[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HUMAN RIGHTS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA: A REGIONAL OUTLOOK
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND NONPROLIFERATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 25, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-58
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
docs.house.gov,
or http://www.Govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-180 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York Member
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida JOE WILSON, South Carolina
KAREN BASS, California SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts TED S. YOHO, Florida
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
AMI BERA, California LEE ZELDIN, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
DINA TITUS, Nevada ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York BRIAN MAST, Florida
TED LIEU, California FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota JOHN CURTIS, Utah
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota KEN BUCK, Colorado
COLIN ALLRED, Texas RON WRIGHT, Texas
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania GREG PENCE, Indiana
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
DAVID TRONE, Maryland MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
JIM COSTA, California
JUAN VARGAS, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
Jason Steinbaum, Staff Director
Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and NonProliferation
BRAD SHERMAN, Chairman, California
DINA TITUS, Nevada TED YOHO, Florida, Ranking Member
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
GERALD CONNOLLY, Virginia ANN WAGNER, Missouri
AMI BERA, California BRIAN MAST, Florida
ANDY LEVIN. Michigan JOHN CURTIS, Utah
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia
Don MacDonald, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Nguyen, Helen, Wife of Michael Nguyen............................ 7
Bencosme, Francisco, Asia Pacific Advocacy Manager, Amnesty
International.................................................. 22
Huang, Cindy, Vice President of Strategic Outreach, Refugees
International.................................................. 33
Enos, Olivia, Senior Policy Analyst, Asian Studies Center,
Heritage Foundation............................................ 42
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 83
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 84
Hearing Attendance............................................... 85
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted for the record from
Representative Sherman......................................... 86
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Statement submitted for the record from Representative Lowenthal. 89
HUMAN RIGHTS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA: A REGIONAL OUTLOOK
Thursday, July 25, 2019
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and
Nonproliferation
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Washington, DC
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad Sherman
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Sherman. The notes say the subcommittee will come to
order, but it is already in order. Members present will be
permitted to submit written statements to be included in the
official hearing record. Without objection, the hearing record
will remain open for five calendar days to allow statements,
questions, extraneous material for the record to be subject to
the length limitation in the committee rules.
We will be joined at various points by Members of Congress
who are not members of the full committee or the subcommittee,
but have a deep interest in the issues before us. I will
recognize the ranking member for his 5-minute opening
statement, after which I will give mine, and then we will hear
from the witnesses.
Mr. Yoho. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to do
this and I appreciate you having this important hearing on
Human Rights in Southeast Asia: a Regional Outlook.
Good morning, and I would like to thank Chairman Sherman
for holding this--I should have started with my notes. I would
also like to thank our esteemed witnesses for being here this
morning, including Olivia Enos from the Heritage Foundation,
Francisco Bencosme from Amnesty International, Dr. Cindy Huang
from Refugees International, and somebody I have grown to know
over the course of the last year, Ms. Helen Nguyen, wife of
Michael Nguyen.
I would like to especially welcome Mrs. Nguyen whose story
I have followed for about a year. Her husband Michael has been
imprisoned in Vietnam since July 2018, and was recently
sentenced to 20 years in prison for activity against the
people's government. Ms. Nguyen has been working tirelessly
with members of this Congress and the past Congress, the
administration, the consulate in Vietnam to ensure that there
is justice for her husband.
And we look forward to continue this work on this important
matter and this unfortunate incident to return Michael to his
family, to his wife, and to his four children. My thoughts are
with you and the family and we are going to continue to work
with the Vietnamese Government.
As we continue to witness decaying human rights in the
region especially in countries like Burma, Cambodia, Thailand,
some in Vietnam, and the Philippines, it is important that the
United States and our allies stand up for the rights and
freedoms of the people of this region. The world is dividing
like we have never seen before. There has been a stability
since World War II, if you can believe that with as much
conflict that is going on, but the democracy that has led
freedom, democracy, individual rights has been unprecedented in
the world, but it is being challenged today.
Hun Sen, Cambodia's strongman Prime Minister has clung to
power for decades and has no intentions of relinquishing power.
His regime has used violence, threats, and sham prosecutions to
attack the peaceful opposition. Hun Sen's relentless
consolidation of power means that his abuses, which also
include attacks against NGO's and the shuttering of critical
media outlets, will only continue left unchallenged.
Just last week, the Cambodia Democracy Act, which we are
the sponsors of which I introduced, passed the House with wide
bipartisan support. It is working its way through the Senate.
We look forward to being signed into legislation this year.
This legislation directs the President to impose sanctions on
high-level government officials who are responsible for
undermining democracies in Cambodia, including acts that are
considered serious human rights violations.
I look forward to seeing this bill move through the Senate
and eventually become law, and I truly believe that will happen
this Congress, allowing the U.S. to finally hold Hun Sen and
his despicable regime accountable.
Similar abuses have occurred in Burma where an estimated
one million Rohingya, a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority,
have fled to neighboring Bangladesh to escape attacks from the
Burmese military. For decades, there has been allegations of
human rights violation in Burma, including murder of civilians,
torture, forced labor, and the enlistment of children soldiers,
which the International Criminal Court and the U.S. State
Department have recently begun investigation into.
Burma has also been classified as a tier 3 country in the
State Department 2019 Trafficking in Human Persons Report. That
is slavery, people. That is modern-day slavery and they are
tier 3, which is the lowest of the low that you can go. And to
be clear, this is, the lowest tier can be a sign. The human
rights situation is poor and will continue to worsen unless
measures are taken to protect the rights of the Burmese people
and mitigate the devastating violence that has ravaged this
country.
Whether it be Vietnam's recently enacted crypto-security
law that oppresses criticism and opposition of the government--
I think we can thank the Chinese for that--extrajudicial
killings in the Philippines, or rampant human trafficking in
Thailand and elsewhere, these abuses are serious and continue
to threaten the peace and stability of the entire region.
I look forward to hearing our witnesses today as we explore
the severity and continuation of human rights abuses in
Southeast Asia and discuss ways in which the U.S. and our
allies can stand up for the rights and freedoms of the people
not just of Southeast Asia, but where this is happening around
the world. I look forward to this meeting and, Mr. Chairman, I
thank you again for holding this.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Yoho. I will be recognizing
other members who wish to give an opening statement for either
one or 2 minutes, at their request. I now recognize myself for
5 minutes.
In recent years, the United States has really ramped up our
economic and security arrangements with the countries of
Southeast Asia, but we must also ramp up our engagement on
human rights. We played, speaking first of Burma/Myanmar, we
played, I think, an important role in the return to some form
of democracy and the return of Aung San Suu Kyi to high post in
Burma where she, in effect, is the civilian president.
The response though, unfortunately, has been disappointing
from even the civilian government in Myanmar/Burma in reaction
to the Burmese military, 2 years ago, launching what is called
a military operation, one could call it an ethnic cleansing
operation, against the Rohingya in Rakhine State.
I want to commend Bangladesh for hosting up to a million
refugees. America has stepped forward and provided more
assistance to those refugees than any other outside country,
but the maintenance of those refugees in Bangladesh permanently
is not a solution for Bangladesh. It is not a solution
acceptable to the American taxpayer and it is certainly not
acceptable to the Rohingya.
The United States sometimes by jihadist enemies is branded
as anti-Muslim. Keep in mind, Muslims have been subject to
ethnic cleansing and genocide in Bosnia, America responded;
Kosovo, America responded; and now the Rohingya, where America
is at least doing far more than the Islamic Conference. The
Rohingya need to return to their homeland soon. The Burmese
Government needs to provide them with dignity, safety, and
citizenship documents.
We are told, ``Oh, it is just the military. The civilian
government cannot control them.'' The military is not in
Bangladesh, so the foreign ministry, a part of the civilian
government, could be there issuing 700-800,000, a million,
citizenship documents--whether they be passports or whether
they be other documents--so people could have that as tangible
proof that when they get back they will be recognized as
citizens of Burma/Myanmar. I am a co-sponsor of the BURMA Act
which would impose sanctions on those responsible for the
atrocities against the Rohingya.
Last week, the State Department announced travel
restrictions on four Burmese military officials. We need to do
far more. In the past, Congress and the executive branch has
placed significant restrictions on Burma, but these have been
lapsed. Keep in mind, so many of the human rights community met
so often with Aung San Suu Kyi. She asked us or at least was
positive about a whole panel of economic sanctions. These
sanctions, she said they would work. They worked. She said they
would have an effect on the policy in Burma/Myanmar. They did.
Now how can she tell us not to reinstitute those same economic
policies that changed the Government of Burma/Myanmar for her
benefit?
I have been a little bit--and I want to apologize to my
colleagues--I am going to go a little long here. I have raised
the specter of changing the border between Bangladesh and
Myanmar, because if Burma cannot make people safe they should
not govern the territory. That was, I know, an extremely
unlikely and hopefully unnecessary change.
Bangladesh's Prime Minister, of course, has said they do
not want to change the border. But keep in mind, Burma/Myanmar,
only once in this century has an international border been
changed and that was because of the genocide that was being
committed by Sudan.
As to the Philippines, we have designated a major non-NATO
ally, we provide $150 million of foreign aid annually. But the
human rights situation there is appalling. Thousands of
persons--we were told it is OK because they are branded as drug
offenders' they in some cases may be and in many cases are
not--have been killed extrajudicially by authorities at pretty
much the urging of President Duterte. The Philippine Government
has yet to hold anyone accountable for these extrajudicial
killings or at least announce a policy that they are opposed to
them.
The Philippines must also uphold the rights of indigenous
persons. I am pleased--I believe we have Beverly Longid in the
audience. Thank you for being here in the room today. Beverly
has done so much good work and participated in recent United
Nations meetings on the issue of indigenous persons.
Turning to Vietnam, we have with us Helen Nguyen. Thank you
for coming to testify. Ms. Nguyen is a surgery room nurse for
highly specialized surgeries in the southern part of the
megalopolis I represent in the Orange County area. Her husband
Michael has lived in the United States for decades. He is an
exemplary citizen, a business owner, and a committed family
man.
In July 2018, Michael traveled to Vietnam to visit elderly
family members. He had regularly visited Vietnam, but on this
trip he was detained, imprisoned, and sentenced on dubious
charges to a 12-year term. My colleagues, including Ms. Nguyen
and Michael Nguyen's Congress member Katie Porter, have
repeatedly raised this issue and will continue to do so until
Michael returns home.
We are on the precipice of perhaps improved relations with
Vietnam. American companies are looking for places to do
business other than China. We are the natural geopolitical
alternative to China in that region of the world. Vietnam
should care about its image in the United States. Vietnam is
posed to benefit from closer ties to the United States. Human
rights is important to America, and it is time to bring Michael
Nguyen home.
Now, our witnesses will speak to these issues after we hear
from any member who wishes to give a short opening statement.
That being the case, I want to recognize Katie Porter from
California to introduce our first witness, so then I will
introduce the rest.
