[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                     THE UNFOLDING CRISIS IN BURMA

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 4, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-33

                               __________

        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 
44-451              WASHINGTON : 2021 
 
                       

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                  GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, Chairman

BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking 
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey                  Member
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
KAREN BASS, California               JOE WILSON, South Carolina
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts       SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island        DARRELL ISSA, California
AMI BERA, California                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas                LEE ZELDIN, New York
DINA TITUS, Nevada                   ANN WAGNER, Missouri
TED LIEU, California                 BRIAN MAST, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota             KEN BUCK, Colorado
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
COLIN ALLRED, Texas                  MARK GREEN, Tennessee
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan                 ANDY BARR, Kentucky
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia         GREG STEUBE, Florida
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey           CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
ANDY KIM, New Jersey                 AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
SARA JACOBS, California              PETER MEIJER, Michigan
KATHY MANNING, North Carolina        NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
JIM COSTA, California                RONNY JACKSON, Texas
JUAN VARGAS, California              YOUNG KIM, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas              MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida
BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois

                                     
                                     

                    Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director

               Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
               
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               WITNESSES

Tun, His Excellency Kyaw Moe, Permanent Representative of Myanmar 
  to the United Nations..........................................     8
Ohmar, Khin, Founder and Chairperson of the Advisory Board, 
  Progressive Voice..............................................    18
Currie, The Honorable Kelley E. Former Ambassador-at-Large for 
  Global Women's Issues..........................................    27

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    77
Hearing Minutes..................................................    78
Hearing Attendance...............................................    79

