizens of every country on Earth. In too many places, LGBT people and their supporters are still attacked if they just attempt to stand up for their rights and participate in peaceful rallies or marches, or simply for being who they are.

The United States condemns this violence and harassment. LGBT persons must be free to exercise their human rights—including freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly and association—without fear of reprisal. Human rights and fundamental freedoms belong to all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The United States will continue to stand up for the human rights of all people, during this month and every month throughout the year, and we are proud to do so.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT MESSAGE ON THE 24TH ANNIVERSARY OF TIANANMEN SQUARE

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Message on the Twenty-Fourth Anniversary of Tiananmen Square
Press Statement
Jen Psaki
Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
May 31, 2013
　

The 24th anniversary of the violent suppression of demonstrations in Tiananmen Square on June 4 prompts the United States to remember this tragic loss of innocent lives.

We renew our call for the Chinese Government to end harassment of those who participated in the protests and fully account for those killed, detained, or missing.

We renew our call for China to protect the universal human rights of all its citizens; release those who have been wrongfully detained, prosecuted, incarcerated, forcibly disappeared, or placed under house arrest; and end the ongoing harassment of human rights activists and their families.

U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAN OUTLINE GIVEN TO SENATE COMMITTEE

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
U.S. Policy Toward Iran
Testimony
Wendy Sherman
Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Written Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC
May 15, 2013

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, distinguished Members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the Administration’s approach to the multiple challenges posed by Iran – by its nuclear ambitions, its support for international terrorism and destabilizing activities in the region, and its human rights abuses at home. I want to use this opportunity to speak clearly about these challenges; to lay out the multi-vectored strategy we are pursuing to counter them; and to be clear about the consequential choices ahead for America and our allies, but especially for Iran, its rulers, and its people.

The Nuclear Challenge

Iran’s nuclear activity – in violation of its international obligations and in defiance of the international community – is one of the greatest global concerns we face. A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to the region, to the world, and to the future of the global nuclear proliferation regime. It would risk an arms race in a region already rife with violence and conflict. A nuclear weapon would embolden a regime that already spreads instability through its proxies and threatens chokepoints in the global economy. It would put the world’s most dangerous weapons into the hands of leaders who speak openly about wiping one of our closest allies, the state of Israel, off the map. In confronting this challenge, our policy has been clear: we are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Our preference is to resolve this through diplomacy. However, as President Obama has stated unequivocally, we will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, and there should be no doubt that the United States will use all elements of American power to achieve that objective.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has asked why it is that the international community does not believe that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. The answer is simple: Iran has consistently concealed its nuclear activities and continues to do so, denying required access and information to the International Atomic Energy Agency. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has responsibilities to the international community, and it is that blatant disregard for those responsibilities that has made Iran the subject of four UN Security Council resolutions imposing mandatory sanctions.

From his very first months in office, President Obama put forward a clear choice to the Iranian government: Meet your international responsibilities on your nuclear program and reap the benefits of being a full member of the international community, or face the prospect of further pressure and isolation. Unfortunately Iran has so far chosen isolation. There is still time for it to change course, but that time is not indefinite. I want to be clear that our policy is not aimed at regime change, but rather at changing the regime’s behavior.

The Dual-Track Policy

Since this Administration took office in 2009, we have pursued a dual-track policy. Working with the P5+1 – the five members of the UN Security Council – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, plus Germany, under the auspices of the European Union – we have actively pursued a diplomatic solution to international concerns over Iran’s nuclear program. As a result of Iran’s continuing disregard for its international obligations, we have ratcheted up the pressure on the Iranian government. We have built and led a global coalition to create the toughest, most comprehensive sanctions to date on the Iranian regime. The international community is united in its determination to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.

Today, Iran is isolated and sanctions are having a real impact on the ground, exacerbated by the regime’s own mismanagement of its economy. Iran exports over 1 million fewer barrels of crude oil each day than it did in 2011, costing Iran between $3-$5 billion per month. All 20 importers of Iranian oil have either significantly reduced or eliminated oil purchases from Iran. Financial sanctions have crippled Iran’s access to the international financial system and fueled the depreciation of the value of Iran’s currency to less than half of what it was last year. Foreign direct investment into Iran has decreased dramatically as major oil companies and international firms as diverse as Ernst & Young, Daimler AG, Caterpillar, ENI, Total, and hundreds more have divested themselves from Iran. The International Monetary Fund projects the Iranian economy will contract in 2013, a significant decrease from the over 7 percent growth six years ago, and far below the performance of neighboring oil-exporting countries. Put simply, the Iranian economy is in a downward spiral, with no prospect for near-term relief.