Ms. Porter. Chairman Sherman, thank you for holding this
important hearing and for providing the opportunity for my
constituent Helen Nguyen to share her family's story. Helen's
husband Michael Nguyen has been detained in Vietnam for over a
year for allegedly acting against the government. Michael's
absence has devastated his family. His wife, Helen, and their
four young daughters who are now struggling each day without
him, constantly agonizing over when or if they will see him
again.
For the past year, Helen has been a single mom. Michael
largely took care of the kids before he was detained. And as a
single mom of four kids myself, I know and can see exactly how
strong Helen is. I also know how hard this is for her and that
the human harms that Michael's continued detention are creating
for Helen and for their four beautiful daughters. Helen is
working sixty to eighty hours a week now as a surgical nurse
and another 180 hours on call every 2 weeks just to be able to
make ends meet while she is juggling child care and
transportation for her kids.
She has shared with me the personal stories of how her kids
are really struggling with the loss of their dad, with being
unable to communicate and talk with him, and the challenges
that they are facing that no child should have to feel. Michael
was a devoted father and husband and a member of our Orange
County community.
And I want a better relationship with Vietnam, but stories
like the one that Helen is going to share with you all today
are a real impediment to moving that relationship forward.
Helen, you have my word that I will continue to advocate
for Michael's rapid return to the United States and to
reunification with your family. Michael is my constituent.
Michael is an American citizen and I will be tireless on his
behalf and on the behalf of your family. I look forward to
hearing your story.
Mr. Sherman. I will now introduce the other three witnesses
and then we will hear from Ms. Nguyen and the other witnesses.
Francisco Bencosme is the Asia Pacific Advocacy Manager at
Amnesty International. He previously served as professional
staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the
second most prestigious committee in the Congress dedicated to
Foreign Affairs. Francisco will focus on human rights in the
Philippines, but, given his background, is available to answer
questions on all of the Southeast Asia countries that we are
focused on.
Cindy Huang is Vice President of Strategic Outreach at
Refugees international. She previously held senior positions at
the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the State Department's
Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. She holds a
Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of California
Berkeley. And last week, Cindy was in Bangladesh and she will
provide us with important information about the Rohingya
situation but is also qualified to deal with the other
countries that we are that we are focused on here.
Finally, Olivia Enos is a Senior Policy Analyst with the
Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation. She focuses on
human rights and national security challenges in Asia and she
will deal with all of the issues that we face in this hearing.
So with that I look forward to hearing from all of the
witnesses, but I especially would like to hear Helen's story.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HELEN NGUYEN, WIFE OF MICHAEL NGUYEN
Ms. Nguyen. My name is Helen Nguyen. I am a U.S. citizen
and I have been residing in Orange County, California for over
37 years. For 19 years I have been working at the University of
California Medical Center and Kaiser Hospital as a floor nurse
and as a surgical registered nurse. Michael Phuong Nguyen and I
have been married since 2002 and we have four daughters
together.
I have served medical missions in Mexico and local Orange
County since 2004. In 2016, I started to serve surgical
missionary in Vietnam helping misfortunate children with a
cleft lip and cleft palate. I also play an active role in my
community and churches. Over a year, I say goodbye to my
husband and I wish him a great vacation in Hong Kong and
Vietnam. I expect to greet him on his flight home 3 weeks
later, but I did not expect that our initial goodbye would be
final one.
I was devastated to find out through social media that he
was detained by the Vietnamese Government on July 7th, 2018 for
investigation of Article 109 which is activity against the
people government. This shocking to my family is happen
overwhelming at times.
Sometimes at work I am assisting in a complex surgery
receiving phone call from psychologist from the school,
unexpected outbursts, crying at school. They need comfort but I
cannot be there. I have to choose between my patient and my
family. Of course, with the title of registered nurse behind my
name I had to advocate for my patients who are defensive laying
on a surgical operating room table with their chest open for
open heart surgery or their belly is open for the kidney
transplant. Definitely I had to advocate for them. But,
eventually, I have to get back to the school to talk to them.
On June 24th he was sentenced for 12 years imprisonment in
Vietnam, a life learning to cope with loss and still nothing
could ever prepare me to the loss of my own family. Just 12
months ago, Michael Phuong was my husband, the father of my
four daughters; now he is gone. Imagine the emptiness, the pain
one feels when they have lost someone they truly loved. Imagine
the confusion and the frustration for the children who parent 1
day disappear. These are the struggle shared by all the family
torn apart by the actions of foreign government.
My husband like any other American in prison overseas have
been denied the due process that every person is entitled to
under international law. The Government of United States, a
country found on principles of individual rights and liberties,
should do everything possible to obtain Michael's release. The
United Nations, a pioneer of international human rights law,
should insist that Vietnam and all United Nations member States
abide by the universal declarations of human rights and other
human rights convention and treaties.
I, my family, would like Michael returned back to us as
soon as possible. The Members of Congress, the State
Department, the Senate, the U.S. consulate are my family's
lifeline, so please help us to get my husband and the father of
my four daughters back. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nguyen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. So often we hear about human rights
in statistics as a policy matter. Ms. Nguyen, you have brought
it home and I think all of us are absolutely dedicated to the
immediate return of your husband.
With that we will go on to our next witness.
STATEMENT OF FRANCISCO BENCOSME, ASIA PACIFIC ADVOCACY MANAGER,
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Bencosme. Chairman Sherman, Ranking Member Yoho, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify on this very important topic.
On July 1st, while many of us were looking forward to
spending July 4th with our families, the Philippine National
Police raided a home of a suspected drug user and killed 3-
year-old Kateleen Myca Ulpina during an antidrug operation in
Razil Province. Myca would have been four on July 31st. Myca
became the latest casualty of Philippine President Duterte's
war on drugs which has killed thousands over the past 3 years.
Last month, we came out with a new report on the
Philippines titled, ``They Just Kill,'' a quote from one of the
victims of the so-called war on drugs. I would like to submit
the executive summary of the report for the record.
In towns and cities across the Philippines, the so-called
war on drugs continues. In the 3-years since President Duterte
took office, thousands of poor people suspected of using or
selling drugs or otherwise linked to drugs have been killed by
police and unknown armed persons. While during the first year
of Duterte's tenure as President these killings were fairly
well documented they often go unreported now, contributing to a
perilous normalization of extrajudicial executions, police
abuses, erosion of the rule of law, and victimization of the
poor in the country.
According to the Philippine National Police figures, at
least 6,600 drug personalities were killed in police antidrug,
an average of six a day. Amid constant excitement from the
highest levels of governments, thousands of other drug related
killings have been committed by unknown armed persons, at least
some of whom have links to the police.
Despite international condemnation, the Duterte
administration remains defiant. In fact, the President warned
in early 2019 that the second half of his 6-year term will only
be harsher, stating that ``the last 3 years of my term will be
the most dangerous for people into drugs.''
The deliberate and systematic nature of the killings which
appear to have been conducted as part of a government
orchestrated attack against poor people suspected of using or
selling drugs is why Amnesty International has repeatedly said
that they may amount to crimes against humanity. These
extrajudicial executions in the Philippines have resulted in a
high level of impunity in the country which is also one of the
main regional trends we see throughout Southeast Asia.
A real accountability vacuum exists in Southeast Asia,
especially when it comes to abuses committed by security
forces. Each failure to investigate or bring those responsible
to account reinforces the confidence of perpetrators that they
are indeed above the law and can act with impunity.
To date, there has been no meaningful accountability at the
national level for the thousands of executions that have been
carried out over the past 3 years. Since President Duterte took
office and launched his antidrug campaign, just one case of
extrajudicial killing among thousands has been brought to
justice.
Impunity also reigns supreme in Myanmar where the military
has committed some of the gravest crimes under international
law and particularly against Rohingya in Rakhine State and in
Kachin and Shan States in northern Myanmar. A U.N. fact finding
mission has called for the investigation and prosecution of
crimes against humanity or crimes in genocide.
The prospect of meaningful justice and accountability in
Myanmar is currently almost nonexistent as the Myanmar military
still operates independent of civilian oversight and retains
control of its own judicial processes. To date, only seven
soldiers are known to have been investigated and convicted for
the crimes against the Rohingya following a Reuters
investigation into the massacre of ten men and boys in Inn Din
village. All seven have now been released.
Fresh violations in Rakhine State, where Amnesty
International has documented military war crimes against
civilians from all communities since the start of this year and
continuing violations in northern Myanmar, highlight the
institutionalized and systematic nature of military abuse as
well as the consequences of ongoing impunity.
The second trend we are seeing is a growing climate of
attack on human rights defenders. Attacks on activists,
journalists, and human rights defenders have only flourished
and intensified, making the realization of human rights in each
of these countries all the more challenging. In the
Philippines, human rights defenders, particularly women, are
under attack. Senator Leila de Lima, President Duterte's most
vocal critic, is enduring her third year of arbitrary detention
on politically motivated charges after seeking to carry out a
Senate investigation of drug related killings.
Journalist Maria Ressa who had published in-depth reports
on human rights violations committed in the so-called war on
drugs, faces at least nine politically motivated lawsuits.
Christina Palabay of the Philippines human rights organization
Karapatan is at risk after receiving a text message from an
unidentified person that she would be killed later this year.
There has been numerous death threats and members of the
organization Karapatan who have been killed. Even yesterday, we
received reports of another human rights lawyer who was
murdered. There is an urgent need, particularly in the context
of a rising number of extrajudicial killings and other human
rights violations, to make this a priority.
Earlier this year in Indonesia, I met a human rights
defender Novel Baswedan who was fighting anticorruption in
Indonesia when 2 years ago he was the subject of a vile acid
attack which was thrown in his face. At the time of the
incident he was investigating a high-profile case that could
have possibly implicated the highest level of law enforcement.
Since then there has not been anyone held accountable for the
attack on him, setting back anticorruption efforts in
Indonesia.
It reminded me also of human rights activist Minur, one of
the most famous Indonesian human rights activists who spent his
life trying to make Indonesia a more free and humane place.
Fifteen years after his assassination justice has not been
serviced. There is yet to be full accountability for all of
those allegedly involved.
In Vietnam, Amnesty International has identified 128
prisoner of conscience languishing in jails, the number of
which has gone up a third since we last reported it last year.
Ten percent of these cases against those jailed stem from
comments made on social media platforms such as Facebook.
The final trend that I will mention is that abusers in the
region have hidden behind the mask of democracy. Elections have
not been a panacea for human rights and for freedom for the
people of Southeast Asia. The Thai elections that occurred in
March of this year were marred by severe restrictions on
freedom of expression and assembly including the dissolution of
an opposition party, media censorship, legal threats, and
criminal charges against candidates and peaceful protesters who
brought out irregularities in the elections.
Over a year after Malaysia witnessed its first change in
government in 60 years, there was hope for a positive human
rights transformation. However, the rise of opposition voices
and response to the elections have contributed to the retention
of repressive laws like the Sedition Act and backtracking on
ICERD and accession to the ICC.
In Cambodia, Prime Minister Hun Sen's party won the general
elections last year having used legislation and the judiciary
to effectively eliminate any meaningful opposition and shut
down dozens of media outlets in the lead-up to the vote.
Without a concerted effort by the United States and
international community to strengthen human rights protections
in Southeast Asia, the hardliners who loom large in the region
are set to continue abusing rights and shattering human lives
without consequences. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bencosme follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. We will now hear from Dr. Huang.