                        STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD

Statement for the record from Representative Connolly............    80


                     THE UNFOLDING CRISIS IN BURMA

                          Tuesday, May 4, 2021

                          House of Representatives,
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., via 
WebEx, Hon. Gregory Meeks (Chairman of the committee) 
presiding.
    Chairman Meeks. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come 
to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any point and all Members will have 
5 days to submit statements, extraneous materials, and 
questions for the record subject to the length limitations in 
the rules.
    To insert something into the record, please have your staff 
email the previously mentioned address or contact full 
committee staff.
    As a reminder to Members, please keep your video function 
on at all times, even when you are not recognized by the Chair. 
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
    Consistent with House rules, staff will only mute Members 
as appropriate when they are not under recognition to eliminate 
background noise.
    I see that we have a quorum and I now recognize myself for 
opening remarks.
    Pursuant to the notice, we meet today to hear from 
distinguished witnesses to examine the February 1st coup in 
Burma and the Burmese military's violent response to pro-
democracy protesters demonstrating against the military's 
undoing of the election and the will of the people.
    The coup has resulted in an ongoing crisis in Burma that 
has claimed the lives of hundreds of peaceful protestors. On 
February 1st, Burma's military, the Tatmadaw, seized control of 
the union government, detained democratically elected political 
leaders, including its president, Win Myint and Aung San Suu 
Kyi, reversing years of reform and upending Burma's fragile 
transition to democracy.
    As we often see in the face of injustice, an informal and 
leaderless civil disobedience movement has emerged to protest 
the military's power grab. Almost immediately after the coup, 
the Burmese people took to the streets in historic numbers to 
express opposition to the coup and support for democracy.
    The military responded with brutal force. The military has 
suppressed the fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly, 
association, and the press in an effort to silence the Burmese 
people's desire for democracy.
    But we should not be surprised by these actions. We have 
known for years who the Tatmadaw are. They showed us before the 
democratic opening in 2015 and again in 2017 when they led a 
genocide against the Rohingya people, and now in 2021 with the 
coup and their response to popular opposition to it.
    The military has, again, turned on its citizens, responding 
to protests with senseless and brutal violence. Thousands have 
been beaten or injured. More than 750 people have been killed 
and over 3,400 have been detained nationwide since the coup 
began.
    The junta's indiscriminate and lethal violence has even 
claimed the lives of more than 50 children, the youngest being 
just 6 years old, a girl killed in front of her father during a 
raid of their home in the city of Mandalay.
    In response to the military's subversions of Burma's 
elected government and democratic transition, some lawmakers 
formed a committee representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, or the 
CRPH, to restore a democratically elected civilian role.
    Working with leaders from the civil disobedience movement 
and Burma's ethnic communities, the CRPH recently formed a 
national unity government to represent the will of the Burmese 
people who have persevered through the military brutality and 
finding evermore creative ways to resist its rule.
    To support the efforts of the Burmese people, the United 
States has already taken action to reprimand and pressure the 
Tatmadaw, and we have done this through working with partners 
and other like-minded countries and through the implementation 
of sanctions, including on the Burmese military leaders who 
directed the coup and their military-owned conglomerates in 
addition to placing export control restrictions on Burma and 
freezing, roughly, $1 billion in assets.
    This very body also passed legislation to empower and 
protect the Burmese people, and we continue to work with 
partners around the world to build a more unified response to 
the coup.
    My time in Congress has taught me that nothing we do alone 
will ever be as effective as the coordinated action that we 
take alongside like-minded partners.
    It is critical that we enlist Burma neighbors, the ASEAN 
and our partners and allies around the world to place 
additional pressure on the military junta.
    We must send a clear message that we stand in solidarity 
with the Burmese people. I look forward to hearing our 
witnesses speak on the ongoing crisis in Burma so that we can 
better understand the situation on the ground, determine what 
additional steps might need to be taken by the U.S. Government 
to pressure the Burmese military to immediately cease its 
repression and violence, and secure the release of all detained 
political leaders and activists.
    This is, indeed, a challenging time for the people of 
Burma, who have seen far too much violence and oppression. Now 
a new generation of Burmese look to the world for hope. We must 
answer their call and support their campaign for dignity, 
democracy, and freedom.
    Let me now recognize my friend, the Ranking Member, Mr. 
McCaul of Texas, for any remarks he might have.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Meeks. Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. Okay, can you hear me now, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Meeks. Now I hear you.
    Mr. McCaul. We just had a little technical glitch. But I 
want to thank you for calling this important hearing today and 
staying on focus on Burma and these horrific acts in the 
aftermath of the latest coup.
    This committee has always stood with the Burmese people in 
their struggle to free themselves from military rule, to 
protect their human rights, and to secure democracy.
    I'm grateful that we have continued that spirit of 
bipartisanship by passing multiple pieces of legislation 
already this year, and I look forward to taking more action to 
hold the Burmese military accountable, not as Republicans or 
Democrats but as Americans conducting a foreign policy 
consistent with our values.
    Just a few months ago, the people of Burma had a flawed but 
functioning democracy. Today, they live under a reign of 
terror, with their democratic freedoms being stolen away.