And we continue to increase the pressure. Iranian oil exports will continue to decline as we implement the law through our engagement with the last remaining six importers of Iranian oil. Iran’s currency will remain volatile as we block Iran’s revenue streams and block its access to funds held abroad. And we will continue to track, identify, and designate individuals and entities assisting Iran’s proliferation efforts and attempting to evade sanctions on Iran. Last week, the State Department sanctioned four Iranian companies and one individual for providing the Iranian government with goods, technology, and services that increase Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, which is prohibited by UN Security Council resolutions. On March 14, the State and Treasury Departments imposed sanctions on Dr. Dimitris Cambis and his company Impire Shipping for operating vessels on behalf of the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) that disguised the Iranian origin of the crude oil. On July 1, the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 takes full effect, targeting an array of sectors and industries in Iran. Looking forward, as long as Iran continues on its current unproductive path, the Administration will continue to assess and implement potential additional sanctions on sectors and industries that can serve as pressure points. We look forward to continued strong collaboration with members of Congress to develop smart sanctions and increase pressure on the regime, while maintaining the strong coalition we have built through sustained diplomatic efforts with partners.

In fact, one of the keys to our successful ratcheting up of the pressure on Iran is that we are not doing so alone. The European Union has enacted its own stringent sanctions regime, including an oil import ban that resulted in all 27 EU member states ceasing oil purchases from Iran. Australia, Canada, South Korea, Japan, and others have enacted their own sets of domestic measures, strengthening the international sanctions regime and sending a clear message to Iran: adhere to your international obligations, or face increasing pressure from the international community. And, even among partners who are frankly skeptical of sanctions, we have seen robust implementation of UN Security Council resolutions and cooperation on specific sanctions issues. We continue to coordinate closely with all of our international partners, ensuring stringent implementation of existing sanctions and encouraging strong domestic measures on Iran. As we move forward, it will be critical that we continue to move together and not take steps that undo the progress made so far. Doing such would signal divisions to Iran that it could and likely would exploit.

Even as we significantly increase pressure on the Iranian regime, we remain committed to ensuring that legitimate, humanitarian trade can continue for the benefit of the Iranian people. We take no pleasure in any hardship our sanctions might cause the Iranian people in their everyday lives, and it is U.S. policy to not target Iranian imports of humanitarian items. We have worked hard to ensure U.S. regulations contain an explicit exception from sanctions for transactions for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to Iran as long as the transactions do not involve a designated entity or otherwise proscribed conduct. And when natural disasters have struck Iran, we have been ready to assist. Following a tragic earthquake in northwest Iran in August 2012, the Administration issued a general license to facilitate U.S. support to the Iranian people as they responded to and rebuilt from the natural disaster. In all our efforts on Iran, we have demonstrated that supporting the Iranian people and pressuring the policies of their government are not mutually exclusive.

As we have built unprecedented pressure on the Iranian regime, we have also intensified our efforts towards pursuing a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue. Since his first days in office, the President has emphasized our readiness, working with members of the P5+1 to seek a negotiated resolution regarding Iran’s nuclear program. The P5+1 has been incredibly unified, and we have worked closely and well with the Russians and Chinese. On February 26, 2013, the P5+1 met with Iranian representatives in Almaty, where the P5+1 jointly presented Iran with an updated, balanced proposal that offered Iran a real opportunity to take steps toward reducing tensions and creating the time and space to negotiate a comprehensive solution to the nuclear issue. As in prior talks, Iran was presented with a strong and united message: address the international’s community’s concerns or face mounting pressure. Interestingly, Iran’s initial public response was positive and they signaled a potential turning point.

Yet, when on April 5, 2013, the P5+1 returned to Almaty to hear Iran’s formal response to our proposal, the Iranians once again fell short. While the P5+1 had a substantive exchange of views with Iran during the talks, in the end, Iran’s counterproposal to the P5+1 initiative was very disappointing. According to this counterproposal Iran would place little or no constraint on its current nuclear activities, while demanding that major sanctions be removed immediately. Given the significant gulf between the two sides, the P5+1 members did not believe scheduling another round was warranted at that time, and instead agreed to return to capitals to discuss the latest developments with their respective governments. They agreed that EU High Representative Catherine Ashton would then follow up with Iran on next steps, and indeed Ashton and Iran’s Chief Nuclear Negotiator Saeed Jalili are scheduled to meet in Istanbul today, May 15.