STATEMENT OF CINDY HUANG, VICE PRESIDENT OF STRATEGIC OUTREACH,
REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL
Ms. Huang. Thank you. Chairman Sherman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, I am honored to be here today to
discuss the situation of the Rohingya people, a long persecuted
Muslim minority in Myanmar.
On August 25th, 2017, the Myanmar military began a campaign
of mass violence that led more than 700,000 Rohingya to flee to
Bangladesh. By September 5th, Refugees International reported
that the military was responsible for crimes against humanity,
a conclusion later echoed by a U.N. expert group and many
others.
Crimes against humanity do not emerge overnight. Waves of
violence and displacement over decades reflect Myanmar's
systematic campaign to persecute and exclude the Rohingya. Last
week, I visited the camps in Bangladesh where three themes
emerged. First, refugees want to return to their homes in
Myanmar's Rakhine State where 500-600,000 Rohingya remain. But
the conditions there are actually getting worse. Fighting
between an ethnic Rakhine armed group and the military has led
to crackdowns and an internet blackout since late June. This is
a warning sign of potential atrocities and is hampering
humanitarian relief in Rohingya and other communities.
126,000 Rohingya live in camps for internally displaced
people that are essentially open-air prisons. The Myanmar
Government has closed some, but with only superficial changes.
For example, moving people to structures next to the camps
without improving their freedom to move or access to
livelihoods.
The most fundamental challenge that the chairman recognized
remains the denial of citizenship to Rohingya. The Myanmar
Government continues a documentation process that is
irredeemably flawed because it is based on the 1982 citizenship
law that requires Rohingya to renounce their identity as a
distinct ethnic group. Given the authorities' characterization
of the Rohingya as ``Bengali immigrants,'' it is no surprise
the Rohingya have little to no confidence that the process
could lead to equal rights and full citizenship.
Earlier this year, Refugees International Advocates spoke
with Noor Jahan, a 70-year-old Rohingya grandmother whose house
was burned to the ground in August 2017. She then moved to four
different villages in Rakhine. She described security forces
coming almost every night to the villages taking men for forced
labor or women to be sexually assaulted.
After fleeing to Bangladesh, she says she can finally sleep
at night. This leads me to the second theme. Humanitarian
conditions are improving in Bangladesh where more than a
million Rohingya have sought safety, but more progress is
needed. I saw how monsoon season poses access and safety
challenges and how some food, health, nutrition, and protection
needs remain unmet, especially among women and girls.
As displacement continues, there is increasing need for
education, skills development and livelihoods for refugees and
their host communities. I saw home gardens, small shops,
training programs that are a testament of the potential for the
Rohingya to contribute to the local economy. In the immediate
term, we are very concerned about Bangladesh's plan to relocate
a hundred thousand Rohingya to Bhasan Char, a small island in
the Bay of Bengal. In light of unanswered questions on safety,
services, and movement to and from the island, the government
should refrain from relocating Rohingya there.
Third and finally, I heard that Rohingya are looking to the
United States for our leadership. We recommend that the U.S.
forge a three-pillar plan spearheaded by a high-level envoy
committed to sustained diplomatic engagement. The first pillar
is increasing international pressure on Myanmar toward justice,
accountability, and conditions for return. This would include
the U.S. making a determination based on its 2018 report as to
whether the abuses amount to crimes against humanity and
genocide. And while we do welcome the recent travel sanctions
on four military leaders, the U.S. should impose financial
sanctions on military officials and military-owned enterprises.
Congress should continue to pursue the bipartisan BURMA Act
which includes sanctions and limits on security assistance, and
the U.S. should lead a diplomatic effort to press for an ad hoc
tribunal or referral to the international criminal court and
implementation of the Rakhine Advisory Commission's
recommendations. The second pillar is ensuring Rohingya
participation throughout the response in Bangladesh and in all
regional and global forums.
The third pillar is for the U.S. to maintain and increase
its support for Bangladesh and lead dialog toward policy shifts
on freedom of movement, education, and livelihoods for
refugees. By pursuing this plan, America can advance Rohingya
rights, promote regional stability, and send a critical message
about our values and our priorities. Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Huang follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
And no one in Burma/Myanmar should think that the solution
is bigger and nicer refugee camps in Bangladesh. The solution
is for people to go back to their homes.
Ms. Enos.
STATEMENT OF OLIVIA ENOS, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, ASIAN STUDIES
CENTER, HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Ms. Enos. Chairman and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, the Trump administration inaugurated the Free and
Open Indo-Pacific Strategy in 2017. There are several notable
features of the Indo-Pacific strategy including that it
identifies South Asia, especially India, as falling under the
purview of U.S. strategy toward Asia.
The second most notable feature of the strategy are the two
modifiers affixed to it, both of which relate to promoting
values. The Indo-Pacific Strategy makes explicit commitments to
promoting human rights, democracy, and freedom. As the strategy
has taken shape, however, only the security and to some extent
the economic aspects of U.S. commitments in the Indo-Pacific
materialized; the values component did not.
In Southeast Asia, the U.S. has the opportunity to turn its
rhetorical commitments to values into reality. There are few
countries in Asia with worse human rights track records than
Burma or Cambodia. These two countries provide an excellent
opportunity for the administration to put rhetorical
commitments to the test.
Throughout the remainder of my testimony, I want to take
stock of what the U.S. has done so far in Cambodia and Burma,
then I want to discuss how the U.S. can demonstrate its
commitments to values in the Indo-Pacific by prioritizing the
promotion of human rights in both countries.
First, Cambodia. It is difficult to describe Cambodia as a
democracy today. July 2018 elections, neither free nor fair,
solidified Cambodia's descent into one-party rule. Sham 2018
elections came on the heels of the Cambodian Supreme Court's
decision to dissolve the main opposition Cambodia National
Rescue Party, CNRP, in November 2017, and the opposition's
dissolution happened right after the arrest of opposition
leader Kem Sokha in September 2017. He remains under house
arrest today.
In addition to political upheaval, concerns have deepened
regarding China's influence in Cambodia. Recent reports
indicate that China signed a secret naval base sharing
agreement that gives China exclusive rights to part of the
Cambodian naval installation on the Gulf of Thailand. The
alleged base sharing agreement could amplify the threat that
China poses to freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.
While the U.S. responded to Kem Sokha's arrest and the
dissolving of the CNRP with strong statements and eventually by
imposing travel restrictions on Cambodian Government officials,
it has done little to respond after July 2018 elections. The
U.S. Government promised that there would be follow-on actions,
presumably sanctions, but now more than a year after failed
2018 elections, no further sanctions have been issued. The U.S.
should view Cambodia as a battleground for values, perhaps even
as a litmus test for whether Southeast Asia is turning more
toward democracy or authoritarianism.
Now I want to turn to Burma. Horrific events of August 2017
resulted in the displacement of approximately 750,000 of
Burma's Muslim minority Rohingya. The United Nations Fact
Finding Mission Report found evidence that genocide, crimes
against humanity, and war crimes took place. Conservative
estimates suggest that more than 10,000 Rohingya were killed
with many more women and girls sexually abused or raped. There
were even horrifying reports of mothers having their babies
torn from their arms and thrown into the fire right before
their eyes.
In spite of overwhelming evidence documenting the genocide
and several reputable institutions including the U.S. Holocaust
Memorial Museum corroborating, the U.S. Government has not
issued a determination on atrocities committed against the
Rohingya. This is in spite of the fact that the Secretary of
State has the authority to issue a genocide determination at
any point in time.
In fairness, the U.S. has already provided $494 million in
aid, making it the top provider of humanitarian assistance to
Burma and Bangladesh. The U.S. also already issued Global
Magnitsky sanctions against some members of the Burmese
military, and just last week imposed travel restrictions on
others including Senior General Min Aung Hlaing. The U.S.
Government, however, stopped short of financially sanctioning
Min Aung Hlaing and some of the other military officials who
bear primary responsibility for atrocities.
In the face of such severe crimes, I would point the
distinguished members of this subcommittee to my written
statements submitted for the record which has additional
recommendations, but for now I will offer five. The U.S.
Government should, first, appoint an interagency coordinator
responsible for promoting human rights and values in the Indo-
Pacific Strategy.
Second, it should sanction Hun Sen and other party cadres
for undermining democracy in Cambodia. Third, it should create
and convene an emergency meeting of the Cambodia contact group
comprised of the parties to the 1991 Paris Peace Agreement who
have an obligation to hold the country accountable if democracy
falters. Fourth, they should financially sanction senior
members of the Burmese military, particularly Min Aung Hlaing,
for the crimes that they committed against Rohingya. And fifth,
the U.S. Government should make an official, public legal
determination on crimes committed against Rohingya.
The U.S. has intermittently viewed human rights as a luxury
issue to be raised when all other diplomatic issues are
addressed. But this is not the most strategic way to respond to
human rights challenges in Asia. The U.S. should take these and
other steps to demonstrate its tangible commitment to
preserving and promoting human rights in the Indo-Pacific.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Enos follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, all witnesses, for your testimony.
I will now recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania for 5
minutes, and then we will go on to Mrs. Wagner.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you very much to all of you guys for
your testimony today. I very much appreciate your insight. My
questions are for Dr. Huang. I have had the opportunity to be
in Burma, or Myanmar, a couple of times within the last decade
or two and experienced and seen kind of firsthand what you are
talking about.
My questions have to do though with what is happening in
the camps particularly and some of the concerns I have
specifically for women and girls and the conditions that they
are in--sexual assault, a lot of other issues that are very
alarming to me--and I was wondering if you could give us any
guidance of what could be done to be more helpful in that area,
what we can do to be more helpful in that area.
Ms. Huang. Thank you so much for the question. And I do
also want to reaffirm Chairman Sherman's comment at the outset
that ultimately the sustainable solution is repatriation and
conditions for return; unfortunately, these do not exist today.
And so moving to the camps, yes, it was really a
devastating situation and there continue to be, according to
the United Nations, almost 7,000 women who remain extremely
vulnerable to sexual and gender-based violence. And so some
areas--and Refugees International released a report last year
with a set of recommendations on what more we can do.
So, first and foremost, is to continue to resource the SGBV
and other response that is happening in the camps. And right
now the limitation is not the number of structures but, really,
the capacity, the human capacity, the trained midwives, the
staffing, and also the referral pathways, so that when someone
comes with an issue that they are able to be referred to a
variety of services whether their health, legal, or other.
Second, I think, you know, some of the recent trouble that
women have been having has been around the fact that they are
volunteering with NGO's or able to engage in small activities.
And so, I think there the response is we must continue to
provide those opportunities for women, but also that to have a
holistic view and make sure that the entire family has a way to
engage.
And so, I think with these measures, and then obviously on
just the diplomatic front to continue keeping an eye on the
situation, continuing the congressional delegations so that
these issues remain elevated.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. And I have a second question as
well for you. I am also, coincidentally, a daughter of a
refugee myself, and my dad really raised me to believe in the
power and importance of education. In the camps themselves, is
there any opportunity for education of any form for the
children or adults?
Ms. Huang. Right. Recently, the Bangladesh Government
approved the first few levels of a learning framework for
children. It is still an informal education, so there is a
lot--they are able to access some. One of the things that I
heard in the camps last week is that, you know, most children
are only getting about 2 hours of instruction a day and that is
not due to any regulation. That is a space constraint, you
know, they are putting several shifts of kids into the school.
So I think to address this we should continue to push for a
learning framework that can lead to certification. And I heard
from refugees that there is a lot of interest in getting the
Myanmar curriculum approved for use in Bangladesh, and the
reason is people want to learn a language because they do
anticipate returning home. I do think it is really, it seems so
practical and basic, but space is a big constraint.
And I want to recognize that Bangladesh has a high
population density so space is not easy to find, but there are
other ways. I think some additional space for health clinic and
education centers would be helpful, and they are also exploring
the opportunity to create two-floor structures which would also
help to relieve some constraints.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. And my very last question with my
remaining 52 seconds, also for you, Doctor, is are they any--
you talked a little bit briefly, I think, about job prospects
or opportunities for work. What kinds of opportunities are
there? Is there also anything that we can be doing to be more
helpful there as well?
Ms. Huang. Right now, the work opportunities are limited to
cash for work, so refugees who help pave the roads or build
structures in the camps, but there are some training programs.
For example, I got to visit a workshop where women are learning
how to sew, so that they can potentially do more tailoring both
for themselves and potentially for some work opportunities.
I think that is an area where again, unfortunately, due to
the continuing conditions in Myanmar that we should continue to
engage on. And we have just learned from global experience,
especially in the last 3 years, that when refugees are given
that opportunity to contribute, anywhere in the world, they
help drive local growth and that also can really assist with
moving from the unsustainable year on year humanitarian aid
model to an opportunity for people to live with dignity and
self-reliance.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you very much. My time has run out, I
yield back.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. We will now recognize the
gentlelady from Missouri.
Mrs. Wagner. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking
member for organizing this important hearing and caring so much
about this issue as we all do on Foreign Affairs and certainly
in the Asia Pacific Subcommittee.
As co-chair of the congressional ASEAN Caucus, I understand
that Southeast Asian countries are critical U.S. partners. But
I remain deeply, deeply troubled by reports of serious human
rights abuses in the Philippines, and Vietnam in particular,
and by ongoing genocide, genocide against Rohingya Muslims.
The United States must hold its friends and allies to the
same high standard it holds itself. In the Philippines, Duterte
has used his war on drugs to justify rampant human rights
abuses including these what he calls extrajudicial killings and
the imprisonment of opposition figures. I am especially
concerned about the plight of the indigenous peoples in the
Philippines.
In Mindanao, which has been under martial law since May
2017, the Duterte administration has committed these
extrajudicial illegal killings, illegal arrests, and attacks on
indigenous schools set up in partnership with NGO's. Mr.
Bencosme, how can the United States work with the international
community to protect indigenous peoples in the Philippines?
Mr. Bencosme. Yes, thank you so much for that question. I
think it is really incumbent on the United States to work with
like-minded countries to raise this at the highest levels
diplomatically. I think the fact that there is constant
harassment of indigenous people as well as other human rights
defenders in the Philippines is part of a larger trend where
President Duterte sort of attacks most of his critics. Anything
that is sort of not seen in the line with his agenda he either
imposes, most recently, sedition charges against or tries to
sort of incriminate them through the media or through various
other tactics.
I think the United States has a very important relationship
with the Philippines and that provides leverage for us to be
able to raise these at the highest level. The fact that we do
not--we just recently got an assistant secretary for East Asia.
We have an ambassador who is now going to another post. We do
not have an assistant secretary for DRL--are all areas where we
need to have the vacancies and sort of full-time senior staff
to be able to raise these issues at the highest levels.
Mrs. Wagner. I could not agree more. I understand that
China is financing--they call extractive development projects,
which basically means kicking people off and pillaging their
land in the indigenous lands in the Philippines. Mr. Bencosme,
what is China's role in shoring up the Duterte administration?
Mr. Bencosme. Yes, so the Chinese and President Duterte
have a schizophrenic relationship as well in that particularly
with relation to the South China Sea area that has been of, you
know, intense interest of the subcommittee, what we have seen
is China playing both sides of the peace process. What we have
seen is China playing a role in which obviously disregards for
human rights issues in the region and where it sort of funds a
lot of the----
Mrs. Wagner. And pillaging their land and their minerals
and the things that the indigenous people have as assets and--
--
Mr. Bencosme. Right. I mean and so this is where President
Duterte who talks a lot about national sovereignty is unwilling
to----
Mrs. Wagner. Right, stand up.
Mr. Bencosme [continuing]. Really stand up and care about
human rights or his own people inside his own country. And so,
it is really incumbent upon the United States to raise----
Mrs. Wagner. In my limited time, thank you very much.
Dr. Huang, Burma refuses to establish conditions for
Rohingya refugees living in exile in Bangladesh to return to
their homes, as we have discussed here. As a result, I
understand that aid providers are beginning to shift toward
longer term strategies, although Bangladesh has made it clear
that Rohingya settlements on its territory are temporary. Since
there are no signs that it is safe for Rohingya to return to
Burma in the foreseeable future, what are the long-term
prospects for the Rohingya in Bangladesh?
Ms. Huang. Yes, and just to affirm again as you said that
Myanmar is not creating the conditions of return.
Mrs. Wagner. Correct.
Ms. Huang. And so I do think, and I think people,
responders on the ground recognize that it is important to
transition the response from, you know, to be sitting idle and
only be receiving food handouts day after day, you know, that
is really the recipe for a lost generation. And so, I think
some of the transition that needs to happen, we spoke a little
bit about education.
Mrs. Wagner. Right.
Ms. Huang. So right now it is just informal, but if we
could make it more formal, I think that would give people hope.
Then also to improve the living conditions, so both around
space and the quality of housing.
Mrs. Wagner. That they are not so temporary.
Ms. Huang. Right. And then yes, and finally, I think, for
those livelihoods opportunities, I understand that that has to
be incremental, you know, but to create opportunities for
people to fish, to create small, you know, tailoring items so
that they can become more self-reliant. And again, we have seen
in other places in the world that this is a more sustainable
and dignified----
Mrs. Wagner. And we know that they want to return home, but
we are going to have to look at some kind of long-term
prospects. My time has expired and I thank the chairman for his
indulgence and I yield back.
Mr. Sherman. It has been brought to my attention that Mr.
Levin has been here, or got here early in the hearing, and I
will recognize him for 5 minutes.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to followup on
my colleague from Missouri's interest in the Rohingya
situation.
Dr. Huang, what aspects of American aid and other
international efforts to the Rohingya in Bangladesh are working
well in this difficult situation?
Ms. Huang. Yes, I do feel we truly need to commend
Bangladesh, the international community, especially the United
States as the largest donor for the response. I mean it really
boggles the mind to think about 700,000 people coming in a span
of 2 months. And the fact that there has not been a major
disease outbreak, for example, is really a sign.
I think in the future people will be learning lessons about
how you can mount a rapid--it was not perfect for sure, but I
think the basics around getting people food distributions, you
know, shelters in the immediate term, there have been successes
there.
Mr. Levin. And how easy or difficult is it for NGO's to
assist Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and what more can the
Government of Bangladesh as strained as the situation is for
them to improve that situation?
Ms. Huang. Yes, for a long time, Refugees International has
been calling for the government to create a clear and
consistent process for NGO registration because some have
experienced delays and hiccups. I think clear processes around
registration and project approval so that people understand
what the parameters are. Of course, we want that to be a wider
set of parameters----
Mr. Levin. Yes.
Ms. Huang [continuing]. So more services can be provided as
well.
Mr. Levin. And can you speak to the situation of the five
to six hundred thousand Rohingya still living in Myanmar,
including the 120,000 living in camps for internally displaced
persons?
Ms. Huang. Yes. The conditions are extremely dire and they
are not improving. You know, with the fighting between the
Rakhine and the military there has just been further crackdowns
and loss of humanitarian access. In particular, in the
internally displaced persons' camps the situation, despite
other rhetoric, are really getting worse not better. For
example, you know, we hear reports of people who are, as I
mentioned, kind of moved to a space just next to the camp and
said, you know, ``OK, you are no longer in a camp.'' But they
have no increased access to livelihoods, ability to move,
ability to see their family that they are not with, so it is
extremely troubling.
Mr. Levin. And who actually has access to those places?
What outside groups are there, if any? You say we get reports,
from whom?
Ms. Huang. Right. Right now, it is extremely limited. My
understanding is that primarily it is the U.N. agencies such as
WFP who do have access, and I think one step forward knowing
that Myanmar is not prepared to take more dramatic steps is to
increase access of NGO's, organizations like Amnesty
International, so that we can have a better understanding of
what is happening.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. All right, I want to move on quickly
to accountability for the perpetrators of this crisis.
Mr. Bencosme, if I am saying that right, on November 22d,
2017, then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated that the
situation in northern Rakhine State constitutes ethnic
cleansing against the Rohingya. A State Department report
released on September 24th, 2018, laid out a compelling case
for crimes against humanity committed by the Burmese military
against the Rohingya while stopping short of a legal
determination.
Should the U.S. Government make such a determination? And
if it did, what would the impact be?
Mr. Bencosme. Absolutely. So we have been calling
consistently for the United States to make a legal
determination. The implication of such a determination is that,
one, it would be a rallying cry for the international community
to provide more humanitarian assistance. Second, it would set
the foundation for future criminal accountability, particularly
if the United States signals to other international bodies
that, you know, whether credible investigations of genocide,
crimes against humanity, or war crimes were committed within
Myanmar----
Mr. Levin. And last week's action imposing visa bans
against four leaders of the military, how significant was that
for--it if was?
Mr. Bencosme. So the fact that Min Aung Hlaing was named as
a grave human rights violator was significant, but the JADE Act
which is still in place, already imposes visa restrictions on
all of these officials. So it was really a public shaming
technique, and our opinion is that they need to go further.
There needs to be real criminal accountability. There needs to
be real financial assistance. And there needs to be a legal
determination.
Mr. Levin. OK, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by thanking Mr. Bencosme and
Amnesty for your work in support of my Burma Political
Prisoners Assistance Act, and I am looking forward to getting
that through the full House soon.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. We have a few more people to ask
questions here. I know that we have not asked Ms. Nguyen
anything, but I think several of us will. I certainly will.
At this point, I will recognize the ranking member, Mr.
Yoho.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the panel
being here.
Ms. Nguyen, we will start with you. We followed that case
pretty closely. There was a lot of interest here in Congress, a
lot of members, different congressional districts around the
country were involved in that and it started last Congress. And
the situation of your husband, Michael, do you feel that he
went through a fair process in Vietnam for his trial?
Ms. Nguyen. I was not there for the trial, so I would not
be able to comment for that.
Mr. Yoho. OK. I will not go too much into it on a public
platform. I guess the last time you have gotten word he is
doing fair? OK?