We are looking for signs that Iran is prepared to move to address substantively all aspects of the proposal we discussed in Almaty. We are not interested in talks for talks’ sake, but we must give diplomacy every chance to succeed. And, while we leave the door open to diplomacy, we will continue to maintain unrelenting and increasing pressure.

We have approached these negotiations realistically, conscious of our difficult history. We continue to seek concrete results in our talks, not empty promises. The onus is on Iran.

Support for Terrorism

Beyond its illicit nuclear activity, we also have grave concerns about Iran’s destabilizing activities in the Middle East, particularly its support for Bashar Asad in Syria; its support for terrorist organizations like Hizballah; and its unacceptable attacks on innocent civilians worldwide. These activities are not going unchecked.

Iran is the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, which it uses as a strategic tool of its foreign policy. Led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-Qods Force and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), the "Iran Threat Network" comprises an alliance of surrogates, proxies, and partners such as Hizballah, HAMAS, and Iraqi Shi’a militants, among others. Iran funds, trains, and equips these terrorist organizations, in whole or in part, to use in attacks around the world. This clandestine threat network destabilizes countries throughout the Middle East and threatens regional security. Iran’s leaders have aimed most of their threats at one of our closest allies, blatantly declaring their desire to see the destruction of the state of Israel. We have a moral obligation to ensure that Iran never has the tools to make good on that threat.

Israel is not Iran’s only target, however. Iranian national Mansour Arbabsiar pled guilty last year to plotting with members of the Qods Force to murder the Saudi Arabian ambassador by bombing a crowded restaurant here in Washington, DC. The attempt to assassinate a foreign diplomat in our nation’s capital is an intolerable escalation of Iranian terrorist activity.

Iran has also sponsored and directed terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian and diplomatic targets worldwide. On February 13, 2012, a magnetic bomb was placed under the vehicle of an Israeli diplomat’s wife in New Delhi, India, seriously injuring her and three Indian nationals. The following day, a similar device was discovered under a vehicle belonging to the Israeli embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia, and safely defused. At the same time, Thai police arrested three Iranian nationals in Bangkok in connection with explosions at a private residence that subsequently revealed bomb-making materials and makeshift grenades intended for use in attacks against Israeli targets.

In June 2012, Kenyan authorities arrested two Iranian members of the Qods Force. Armed with 33 pounds of military-grade plastic explosives, they planned deadly attacks on Western and Israeli targets. On May 6, a Kenyan court sentenced them to life imprisonment for terrorism-related offenses.

Lebanese Hizballah continues to be a key partner and substantial part of Iran’s threat network. Iran provides hundreds of millions of dollars to Hizballah annually and has long been Hizballah’s primary trainer and arms supplier. Hizballah and the Iranian leadership share a worldview and strategic vision and are seeking to exploit the current unrest in the Middle East and North Africa to their advantage. We remain focused on Hizballah activity worldwide, and have devoted a great deal of diplomatic effort over the past several years to raising awareness of Hizballah activity with European partners, well before last summer’s attack in Bulgaria, in which six Israeli tourists were killed in a terrorist bombing, and arrest in Cyprus of a suspected Hizballah operative.

Thwarted attacks involving Iranians and Iranian proxies like Hizballah in Cyprus, Thailand, and Kenya – to name a few examples – show a clear willingness on the part of our international partners to target and prosecute Iranian terrorist activity. As evidenced by these disruption and prosecution efforts across Africa, East Asia, and Europe, we and our international partners have become increasingly effective at targeting Iranian support for terrorism.

Regional Meddling and Support for Asad

In Syria, Iran has made it clear that it fears losing its closest ally and will stop at no cost, borne by both the Syrian and Iranian people, to prop up the Asad regime. Today, Iran is training, arming, funding, aiding and abetting the Asad regime and its atrocious crackdown on its own people. It is coordinating its intervention in Syria with Hizballah, which is itself engaged in training pro-regime militants who attack Syrian civilians, and in direct fighting on behalf of the Asad regime against the Syrian people. Iran and Hizballah fighters are also directing the activities of Iraqi militia groups which have been enlisted to join in the Asad regime’s war against the Syrian people. Iran has shown that it is willing to potentially destabilize an entire region if it means keeping the Syrian regime as an ally. Countering such efforts remains a key priority for the Administration and we are focused on preventing Iran from continuing to support the Syrian regime financially, materially, and logistically. The Administration has used its authorities in several executive orders to highlight the role of Iran in the Syrian regime’s violation of human rights and hold accountable those responsible.