Ms. Nguyen. Well, he is doing well in detention center
right now, according to the message that I get from the U.S.
consulate.
Mr. Yoho. OK. I will talk to you more in private and we can
discuss more about that.
I want to move on to things that I hear over and over
again. Dr. Huang, you were talking about the situation you
mentioned in the refugee camps. Obviously, they are less than
adequate and children are only getting education twice a day,
if that, and I am sure that is not 7 days a week, that is
sporadic; is that correct?
Ms. Huang. Yes, 2 hours a day, right, because people are
going in different shifts.
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Ms. Huang. Yes, because they are going in different shifts.
Mr. Yoho. And so we look at just that, in that is just with
the Rohingyas we are talking about, right?
Ms. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Yoho. And I know this meeting is dealing with Southeast
Asia, but if we look around the world the amount of refugees
and then we look in our Western Hemisphere, where we have got
the largest exodus of people out of a country that we have ever
seen, and you add that all together, we are probably pushing 80
million people, 70 to 80 million people around the world that
are in refugee camps. And if there is not order in a society,
order with education, the things that we have all done that we
have grown up over the last couple hundred years, we are
creating a hotbed of just chaos coming if we do not solve these
problems.
And so my question, you two are NGO's, right, so you are
not directly involved so much in policy, the implementation of
policies.
Ms. Enos, you help direct policy. One of the questions I
have is as we see things unraveling, we see competition of
democracies or alternatives to democracies, socialism with
Chinese characteristics, we have to decide as democratic
nations or nations that, you know, a republic that has a
democratic process, we have to decide who we are doing business
with because our foreign policy has to change.
If it does not change, what I have seen--I have been here 7
years--I just see more division, more division, and we have
more refugees. I propose, and I want to hear your thoughts on
this, that we change our policy not just here in our country,
but with the EU and like-minded countries to change how we
trade with nations.
Cambodia has claimed to be a democracy, but Hun Sen has
bastardized that word. It is anything but a democracy. We have
met with Sam Rainsy. We have met with other people from there
from the CNRP, but yet we are still doing trade with them. And
I can look at several countries in Latin America, other
countries that we are doing trade with, and if we really value
these positions and these beliefs that we have had in this
country that other Western democracies practice, I want to know
how we get away from trading with these countries.
Are we bold enough as nations that believe in democracies,
liberties, and freedom to say, ``Until you change what you are
doing, we are not trading with you?'' Between us and the EU, if
we use just Cambodia we account for 65 percent of that
country's trade. I want to know why we do not change that and
just say go to elsewhere, we are not trading with you.
And I think if we stick together as like-minded countries,
those countries will come around without me telling them what
to do. They are going to have to make that decision internally.
What are your thoughts on that?
Ms. Enos. Thank you for asking me about that. As you
mentioned, the EU has already temporarily suspended everything
but arms trade status for Cambodia and is currently suspending
that permanently and----
Mr. Yoho. Did you say everything but arms?
Ms. Enos. Everything but arms, that is right. The EBA.
Mr. Yoho. So they are trading arms with Cambodia?
Ms. Enos. Yes. It is the EBA trade agreement and framework.
And so that is currently temporarily suspended, and then there
is a chance in 12 months from I think about February or March
that that will be permanently revoked. The EU is currently
undertaking a process where they would consider that. And at
the same time, U.S. Congress has the Cambodia Trade Act where
we are considering whether the generalized system of
preferences needs to be reevaluated for Cambodia.
While I think it would be really wise to look at and
investigate whether or not Cambodia merits GSP preferences over
the long term, I do fear that doing such a broad-based sort of
trade sanction may do more harm to the Cambodian people than it
does to the Cambodian Government. And so, I think we need to be
careful about the types of policy solutions that we recommend.
This is one of the reasons why Heritage has been very vocal
in terms of advocating for the use of Global Magnitsky
sanctions, which would enable us to go against Hun Sen directly
and other party cadres who are directly responsible for
undermining democracy there.
Mr. Yoho. Well, and I just want to let you know that the
Cambodia Democracy Act as you know passed here.
Ms. Enos. Of course.
Mr. Yoho. We are working it through the Senate and we look
forward to having that signed this year. So it is another tool
that we can put on a despotic leader of a nation that should
not be there. He should put his people ahead of his own
personal pleasure or wealth.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Sherman. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Nevada.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will continue kind of
that line of questioning.
You know, in the past, the U.S. has often overlooked civil
rights abuses in countries when we are trying to have alliances
that support our national security. And now that seems to be
the case in Southeast Asia. You mentioned, Ms. Enos, about the
problems in the Indo-Pacific Strategy. Our strategy is getting
more specific on the security aspects and there are some
economic things that have been done, but it is pretty silent on
what the human rights aspects are.
We have declared Vietnam as a key partner because we want
their help in a free and open relationship to kind of counter
the Chinese influence in the area. The Cambodian situation is
maybe a little bit different. But what can we be doing, all
three of you, to kind of step up our attempts to balance
support for human rights with the need to counter Chinese
influence? And do you think this administration is doing enough
of that?
Ms. Enos. I will take that first. So I think that the
administration has made a lot of rhetorical commitments through
the Indo-Pacific Strategy to human rights, but we have not seen
the actual strategy itself materialize. And I think that there
is, not just in this administration but in several preceding
administrations, an unnatural divorce between national security
and national interest priorities and human rights.
When I think in reality, adopting policies that advance
human rights principles have the potential to advance U.S.
national interests as well. And so, I think we need to do a
better job of articulating what that looks like.
Ms. Titus. We have not even seen the full report and we do
not even know who is in charge, I believe, who is responsible
for articulating this kind of policy. I mean we have seen it in
Latin America. You see it in Saudi Arabia. We just do not--you
are right. We have not married the two.
Doctor, would you add to that or?
Ms. Huang. I will limit my thoughts to Myanmar, but I think
that is a great case example, and I think that there are always
many interests to balance. But in the case of Myanmar and, you
know, potentially others, we are talking about the most serious
crimes that can be committed.
So I think some of the sanctions that have been discussed,
for example, new sanctions that could be placed on high-level
senior officials, that could be placed or reenacted on
military-owned enterprises that, you know, we do--we must
continue to stand for the facts on the ground and the fact that
there is the possibility for greater accountability and justice
in this situation, and likely others.
Mr. Bencosme. I will add that I am not sure how you can
have a free and open Indo-Pacific without free societies and
ensuring that everyone within the region has the human rights
that they deserve.
Last year, Congress, through bipartisan and bicameral
means, passed the Asia Reassurance Initiative which Section 4
focused on human rights and good governance, making sure that
there is oversight on implementation of those provisions
particularly on helping out human rights defenders, making sure
that civil society in the region has robust funding and
support, making sure that there is exchanges among civil
society so that there are regional lessons learned being
exchanged through the different human rights activists in the
regions.
All of those, I think, are a couple of fantastic low-
hanging fruit that the State Department could implement. But
unfortunately, we have not seen any of that come to fruition.
Ms. Titus. We see a lot of concern about a rapper in
Sweden, but not some of these other people who are held in
places in Asia. Thank you. I will yield back.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. The gentleman from Ohio is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. And
this is for any members of the panel. We sometimes hear the
argument that if we press ASEAN countries too hard on human
rights, China will come in, fill the power vacuum, and advance
its interests. Unfortunately, I think at least to a limited
extent there is validity in that point of view. Nonetheless, I
think we should push human rights and human decency as much as
possible all over the globe, and I would just like to maybe go
down the line if you could comment on that and maybe start down
there. Thank you.
Ms. Enos. That is an excellent question. I think that there
has been a lot of focus and concern on the extent to which
China can influence countries in Southeast Asia and that
concern of course is merited. But I think that the reality is,
is that all countries in Southeast Asia are going to
economically engage with both the U.S. and China. And they are
not going to like it if they are pressed to choose, to be
totally frank.
I think where we should express concern is when there is
this military cooperation similar to the base-sharing agreement
that we see with Cambodia, the news reports emerging just this
past week about some of the military cooperation that is there.
But all that to say countries in Southeast Asia are going to
engage with China regardless of whether we press them on human
rights.
And one of the distinguishing factors of U.S. engagement in
Asia, historically, through our alliance relationships and
otherwise, has been the promotion and commitment to freedom,
democracy, human rights and values. And I think that should
remain an enduring part of U.S. strategy.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
Ms. Huang. The only thing I would add is that it is
important for America to lead, but not act alone. And so,
therefore, I think we have to double down on our partnerships
with the EU, with the United Nations, with other countries in
the region. I think when you add all of that up, there is a lot
more progress that can be made and engagement that can be
deepened in the region.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Yes?
Mr. Bencosme. I wanted to add a specific case in point. I
think the United States could be well positioned with other
partners to raise the human rights implications of China's Belt
and Road Initiative. So as particularly we looked at Vietnam's
Binh Thuan Province where they received a power station by the
Chinese and where you saw thousands of locals come out in
protest because of pollution and environmental issues related
to the coal and fire plants. And then in March 2019, the
Vietnamese State audit came out with assessing that there was
bad pollution as a result of this Chinese power plant.
Where was the United States raising these human rights
issues where we could have used human rights to stand with the
people of Vietnam of this village and part of Vietnam? We
should use those human rights as a comparative advantage vis-a-
vis China. It is part of our U.S. national security, not
something that prevents us and paralyzes us from speaking on
behalf of our values.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Did you want to comment? If not, I will just move on.
Ms. Nguyen. I agree with Francisco here, so I have no
further comment to anything about it.
Mr. Chabot. All right. Thank you very much.
I co-chair the House Freedom of the Press Caucus along with
our colleague Adam Schiff. Would anyone like to discuss press
freedom in Southeast Asia, generally, and specifically could
you discuss whether ASEAN countries are adopting Chinese so-
called sovereign internet tools?
Mr. Bencosme. I would be happy to. One of the regional
trends we are seeing is enactment of cybersecurity laws which
allow for online repression. So we are seeing this in Vietnam
where they instituted a new cybersecurity law a couple years
ago. Thailand did the same thing. We have seen the
criminalization of free speech both online and offline. And so,
they are very much using the same tools that the Chinese have
used and sort of using that domestically to crack down on
protesters.
We have obviously seen a promotion of online hate speech
and that is also a very worrying trend. And on the context of
press freedom, I will just highlight in the context of Myanmar
we have seen an intense crackdown on freedom of the press. In
particular, we just saw that recently the Burmese Irawaddy, the
editor was recently detained and was pressed charges against
them.
There was defamation suits against five people for live
streaming a satirical performance mocking the Myanmar military.
Ko Ko Gyi was detained in connection with a Facebook post
critical of the military who is also a founder of a film
festival in Myanmar. These are all things that the civilian
government is doing.
And so, while we need to focus on accountability for the
Myanmar military, we should not take our foot off the pedal
with respect to raising human rights abuses with the civilian
government as well.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. My time has expired. And I
want to thank the chair and the ranking member for extending
the privileges to ask questions in this committee. I appreciate
it.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. With that we will hear from the
gentlelady from Virginia.
And, Ms. Nguyen, I will have some questions for you, so
thank you for your patience. And you may get some questions
from the lady from Virginia as well.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to first
thank Ms. Nguyen for being here today and sharing your story. I
commend your strength through this incredibly difficult time
and I will continue working with Representative Porter to
ensure that we see your husband's safe return.
I had a number of questions related to Burma and the
rampant human rights abuses occurring there and the devastating
refugee crisis it has created, but I do believe that our
witnesses today have given us a lot to think about on this
topic and certainly more ideas for us to pursue into the
future, so I will pivot toward the Philippines with my
question.
Amnesty International's 2017-18 report on the Philippines
expressed concern about the ``deliberate, unlawful, and
widespread killings of thousands of alleged drug offenders,''
as well as, ``reports of increased numbers of arbitrary arrests
and detention and extrajudicial executions of political
activists.'' Human Rights Watch has also noted that in previous
years it has ``documented the killing of numerous activist
peasant leaders and labor organizers.''
The President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte's allies
swept the Senate elections in May, and recent polls seem to
show widespread approval for his policies including detentions
and extrajudicial killings of drug traffickers. Given these
human rights abuses, how can the United States incentivize the
Philippines to move away from these policies when they at least
appear to be supported by a large portion of the population?
Mr. Bencosme. Thank you, Congresswoman. You know, it is
really troubling that there still remains public support for
the so-called war on drugs. I think that is still irrelevant
because Philippines made a commitment to abide by international
human rights obligations.
And so, I think a couple things that Congress can do first
is that there is House Resolution 233 which speaks out against
Philippines human rights abuses, particularly in the context of
crackdown on human rights defenders like Senator de Lima and
Maria Ressa. Second, that there was last year introduced a
Philippines human rights accountability bill that is worth
reexamining whether it should be introduced into this congress,
and there is important provisions there that look to law
enforcement, what type of law enforcement assistance that we
are providing to make sure that it is not complicit in the
human rights abuses that is going on with the Philippine
National Police.
I think the fact that the extrajudicial killing has not
been raised at the highest level which starts with our own
commander-in-chief and the fact that there has been rhetoric
almost mimicking the same type of drug killings domestically
and sort of lauding the President Duterte, I think is extremely
concerning. And so, really, we need to make sure that our
first--that our House, here, domestically, is in order before
we have credibility in places like the Philippines.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you.
Would anyone else care to comment on that question?
Then from a data perspective I would ask, have there been
any fluctuations, have we witnessed any fluctuations in the
popular support for Duterte as an individual, as a politician,
or in his policies? And, if so, are there any specific things
that we can learn from those circumstances?
Mr. Bencosme. I think one of the things--we just came out
with a report last month and one of the main findings was that
the center of gravity on the killings actually shifted when
particularly police officers were changed to a different part
of the Philippines. So it is important to note that we need to
hold all of those who have been responsible for these killings
in sort of either condemning these killings or not stopping
them to account.
And so, really getting at the level of impunity, I think,
is at the core of how we resolve this issue. Unfortunately, we
have not seen much fluctuation with respect to public opinion
on this issue.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I will now recognize myself for 5
minutes since I have not asked questions yet, then we will go
on to Mr. Lowenthal, and then we will do a second round for
whoever is still here.
Ms. Nguyen, you mentioned, I believe, that your children
and you have not been able to have direct contact with Michael.
Is that true and have you asked the Vietnamese Government for
an opportunity to speak with your husband by phone or visit
him?
Ms. Nguyen. That is correct. We have not had any access to
phone or receive any letter from Michael. We only have U.S.
consulate, visit him and deliver messages from us to him and
they delivered messages back to us from him also. Otherwise,
like no direct contact. We did requited, but they asked us to
be present, at the detention center so we can be able to talk
to him, but not through the phone or have him write anything to
send out.
Mr. Sherman. So he is not allowed to write you a letter?
Ms. Nguyen. No.
Mr. Sherman. And they will not allow you to talk by phone,
and an in-person meeting would then subject whoever goes to
Vietnam to the same justice system your husband was subject to.
Would you fear for your safety if you went to Vietnam at this
time?
Ms. Nguyen. Correct. At that time, I did not have the fear
because of my medical missions. And now is like seeing my
husband detained like that, I am fearful for myself because
already got detained and I am going to get detained too, then
who is going to take care of my children?
Mr. Sherman. Yes, this--obviously, international standards
would require first that you be allowed to talk to your husband
by phone, that your children be allowed to talk to your husband
by phone, and that perhaps you be given some form of diplomatic
immunity so that you would be beyond the reach of Vietnamese
law so that you could visit your husband. Of course, this would
all be unnecessary if your husband was released.
Can you describe the impact on you and your kids that you
cannot even talk to your husband by phone?
Ms. Nguyen. My four daughters, they are very close to
Michael. He daily taking care of them, and actually, let me
describe him. He is a Mr. Mom. I cannot even act as the role he
was in at this time. He had been acting for two roles, Mom and
Dad, and I cannot even imitate that from him.
So the kids are very devastated, frustrations, scare,
frightened, loss of sleep. Their grades have been declining
from straight A student to a C student, from a AP honor class
to a regular class now. They cannot focus and that is very
extremely hard on them.
Mr. Sherman. Well, let us hope that the Vietnamese
Government understands the importance to the United States of
treating Michael fairly according to human law and due process.
And I would assume that the Vietnamese foreign policy
establishment understands the importance of the United States
to Vietnam and its future.
With that let me turn briefly to Cambodia and Ms. Enos.
There was a positive event with the Cambodian Government last
December where they sounded positive about Radio Free Asia, but
in this subcommittee in the past I have raised concern about
two Radio Free Asia journalists who were arrested in Cambodia
in 2017. Their trial begins, or has begun this week.
Can you comment about Cambodia's suppression of civil
society and media freedoms with reference to these two
reporters from Radio Free Asia?
Ms. Enos. Yes. I think we have been seeing a steady decline
in terms of democratic freedoms there. I think today it is
pretty difficult to call Cambodia a democracy, especially given
the sham of the elections. And I think that one of the ways
that they have--that Hun Sen has continued to undermine
democracy there has been essentially by eliminating the space
for civil society to act. This is anywhere from human rights
groups that are trying to fight human trafficking to, as you
mentioned, the Radio Free Asia journalists. The Cambodia Daily
was shut down for a time. There has been a systematic assault
on press freedom there and on the activities of civil society
members.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. In the second round I will ask
questions about Burma/Myanmar and the Philippines. And with
that I will yield to the gentleman from California, Mr.
Lowenthal.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Chairman Sherman, for inviting me
to participate in this hearing on human rights issues in
Southeast Asia. I am the co-chair of the congressional Vietnam
Caucus. You know, I have been advocating since my time in
Congress now, this is my fourth term, on the issue of human
rights abuses in Vietnam. I have adopted several. I am a member
of the Tom Lantos. I am part of the executive committee at the
Human Rights Commission. I have adopted several prisoners of
conscience. Fortunately, three of them have been released. But
the fourth is the most venerable Thich Quang Do, who is the
supreme patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church, and it's a
horror that he has been under arrest. He is in his early 90's.
He is a spiritual leader. He has no danger to the government
and yet the government's attempt to quash religious freedom and
he is in the center of all of that.
But I want to talk about to Helen, to Helen Nguyen, first,
I want to preface this, the questions, by saying that for
Representative Porter from your district--I do not know if she
has been here--for my dear friend Representative Correa,
Representative Green from Houston, my dear friend
Representative Yoho, we as a group, and Representative Sherman,
but we almost every week or every other week we have been on
calls with the Ambassador or the consul general, what is going
in Vietnam. This has been a very bad year and a half as we know
what is going on.
First, in terms of American citizens who have been
arrested, Will Nguyen was arrested as we know right after the
demonstrations in June 2018, graduate student, was convicted.
Fortunately, shortly after that was deported to the United
States. Michael Nguyen, a wonderful resident of Southern
California from Ms. Porter's, Representative Porter's district,
was just traveling on a bus, had been visiting Vietnam over the
years many times visiting friends and family. Was on a bus, I
believe, from Da Nang going to Saigon. Was dragged off that
bus, was arrested.
Vietnamese broke every covenant. They were supposed to tell
us within 96 hours that there was an arrest. They waited 10
days. They did not for almost a year. That was in June 2018
until 2019, they did not really inform the U.S. embassy, the
State Department, Helen, Members of Congress, just what the
charges were. We did not know. We received very little contact
during this process, a horrible process. He was then sentenced
to 12 years in prison.
We do not know for what and why this happened, except to
say that the Vietnamese Government is cracking down--the word
cracking makes it sound like there is a problem. There is not
for people going--Americans or anybody speaking out, any public
dissent, any issue you are being arrested in Vietnam it is
very, very difficult and bad time.
And it is outrageous that Americans who have a Vietnamese
background are now becoming frightened to go back to their
country of their ancestors. This is unacceptable. And I join
with my colleagues in supporting Chris Smith, Representative
Smith's Vietnam Human Rights Act which invokes sanctions per
the Magnitsky Act. And it imposes both financial and travel
restrictions on human rights abusers. We also believe that
Vietnam, and as an example of what is going on here should also
be not allowed--oh, should be put back as a country of
particular concern again because of the issues of going on.
I do not have a lot of time left. I just want to say, ask
Helen who--just how--were you satisfied with the legal
assistance that Michael received? How did he find out about it?
I am very interested. Here, for a year, we heard nothing about
why he was being charged, who would help him. I think at the
very end, he--I am not quite sure I understand the process by
who is lawyers were. So if you could just illuminate that
because I cannot imagine being in a country, a foreign country
and not having access to support services and legal services.
Ms. Nguyen. So when Michael's detention in Vietnam, he not
allowed to have any lawyers to represent him until 2 weeks
before the verdict they allow him to have lawyer. But when we
search around for the lawyer, no one would want to take his
case is because they fear for their business. They fear for
their family, so we gave up. So the State appointed the lawyer
for him, to represent Michael.
Mr. Lowenthal. Were you satisfied with the representation
you received?
Ms. Nguyen. Well, I was not there to be able to tell, so I
cannot say am I satisfied with the verdict or the trial or the
lawyer, because I was not be able to attend.
Mr. Lowenthal. Well, I just want to send my support to you,
to your family, to tell you we are not going to give up. As I
mentioned, Will Nguyen, for the example of it was only after he
was convicted that we were able to get the government to deport
him. We are going to do the same thing and keep fighting for
Michael.
Ms. Nguyen. Thank you.
Mr. Lowenthal. And with that I yield back.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. At this point I will recognize a
member of the full committee, Mr. Connolly, and then I see the
gentleman from California.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chairman and welcome to the
panel. Ms. Enos, do you believe human rights is an important
part of U.S. foreign policy?
Ms. Enos. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Do you believe the United States should
advocate for human rights when it can?
Ms. Enos. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Should we try to be consistent in that
advocacy?
Ms. Enos. Absolutely.
Mr. Connolly. Do you believe that the head of State, the
President, can make a vital difference in that advocacy when he
uses the bully pulpit of the presidency either overseas or from
the Oval Office for that matter with respect to human rights?
Ms. Enos. I think that the President should be a vocal
advocate for human rights. I agree.