These facts further highlight Iran’s continued efforts to expand its nefarious interference in the region. In January, Yemeni authorities seized, in Yemeni territorial waters, a 40-ton Iranian shipment of weapons and explosives destined for Iranian-supported Huthi extremists. These activities interfere with Yemen’s ongoing political transition, and are destabilizing to the wider region. It is no surprise then that, according to a 2013 Zogby survey of 20 Arab and Muslim-majority countries, Iran is now viewed unfavorably in a majority of Arab countries and its appeal to mainstream Arab public opinion has virtually collapsed from its 2006 peak.

As Iran’s isolation grows, we are working through existing regional counter-terrorism partnerships to address the Iranian threat, and the interdiction in Yemen is a successful example of that cooperation. We are also deepening our military partnerships across the region. We consult regularly on security matters with our partners in the Persian Gulf and maintain a substantial presence in the region, to keep a watchful eye on Iran, counter potential Iranian aggression, reassure our allies, and protect the free flow of commerce through the Strait of Hormuz. We are also in close and constant contact with Israel to coordinate our policies and have taken unprecedented steps to protect Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge – including support for the Iron Dome defense system to stop Iranian-supported militant groups from firing Iranian-supplied rockets into Israeli communities.

Levinson, Abedini, and Hekmati Cases

Just as we are concerned about Iran’s destabilizing regional activities abroad, we remain concerned about Iran’s treatment of U.S. citizens detained and missing in Iran. The U.S. government is dedicated to the return of American citizen Robert Levinson and U.S.-Iranian dual nationals Saeed Abedini and Amir Hekmati. Mr. Levinson went missing from Kish Island, Iran, on March 9, 2007, and his whereabouts remain unknown. We continue to call on the Iranian government to make good on its promises to assist the U.S. government in finding Mr. Levinson so that he can be reunited with his family. Mr. Hekmati, a former U.S. Marine who served in Afghanistan, was detained in Iran since August 2011, and endured a closed-door trial with little regard for fairness or transparency. Mr. Abedini has been detained in Iran since September 2012 on charges related to his religious beliefs, and reportedly has suffered physical abuse by Iranian officials in prison. Despite our repeated requests, Iranian authorities have failed to provide them with adequate medical treatment or permit visits from our protecting power. We will continue to raise these cases directly and publicly as we also pursue all available options until all three of these Americans return home safely.

Human Rights

We are equally disturbed by the regime’s ongoing campaign of repression against its own people. Such oppression has included the harassment and intimidation of family members of those who speak out for freedoms, the torture of political prisoners, and the limitation of freedom of expression and access to information. These acts of aggression have created a culture of fear in which few dare to voice dissent or challenge regime officials. Students, lawyers, journalists, and bloggers, ethnic and religious minorities, artists and human rights activists are all targets for abuse, intimidation, or discrimination.

Labeled by press advocacy group Reporters Without Borders as an "enemy of the internet," Iran filters online content and blocks access to the internet to prevent Iranian people from acquiring knowledge and unbiased information about their own country and the outside world. We are committed to raise the cost of repression and help Iranians break through the "electronic curtain" the regime is erecting to communicate with one another and share their story with the world.

As Dr. Martin Luther King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," and this is true, too, as we advocate for the rights and freedoms of the Iranian people. We have helped raise awareness of regime abuses and held Iranian officials responsible for their actions. Working with the authorities you provided us, we have imposed sanctions – including asset freezes and visa bans – on 30 Iranian individuals and entities for engaging in serious human rights abuses or censorship activities that limit freedom of expression, including the IRGC, the MOIS, Iran’s Cyber Police, and the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting. And while we know that public discussion of these incidents does not always help the people taking risks on the ground, make no mistake: we have stood – and will continue to stand – fully and firmly behind the aspirations of the Iranian people.

We have lent our voice to those the regime has tried to silence, speaking out in defense of numerous political prisoners, such as noted human rights defender Nasrin Sotoudeh, Christian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, journalist Zhila Bani-Yaghoub, and Kurdish rights activist Seddigh Kaboudvand. We will continue to highlight such cases and coordinate our actions with our international partners, as we did in 2011 at the UN Human Rights Council to create the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran, whose exhaustive reports have detailed the extent of unspeakable abuses in Iran. Likewise, we will continue to support the annual Canadian-led resolution at the UN General Assembly to condemn Iran’s human rights practices, a measure which has passed for 10 consecutive years.