Mr. Connolly. And conversely, when the President does not,
does not take advantage of that opportunity for advocacy, could
it do harm? Could it set back the cause of human rights?
Ms. Enos. I think that the entire U.S. Government needs to
devote significant attention toward highlighting the severe
human rights violations.
Mr. Connolly. I agree, but my question had to do with the
head of State----
Ms. Enos. Yes, the President----
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. Because he or she has a unique
role. Thank you. I really appreciate that.
Mr. Bencosme, am I pronouncing that right?
Mr. Bencosme. Bencosme.
Mr. Connolly. Bencosme, sorry. You were talking earlier
when I was here, and I had to run to a markup so forgive me for
having to run out, about the Philippines. Has the President of
the United States, you know, Ms. Enos and I agree that the
President has a bully pulpit; it is unique. Human rights is a
very important part of U.S. policy and the President has a
particularly, a unique role in advocacy with respect to human--
he can make a big difference, or not. Has he made a big
difference in the Philippines?
Mr. Bencosme. He has made concerning comments with respect
to how drug offenders should be treated, which I think are not
in line with international human rights standards, so.
Mr. Connolly. Who has?
Mr. Bencosme. The President of the United States.
Mr. Connolly. So, correct me if I am wrong. The President
of the Philippines, Mr. Duterte, has explicitly embraced
vigilantism in the Philippines; is that correct?
Mr. Bencosme. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. And as a result, thousands of people have, in
fact, been murdered either at the hands of vigilantes or
sanctioned police groups in the Philippines allegedly for drug
dealing; is that correct?
Mr. Bencosme. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. Without due process of law?
Mr. Bencosme. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. Without going to a court?
Mr. Bencosme. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. Without even being arrested and detained----
Mr. Bencosme. Correct.
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. And charged. By the way, is that
the system we have here in the United States?
Mr. Bencosme. No.
Mr. Connolly. Is that a system you think we ought to be
advocating for?
Mr. Bencosme. No.
Mr. Connolly. So would you say that that is a good example
of a human rights issues that is pretty important?
Mr. Bencosme. Certainly the President should be, you know,
using our own system and the laws and judicial system in place
and use that as a model of what should happen.
Mr. Connolly. And I want to go back to what your statement
earlier now to put that in context. And so, certainly,
President Trump spoke out about this terrible situation in the
Philippines in blatant violation of the rule of law,
international law, human rights, and has spoken out against it
and tried to tell President Duterte we do not support that kind
of behavior; is that correct?
Mr. Bencosme. To this day, we have not seen any public
comments from----
Mr. Connolly. We have not seen it. Would it be fair, again
keeping in light of the sort of philosophical framework Ms.
Enos and I established, would it be fair to say that by not
speaking out, in fact, it sadly encouraged Duterte and his
vigilantes to persist if not expand their illegal activities
and their gross violations of human rights in this respect?
Mr. Bencosme. Every time that we do not speak out on the
issue, it green lights other abusers to continue to act with
impunity.
Mr. Connolly. So with impunity. So the President went to
Hanoi; is that correct?
Mr. Bencosme. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. Certainly he used that occasion to speak out
about human rights violations such as Michael and lots of
others. In fact, 128 prisoners of conscience identified by your
organization in Vietnam increased by a third since last year,
and that number has grown because of a social media crackdown
by the Government of Vietnam; is that correct?
Mr. Bencosme. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. So, certainly, the President used the
occasion of visiting Hanoi to speak out about that?
Mr. Bencosme. We have not seen any public comments about
the detention of prisoners of conscience or other----
Mr. Connolly. You are kidding. The President did not speak
out about that.
Ms. Nguyen, you are shaking your head. Did you want to
comment?
Ms. Nguyen. I agree with Francisco. I have not heard or
seen, our President speak out about, human rights while we was
in at the summit.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. But I do want to
simply say I believe, and I am very grateful for Ms. Enos's
answers, I believe human rights is a cardinal, foundational
part of American foreign policy and has been since the founding
of this republic. We have not always been consistent, but we
aspire to something and the world looks to us for that advocacy
when people do not otherwise have surcease, they do not have
succor, they do not have a remedy.
But when the United States speaks it carries weight, even
with dictators. And when we choose to be silent or turn another
eye in a different direction, there are victims, real victims,
human beings who are going to suffer, and that is wrong. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. And I will comment
that the most eloquent speeches for human rights are those that
can be silent but have a real economic effect or geostrategic
effect. And when I do the second round, we will focus on
actions the United States can take to push the Philippines,
push Cambodia, and especially push Myanmar/Burma in the right
direction. With that we will recognize the gentleman from
California.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Chairman Sherman and Rep. Yoho for
your invitation to be here today. I want to say it has been an
honor to represent in my time as an elected official, Little
Saigon, the largest concentration of Vietnamese outside of the
country of Vietnam, in Orange County.
And the issue of human rights, religious freedoms is a
struggle that continues to be a challenge. Sadly, we have seen
the Government of Vietnam crack down--and I use the word crack
down--on human rights, religious freedoms by arresting not only
American citizens but Vietnamese citizens as well.
And, Ms. Helen Nguyen, thank you for being here today. We
all stand with you shoulder to shoulder as we fight for
Michael's release, an American citizen whose crime I am still
not sure what it was that got him 12 years in prison.
And I am trying to understand the Government of Vietnam and
their rationale, because a few years ago, my chief of staff
Tammy Tran went to Vietnam, and I do not think she committed
any crime yet. After 2 days there she was arrested and then
deported. And her crime, I believe, was being my chief of staff
and her activities in my office in terms of speaking out human
rights, religious freedom.
I am trying to, as Chairman Sherman said, I am trying to
figure out how we communicate not only to Vietnam but other
countries around the world that if America stands for anything
we stand for human rights, religious freedom, our first
amendment freedom of speech, and that there may be consequences
for doing this. We will continue to fight for Michael's
freedom, yet as my colleague Mr. Lowenthal said, there have to
be consequences. We will watch, but we will not watch patiently
and silently. We will continue to be active.
Remind the Government of Vietnam that there may be some
consequences. Trade continues to grow with Vietnam. Our
military ties continue to grow with Vietnam. Yet, I would pull
back and tell my colleagues in Washington we have to take a
pause at what cost. TPP may be back on the table someday, but
we have to also precondition our relationships on basic
respects for humans, human beings, human rights, religious
freedom.
Countries of particular concern, that category, I think we
have to look at that not as a threat, but really to look at
other countries and say there is a certain level of behavior we
are expecting of you as we continue to do trade with you, we
continue to work with you militarily.
And, Helen, we will continue to work together. You are not
forgotten. Michael is not forgotten. And as I think about when
you got your legal help, when you got your attorneys, I am
reminded that maybe there is a different legal system in
Vietnam and other countries that do not respect due process the
way we know due process to be. I would ask you to comment.
Thank you.
Ms. Nguyen. I left Vietnam when I was young, so I do not
know their legal system over there. So what happened to my
husband, I realize that there is no due process over there. And
that is, we take advantage of what we have here, we do not
value it. When it comes to this situation that is when we
realize due process that we have here, we should value it.
Mr. Correa. And I would say that that is what I suspect to
be the case. I know the case. Again, the American citizens of
Vietnamese heritage that have had challenges in Vietnam are
essentially those that have essentially expressed themselves,
their freedom of speech, and that has caused them in many cases
their freedom.
We will continue to watch. We will continue to monitor. And
I would ask the Government of Vietnam, work with us. We are
watching and we are not forgetting.
Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Nguyen. Thank you.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. And I will point out the Government
of Vietnam puts a substantial effort into trying to encourage
Americans to go visit Vietnam and be tourists and spend money.
And they should be aware that Americans are also watching this
hearing, that Americans turn to the State Department for advice
on where they will be safe and happy on their vacations and I
am not sure that we can provide that kind of assurance at this
point to those seeking sunny beaches and interesting historical
sites. With that I recognize the gentleman from Texas who is
not a member of the committee but is very involved in this
matter.
Mr. Green. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the ranking
member, and I greatly appreciate your allowing me to interlope
today and have an opportunity to give my expressions to Mrs.
Nguyen for her courage, for her ability to simply continue to
hold onto the hope necessary to see her through what are
exceedingly difficult, uncomfortable, and unimaginable times.
Ms. Nguyen, I am so honored that you have this photograph
of your family. My hope is that it has been picked up by our
television cameras. If it has not, I would gladly have it moved
such that it can be. But my hope is that it has been. I see
that you have your youngest child there with you. How old is
this child, please, Ms. Nguyen?
Ms. Nguyen. As now she is nine, but when her dad was gone
she was 8 years old.
Mr. Green. She was eight then and she will be nine. So if
your husband, her father, if he is gone for 12 years, he will
miss her high school graduation. He will miss 12 birthdays.
What we have to do is not allow Mr. Nguyen to become a number.
He is a person. He has family. He has roots. He cannot be a
number. We refuse to allow him to be just another person who
has been caught up in a system. If he is away for 12 years, my
suspicion is that one of your children will probably marry. He
will not be there to present his daughter's hand in marriage as
we traditionally do in this country.
It would not surprise me to know that the Nguyen family
will grow over these 12 years. He will not be there to see his
first grandchild come into the world, the baby take the first
step. He will not be there to congratulate children as they
move on in life, they acquire jobs, and they acquire lives for
themselves outside of the home. He will miss some of the most
important times in the lives of his family.
So my appeal, Mrs. Nguyen, is to the Government of Vietnam,
to understand that a man who has no criminal record, a person
of faith, a person who has been a model citizen in this country
where we have laws, a person who has for the most part done the
things that we would want a person to do to make the world a
better place, that this man is not a number but he is somebody
special to us and we want him back. He is ours. He belongs to
us. We want him back.
Ms. Nguyen. Yes, we want him.
Mr. Green. And we will not give up. We will not give up on
bringing Mr. Nguyen home. We may not bring him home tomorrow,
but we will not give up on bringing Mr. Nguyen home. He has
been a model citizen, and it is difficult for us to believe
that he would somehow become Mr. Hyde, metamorphosis from the
Dr. Jekyll to a Mr. Hyde character and do all of these things
that are alleged. It is difficult for us to believe it. We just
do not see that happening in the human being, generally
speaking.
Itdoes not matter where you are from. Model citizens do not
just wake up one morning and decide they are going to try to
overthrow a government. It justdoes not happen. We want him
back. And I want you to know this, I am going to be with you
until he returns. I thank you for allowing me to say a word to
you and to others today. And if you have a response, I would
yield the rest of my time.
Ms. Nguyen. Thank you, Congressman, for advocating for
Michael and my family.
Mr. Green. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sherman. I know that the Foreign Ministry of Vietnam is
watching. I hope they are listening. And I cannot imagine that
they could hear it with any greater emphasis or eloquence than
we just heard from the gentleman from Texas.
With that, Mr. Bencosme, I would like to ask some questions
about the Philippines. Duterte says that his extrajudicial
killings are just of drug dealers. But, that of course would be
bad enough because he will brand as a drug dealer anybody he
wants to brand as a drug dealer--and, oh, by the way, the way
to deal with drug dealers even if they are drug dealers is not
through extrajudicial killing. But he is also killing people in
indigenous groups. Can you describe the extrajudicial killings
that are visited on these people?
Mr. Bencosme. Absolutely. It is part of a larger sort of
crackdown that we are seeing against human rights defenders in
the country. The way the Philippine Government acts is that it
red tags them, legitimate organizations, or brands them as
things like Communist fronts which had led to an increase of
harassment and attacks by unknown individuals against them.
And so, one of the stark, you know, findings is that, that
I mentioned in my oral statement is that even as of yesterday
we have heard of Karapatan members who, human rights lawyers
who are being killed, you know, even as recently as this week.
And so, what we are seeing is indigenous people who are--who
have an obligation under, you know, under international human
rights law to be defended to have their universal human rights
being violated by this government.
Mr. Sherman. Then we have the case of Maria Ressa. Duterte
will accuse almost anyone of being a drug dealer. He has
accused her of speaking libel. One of the hallmarks of an
antidemocratic government is when they criminalize speech.
Libel here is only, in our law is only a civil matter. I know
some of the most prominent human rights lawyers in the world
are focused on this case. This is the journalist who created
the very popular news website Rappler. Can you tell us about
the case, where it stands, and on what basis, I mean how
blatant is this just an attack on the media?
Mr. Bencosme. There is no basis for any of the charges
levied against Rappler and particularly Maria Ressa. I think up
to at least eight different charges have been placed on Maria
Ressa. It is very clear that it is, in part, a retribution or
reprisal because of the really fantastic investigative
reporting that Rappler has done on Duterte's so-called war on
drugs and it is, in part, with a larger crackdown on free
expression in the country.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
Ms. Huang, focusing on Myanmar, today as I understand it
there are still half a million Rohingya inside the borders of
Burma/Myanmar who have not yet fled. What can we do to assist
and protect these people and do you expect the Government of
Myanmar/Burma to try to ethnically cleanse them as well?
Ms. Huang. Yes. And I want to start by emphasizing the dire
conditions that this half a million people live in. Just
yesterday, I was reading reports that there are some credible
assessments that show that on former Rohingya villages the
military is building bases. You know, so if you want to talk
about how systematic, planned, you know, both looking into the
past and looking into the future, this situation, the dire
situation is, it is, as I mentioned earlier----
Mr. Sherman. So they are building bases on empty villages
or on villages that are still inhabited?
Ms. Huang. Villages that have been razed by the military.
Mr. Sherman. Got you. So first they used genocide and
ethnic cleansing against the people, then they burn the
village, then they build something where the village used to
be.
Ms. Huang. Yes. And in terms of how we can push for greater
protections of these people, I think we spoke earlier about the
need to increase access of various organizations to make sure
that the aid is being provided according to international
standards, and that is really important. And I think the main
set of actions are around accountability and justice, so
whether it is State Department determination, increased
sanctions, referral to the ICC.
And I want to highlight, we have not spoken at length about
the advisory commission that was led by the late Kofi Annan,
which came up with a very comprehensive plan about what needs
to happen in Rakhine so that people can achieve----
Mr. Sherman. I want to go to just one other question and
that is----
Ms. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Sherman. I am sure that the leadership of the Rohingya
appreciates our efforts. They are far more significant than any
other country in the world, far more significant than the
Islamic Conference which is over 20 countries. What could the
Rohingya do and what leader speaks for them that would be
eloquent to explain to the Islamic Conference China's role in
enabling this genocide?
Ms. Huang. You raise a really important point about the
need for Rohingya to be given a platform. And examples like
Mohib Ullah who was invited to the Ministerial for Religious
Freedom last week, that is a great example of someone who----
Mr. Sherman. I am sure that they will speak against Burma/
Myanmar. I am sure they will speak for their people. But they
will not have an effect nor will they be suitably recognizing
our efforts unless they point the finger at Beijing. And it is
very convenient. I have had Muslim leaders tell me do not talk
about the Uyghurs, Pakistan needs that Chinese money. We do not
want to talk about the Uyghurs. And then they go back and talk
about how they are protecting Muslims around the world.
What do we do to make sure that the Rohingya effectively
communicate the enabling role of China?
Ms. Huang. I agree that the OIC can do more. They have
taken some actions, but I think that what we have talked about
in terms of a sustained, international diplomatic campaign to
continue pressing these messages are what is needed.
And one last point on, you know, we have also not heard
President Trump make a statement on the Rohingya situation, the
crisis, and that is something that shows that there is a gap
between what we can do and what is being done currently.
Mr. Sherman. Obviously. And I think Mr. Connolly was
eloquent how this President needs to speak more. We want all of
our Presidents to speak more about human rights.
But I will ask also Ms. Enos, is there anything that can be
done in conjunction with the Rohingya leadership so that the
Muslim world understands what China is doing here?
Ms. Enos. I have written before in a column that I write
bimonthly for Forbes that I think that there should be a
formation of a coalition of the willing led principally by the
U.S. that includes Islamic voices in strongly issuing
condemnations for what took place there. And I think we need to
be frank about it, it was genocide. So.
Mr. Sherman. With that I will recognize the ranking member
for whatever questions he has for this our second round.
Mr. Yoho. Well, I have got many questions, but I have a
statement I have to make. I have to say something about Mr.
Connolly. I appreciate his passion. I mean it is very evident
he did not vote for this President and hedoes not like this
President. But to accuse him of not standing up for human
rights I think is wrong. We do not know what was said in those
meetings. You do not know what was said privately.
He did not go to Vietnam to talk about human rights. It was
about North Korea, and I think we need to keep that clear. I
think this just clouds it and this is part of the problem with
Washington, DC. It is a great political fight and we can put it
on TV for our next campaign ad, and that is stuff that makes me
sick about this place.
We have to have solutions to these problems and it comes
with policy. That is why I feel this committee is the most
important committee on the Hill, because if our foreign
policies are right, we have good national security, we have
good trade, we have good economic policies. And until we come
together on a common cause, you are going to see this circus.
Mr. Sherman brought up a great point about if things like
this happen in Vietnam or as Mr.--what was his last name, from
California?
Mr. Sherman. Correa.
Mr. Yoho. Correa. If his chief of staff was in Vietnam and
they feel she got picked up because she was the chief of staff
for a Member of Congress, that is going to affect the future
relationship of that country or any country that does the same
thing with the United States of America. And we value our
partnership with Vietnam now. I mean they are a counter to
China. They are our 17th largest trading partner.
We disagree maybe on forms of government. We probably
disagree on the human rights issue. I do not think they are
totally void, but they are not going in the direction that we
want to see. And this goes back to what I said previously, our
policies should be tiered, tier 1, 2, 3 is what I propose. Tier
1 countries, we are a hundred percent in alignment. They get
the best trade deals. I would recommend free trade agreements.
Tier 2, they do not get quite so good. Tier 3, very little. If
you are below that you do not trade with the United States or
other like-minded countries. Until we change these things, you
are going to have despotic leaders.
Burma, right now, last--I think it was 2016, they are our
107th trading partner. We did over three-quarters of a billion
dollars in trade with them. This year, already, we are almost
at--at the end of May we are about $500 million in trade with
them. The biggest port is in California. So we are all against
human rights abuses, but yet we keep trading because we do not
want to lose the money.
I think it is time we put our values above our pocketbook
and send a signal to these countries we are not excluding them
from trade, we are just saying we have a higher standard. That
if we put that standard, if they want to trade with the United
States, a country that has the rule of law that honors
contracts, they come to our side without us saying you have to
do these things.
And I think that has been a misdirection of our foreign
policy over the last 30 years. You have to do these things.
They agree to it. We trade with them because it is written in a
paper that we are doing these things, but we know darn well
they are not doing them but we keep trading them, but the paper
says we are doing it and they are supposed to. And then when it
is brought to our attention we are like, ``Oh well, son of a
gun. Please do better on your human rights.''
You brought up the rhetoric. One of you brought up the
rhetoric. I think it was you, brought up the rhetoric is spoken
but the actions aren't there. I think it is time we put the
actions. If we truly believe in that--and of course some people
say, ``Well, that is an isolationist policy.'' Yes, it could
be. But I think it sends a strong message, you either do
business with the people that believe in what you believe in or
stop doing business. I mean we can go around the world and see
all these despotic leaders from Nicaragua to wherever.
Anyways, my question is you had brought up China's effect
in Cambodia, China's effect in Burma. What are they doing that
are suppressing the human rights? Is it their facial
recognition and the CCTV cameras that are grading citizens and
living out the 1984 George Orwell's book, or big government is
watching?
Ms. Enos. I think one of the big concerns with China's Belt
and Road Initiative is not only that they will export, you
know, various forms of investment, but that they will export
authoritarianism on a whole. And I think one of the potential
concerns of this, of course, is the use of the facial
recognition technology and what not. I am not aware of
particular instances in either Cambodia or Burma where this
technology has already been exported, but I think that the
potential for that is extraordinarily strong.
And I think that we should look at the case of the Uyghurs
in Xinjiang----
Mr. Yoho. Sure.
Ms. Enos [continuing]. As a, you know, foretaste of what
could be to come, because there is a lot of incentives for, you
know, bad actors like the Burmese military to misuse this
technology for their own ends.
Mr. Yoho. It really is. And that is where we are going. And
my good colleague here, you know, China--he had a good phrase
and I want to use it here. But China is offering their form of
socialism with Chinese characteristics, but what it really
comes down to is dictatorship with Chinese characteristics,
because that is really what is being offered. So it gives these
countries and their leaders the power to control their citizens
so that they fall in line.
They have given it to Maduro. That is why you have seen
over five million people leave in Latin America. He is purging
his country. He is going to have people that aren't willing to
fight or they believe in what he says and the problem is solved
for him. And it is a breakdown of democracies in the Western
Hemisphere, but this is going on around the world, and the Asia
Pacific is probably the most significant area because there is
going to be more people living in that Asia Pacific region by
the year 2050 in the world than outside of that region.
And so, what kind of a future we want and that is why we
need to change our foreign policies to direct--put us in a
direction to get the results that we want that we know empower
the individual to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness on their terms. But you cannot do that with a
despotic regime.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to bloviate, I
guess. Thank you.
Mr. Sherman. Always good to hear you.
I will point out that the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee, South Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific already
has over half the population of the world. And I will pose one
question just for the record on Burma/Myanmar, and that is I
would like people to review all the sanctions we had before
Aung San Suu Kyi got back there and opine on which should be
reimposed now until such time as the Rohingya are given
citizenship documents.
These include GSP, a general ban on imports from Burma, the
specific bans on jadeite and rubies and products containing
those gemstones, a ban on certain Burmese companies, the
freezing of assets of certain nationals--we have done that to
some degree--the prohibition of financial services to certain
nationals, restrictions on investment, and especially
restrictions on U.S. support for multilateral assistance.
So take a look at what we were doing then and tell me which
of those things we should do now. With that I want to thank the
witnesses. This hearing has been longer than most, but we have
dealt with many important topics. And I especially want to
thank Helen Nguyen for being here. Thank you. We are done.
[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]