Outreach to the Iranian People

Coupled with our concerns about human rights are our concerns about the well-being of the Iranian people. Every day, we hear from the Iranian people directly through our public diplomacy programs and Farsi-language social media platforms. The Virtual Embassy Tehran, launched in December 2011, has over 2 million hits and our Farsi-language Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and YouTube channel have also been enormously successful. The 170 videos on our YouTube channel have more than 1 million views and our Facebook page has over 120,000 fans, 60 percent of whom are inside of Iran and who access our sites even though the Iranian regime blocks the site.

What we see through our interactions is that the Iranian people are being detrimentally affected by the misplaced priorities, corruption and mismanagement of their government. Instead of meeting the needs of its own people, the Iranian regime has chosen to spend enormous amounts of its money and resources to support the Asad regime as well as its militant proxies around the world, and to pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction. Instead of investing in its people, Iran continues to restrain their vast potential through censorship, oppression, and severe limitations on their social, political and even academic freedoms.

As the President and the Secretary have said, in the United States our own communities have been enhanced by the contributions of Iranian Americans. We know that the Iranian people come from a great civilization whose accomplishments have earned the respect of the world. That is why in his 2013 Nowruz message, the President emphasized that there is no good reason for Iranians to be denied the opportunities enjoyed by people in other countries.

Iranians deserve the same freedoms and rights as people everywhere and all nations would benefit from the talents and creativity of the Iranian people, especially its youth. It is a shame that much of the world realizes this and the Iranian government has yet to do so.

Presidential Elections

Let me conclude by addressing a topic we are watching closely: Iran’s June 14 presidential election. Following the last election in 2009, when the regime violently quashed the hopes and dreams of ordinary Iranians who went into the street to demand their fundamental rights, we have seen a deliberate and unrelenting level of repression in the lead-up to these elections.

As we speak, behind closed doors, Iran’s unelected and unaccountable Guardian Council is vetting Iranian presidential contenders, using vague criteria to eliminate potential candidates. Without a transparent process, it is difficult for us to say whether Iran’s elections will be free, fair, or represent the will of the Iranian people.

We take no sides in Iran’s presidential election. The decision about who leads Iran is for the Iranian people, who should have every opportunity to express freely and openly their opinions, ideas, and hopes for the future of their country. But we do call on the Iranian authorities to conduct a free and fair election that not only conforms to international standards of transparency and accountability but is just and represents the will of the Iranian people.

Conclusion

In sum, Iranians deserve better. Their government has chosen to isolate them, stunt their economic growth, repress their ability to speak freely, and connect the people of Iran with the most heinous acts of terrorism and regional adventurism. Iran’s government can choose to end these policies at any time and put their people’s well being first.

As the President said, we have no illusions about the difficulty of overcoming decades of mistrust. It will take a serious and sustained effort to resolve the many differences between Iran and the United States. We do not expect to always agree, but rather for Iran to be an honest and responsible member of the international community, a community where members honor their commitments and keep their word or pay the price.

We share Congress’ concern about Iran and want to continue our hand in hand efforts to ensure that Iran does not continue on a path that threatens the peace and stability of the region and tramples the freedoms of its citizens. We welcome your ideas on how we can sustain and expand our efforts.

Thank you.

U.S. DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS MAKES REMARKS AT SOUTH SUDAN ECONOMIC PARTNERS FORUM

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Opening Remarks at the South Sudan Economic Partners Forum
Remarks
William J. Burns
Deputy Secretary
Washington, DC
April 16, 2013

Good Morning. On behalf of Secretary Kerry – a long-time friend of the people of South Sudan and a strong advocate for U.S. leadership in international development – it is my great pleasure to welcome all of you to the Department of State and to this Forum.

I am especially pleased to welcome distinguished Ministers from the Government of the Republic of South Sudan. I had the honor of meeting with the delegation yesterday. We had a very productive conversation about the challenges and opportunities facing South Sudan and the partnership we are building with one another and that South Sudan is building with the international community.

We gather here today at a critical crossroad for South Sudan. Behind us are dark and trying times: four decades of civil war, religious and racial persecution, untold destruction and loss of life.

Our destination is clear -- enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan as "a united, peaceful and prosperous society based on justice, equality, respect for human rights and the rule of law."

The question is how to get there. No single path guarantees success. And there are no shortcuts around the enormous obstacles standing in our way -- endemic deficits in health, education, agriculture, infrastructure, and governance -- and of course, continued tensions with the Government of Sudan.

But just as the people of South Sudan found their way out of war to independence, they can surely navigate the perilous path from fragility to stability, and from poverty to prosperity. And just as friends of South Sudan have been there to provide relief and humanitarian aid in times of conflict, and diplomatic support during peace negotiations and the transition to independence, we will remain unwavering partners to South Sudan as it works to reap the dividends of peace.

We are encouraged by recent progress in implementing the September 27, 2012 agreements between South Sudan and Sudan, including the resumption of oil production and the expected reopening of the border for trade. These steps will provide a vital boost to the communities on both sides of the border and the governments of both countries.

Yet even with these hopeful signs, this young state will face significant adversity in the next phase of its development. And this is why an updated framework of cooperation between South Sudan and its international partners is indispensable.

We welcome the Government of South Sudan’s proposal to use the New Deal for Engagement with Fragile States as the foundation of a reinvigorated partnership.

The New Deal builds on decades of lessons learned about how best to address what matters most to those affected by conflict and fragility around the world. It provides clear goals to strengthen state-society relations. It puts South Sudan in the lead in its own development. And it outlines a set of benchmarks and mutual commitments – more robust economic and political reforms by South Sudan, and more transparent, timely, and targeted international assistance that not only works through host country systems but strengthens them.

The concept of mutual responsibility is vitally important.

For international partners this means not just living up to the principles of the New Deal but also providing the funding required to achieve sustainable results. There are a number of mechanisms through which funding can be channeled, including a Partnership Fund that will be discussed later today and developed over the coming months.

I know many of us are going through tough fiscal and budgetary environments – our own government released a budget last week that made painful cuts across the board, including in the foreign assistance budget. But we have come too far, invested too much, and worked too hard to walk away from the people of South Sudan at this crucial moment.

For the Government of South Sudan, a new compact with international partners will not suffice in and of itself. It is also time for a renewed compact with the people of South Sudan that delivers on the promises of a responsive government, an inclusive democracy, human rights and the rule of law. As we detail our partnership agenda, I urge that we not lose sight of these critical signposts.

The independence of South Sudan twenty-one months ago was a historic and momentous occasion. But we all know it is just the beginning of a long journey to realize the hopes and aspirations of the people of South Sudan.

I am confident that if we each deliver on our respective parts of this bargain we will see this young nation join the ranks of Africa’s rising democratic powers. And that will give great hope to all those who still yearn for the opportunity to write their own future.

Thank you.

U.S. HONORS REVEREND UESIFILI UNASA

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

U.S. Department of State Honors Reverend Uesifili Unasa of New Zealand as the International Exchange Alumni Member of the Month
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 29, 2013
　

The U.S. Department of State has selected Reverend Uesifili Unasa of New Zealand as April’s International Exchange Alumni Member of the Month. Throughout April, Rev. Unasa will be recognized on the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’ International Exchange Alumni website for his dedication to New Zealand’s Pasifika and other marginalized communities. Each month, the Bureau’s Alumni Affairs Division, which supports alumni as they build on their exchange experiences, confers this award on an outstanding alumnus or alumna.

Rev. Unasa visited Washington, D.C. as a participant in the 2011 Community Activism and Minority Rights International Visitor Leadership Program IVLP) and stood at the Lincoln Memorial where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous 1963 ‘I Have a Dream’ speech. Inspired by Dr. King’s example, Rev. Unasa returned to New Zealand to support New Zealand’s marginalized communities. He mobilized New Zealand’s various Pacific Island - or Pasifika - communities to take part in "The Advance Pasifika March for Our Future" making their social, economic, political, and cultural concerns known.

As Chairperson of the Auckland Mayor’s Pacific People’s Advisory Panel, he organized a dialogue with Pasifika church leaders, politicians, community groups, and members of New Zealand’s LGBT communities to share their perspectives on gay marriage. He is also active in the Living Wage campaign which seeks fair wages for unskilled and manual laborers. He organized consultations between Pasifika communities and the government on New Zealad’s ongoing constitutional review. Working with a Maori Anglican vicar, a Fijian Indian Muslim academic, and New Zealand’s Children’s Commissioner, Rev. Unasa drafted and launched the "Interfaith National Settlement against Violence" campaign for women and children, which was signed by more than 40 faith-based organizations and national leaders.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY MICHAEL POSNER SPEAKS BEFORE TOM LANTOS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

FROM: U.S. STATE DELPARTMENT
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.

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.