    And since this latest coup on February 1st, we have seen 
what can only be described as a military committing mass murder 
against its own people it's supposed to protect. The latest 
estimates place the death toll at well over 700 civilians 
killed throughout Burma.
    In addition to this violence, the Burmese people are 
suffering through mass arrests, nighttime raids, communication 
blackouts, and widespread intimidation of the press.
    It's all designed to crush their spirits and their will to 
resist. Incredibly, it's not working. The people of Burma 
continue to take to the streets, inspiring the world with their 
resolve to regain the democracy and their military--that their 
military stole.
    The United States will continue to stand with them, and 
today's hearing will guide our next steps. To begin, we need to 
tighten our sanctions against the regime, against the military 
for their brutal human rights violations during this coup, as 
well as their prior genocide against the Rohingya.
    In addition, if we want to achieve any meaningful purpose 
at the United Nations, we need to understand the motivations of 
Russia, which is drawing closer to the Burmese military, and we 
need to understand the motivations of the Chinese Communist 
Party, which wants to extend its Belt and Road Initiative 
through Burma to the Indian Ocean.
    And most of all, we need to make sure we're doing all we 
can for the brave people of Burma who are risking their lives 
to stand up for their rights, people like in Burma's--like 
Burma's Ambassador to the United Nations, who has spoken out 
against the regime that has taken over his country's 
government. It is at a huge risk to himself and his family.
    So, Mr. Ambassador, it's quite an honor to have you with us 
here today and your bravery inspires us all. I'd like to thank 
Ambassador Currie and Ms. Ohmar for joining us today to discuss 
our next steps to respond to this horrible coup.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back. And I'd now like 
to turn to Mr. Bera, the Chair of the Asia Subcommittee. I 
yield 1 minute to you.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking 
Member for holding this incredibly important hearing. I'll keep 
my comments short.
    I'm proud of the work that we have done in a bipartisan 
way, both on the subcommittee as well as the full committee, 
and in a bicameral way, as well as the steps that the Biden 
Administration has taken both to implement sanctions on the 
military but also to show support for the Burmese people.
    And now that this coup has gone from days to weeks to 
months, the resolve of the Burmese people is something to be 
admired. Up to 90 percent of the country is on a general 
strike, shutting things down, sending a clear message that the 
Burmese people do not want to backslide on this coup.
    Everything we can do as a committee and as a country and 
internationally to support the Burmese people in their rights 
and their freedoms is something that we ought to be doing. So, 
again, thank you for hosting this hearing.
    The message to the Burmese people is the American people 
and the American Congress are with you.
    Thank you, and I will yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    I now yield 1 minute to the Ranking Member, Mr. Chabot, for 
1 minute.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As the current Ranking Member of the Asia and Pacific 
Subcommittee and having Chaired that committee several 
Congresses back, I've followed events in Burma very closely for 
quite a few years now, and the February 1st coup was a 
shameless assault on Burma's fledgling democracy that, once 
again, demonstrated to the world who really runs that country 
and that's the Tatmadaw, the military.
    This time around, though, the people of Burma have 
courageously rejected the coup and are demanding their God-
given right to freedom and self-government as
    And the situation keeps getting darker as the Tatmadaw 
arrests, tortures, murders more innocent people every day. In 
light of this, the Biden Administration must rally 
international support for a tougher response against the 
Tatmadaw.
    We need a concerted response that would bring this coup to 
an end and place Burma on a permanent path to a stable Federal 
democracy.
    Thank you for holding this hearing. Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.
    Now I'll introduce our witnesses.
    Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun began serving as the Permanent 
Representative of Myanmar to the United Nations on October 
2020.
    Since joining the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1993, he 
has held a number of diplomatic posts, including Myanmar's 
Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, 
Permanent Representative to the World Trade Organization, 
Permanent Representative to the Organization of the Prohibition 
of Chemical Weapons in The Hague, as well as Myanmar's 
Ambassador to Switzerland.
    Ms. Khin Ohmar is a Burmese human rights and democracy 
activist, and currently serves as the Chairperson of the 
Advisory Board of Progressive Voice. She was involved in 
organizing the historical general strike or August the 8th, 
1988.
    Following the Burmese's military crackdown on 
demonstrators, she was forced to leave her home and was granted 
political refuge in the United States.
    She has continued to campaign for democracy in Burma 
internationally and regionally as the founder of a number of 
civil society organizations, including Women's League of Burma, 
Burma Partnership, and Progressive Voice.
    Ambassador Kelley Currie served as the U.S. Ambassador-at-
Large for Global Women's Issues and the U.S. Representative at 
the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.
    Prior to her appointment, she led the Department of State's 
Office on Global Criminal Justice and served as the United 
States Representative to the U.N. Economic and Social Council 
and Alternative Representative to the U.N. General Assembly 
from 2017 to 2018.
    Throughout her career in foreign policy, Ambassador Currie 
has specialized in human rights, political reform, development 
and humanitarian issues, with a focus on the Asia Pacific 
region.
    So, without objection, all the witnesses' prepared 
testimony will be made part of the record, and I'll now 
recognize the witnesses for 5 minutes each to summarize their 
testimony.
    We'll start with Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun. You're now 
recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF KYAW MOE TUN, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF MYANMAR 
                     TO THE UNITED NATIONS

    Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, 
Members of the committee.
    Good afternoon. Mingalar par. I thank you all for holding 
this important hearing on the serious situation of my country, 
and thank you for all the strong encouraging remarks.
    Due to time constraint, I will be delivering the shorter 
version of my statement, and the true version has been 
submitted to the esteemed committee. I will focus more on what 
action the United States should take.
    Mr. Chairman, the situation in Myanmar is, indeed, an 
unfolding tragedy that continues to escalate over time. The 
people in Myanmar are seriously suffering from the military 
brutality and inhumane acts day and night. Fear tends to be the 
order of the day and we all are living under fear.
    Our free and fair general elections were successfully held 
on 8 November 2020, which is a significant milestone in our 
history. The NUG won their landslide victory at the elections. 
Total ignorance of the people's desire, the military staged a 
coup on 1st February and unlawfully detained the State 
councilor, the president, other leaders and the 
parliamentarians, as well as several activists.
    In wake of the military coup, millions of people came out 
on the streets to protest against the military. Subsequently, 
the military terrorist group has cracked down the peaceful 
protests in a brutal and inhumane manner and committed serious 
human rights violations, including brutal killing, arbitrary 
arrests, and torture.
    More than 756 civilians have already been murdered by the 
military. The majority of victims are young people who are the 
future of the country. They even kill children as young as 6 
years old.
    The people of Myanmar are resilient and unprecedentedly 
united in fighting against the military and calling for release 
of all unlawful detainees, for return of the State power to the 
people, and for restoration of democracy and for building a 
Federal democratic union. The three pillars, namely, the 
peaceful protests, CDM, and CRPH are working hand in hand in 
this regard.
    Federal Democracy Charter was announced on 31st March with 
the ultimate goal of drafting a new Federal constitution. The 
Charter outlines an eight-step political roadmap toward 
building a new Federal democratic union of Myanmar.
    Accordingly, NUG was formed by the CRPH. The formation of 
the NUG was overwhelmingly welcomed by the people of Myanmar.
    In line with the people's will, the international 
community's recognition and engagement with the NUG is a 
critical step to take and it could pave the way to end the 
violence, to save lives of innocent civilians, and protect them 
from the military brutal and inhumane acts, to restore 
democracy in Myanmar and provide humanitarian assistance to the 
people in need.
    Mr. Chair, I wish to stress that Myanmar is not just 
witnessing another major setback to democracy but also the 
crisis is threatening the regional peace and security.
    In line with the principle that a State has the 
responsibility to protect its own people from crimes against 
humanity, the NUG, together with the people, have taken all 
possible ways and means to defend our own people from the 
military's inhumane and brutal acts.
    We ask the international community to adhere to the 
principle and to take the responsibility to protect the people 
of Myanmar from the possible crimes against humanity committed 
by the military terrorist group.
    Taking this opportunity on behalf of the NUG and the people 
of Myanmar, I would like to thank the United States for your 
continued support. However, we need the United States to take a 
decisive leadership role in helping resolve the Myanmar crisis.
    On behalf of the NUG and people of Myanmar, I wish to 
appeal to you and the House of Representatives as follows.
    To save lives of innocent civilians, protection should be 
immediately extended to the people of Myanmar. Humanitarian 
assistance should be urgently provided to the people in need.
    Necessary shelters should be provided to those seeking 
refuge in neighboring countries and elsewhere. No-fly zones 
should be declared in relevant areas in Myanmar. Global arms 
embargoes should be imposed immediately.
    Targeted, coordinated, and tougher sanctions should be 
applied against the military. Myawaddy Bank, Innwa Bank, MFTB, 
and MOGE should be immediately added in the targeted sanction 
list. Bank accounts associated with the military and their 
Members should be frozen and financial inflow into the military 
regime and its associates should be cutoff immediately.
    Foreign direct investment should be suspended. NUG should 
be recognized as the legitimate government. Any visa should not 
be issued to any diplomats appointed by State administrative 
council.
    NUG should be allowed to use the Myanmar funds put in 
freeze in the U.S. for benefit of the people of Myanmar.
    In conclusion, Mr. Chair, we are confident that ending the 
murderous military regime will pave a way to finding 
sustainable solutions to the challenges we face related to 
effective protection and permissions of rights of ethnic, 
religious, and all other minorities and equality for all.
    The people of Myanmar are resolute to achieve this goal. 
Time is of the essence for the people of Myanmar, who feel 
helpless. As such, the United States and the international 
community must act now decisively in a collective, concrete, 
and timely manner to avoid further killing of innocent 
civilians and further bloodshed in Myanmar.
    Please do not let killing continue. Please act now. We will 
always remember the help and support of the United States.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tun follows:]
    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     

    
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
    I now recognize Ms. Khin Ohmar for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF KHIN OHMAR, FOUNDER AND CHAIRPERSON OF THE 
               ADVISORY BOARD, PROGRESSIVE VOICE

    Ms. Ohmar. Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee Members, 
thank you for inviting me to speak to you on the tragic events 
unfolding in my home country, Burma, and for holding today's 
hearing.
    I would like to thank the U.S. Government for your ongoing 
support to realize our long-fought aspiration for a Federal 
democracy. The following is a summary of my full statement.
    I'm here to share the realities on the ground, the untold 
suffering of the people, and appeal for swift action against 
the brutal Burmese military junta.
    I appeal to you as a survivor of 1988's brutal coup led by 
the same military responsible for today's coup, and as someone 
who still yearns for a true Federal democracy in her homeland.
    In 1995, I testified before the U.S. Senate detailing the 
fatal crackdowns in 1988. I come before you today nearly 30 
years later to describe yet another dark and devastating 
chapter in Burma's history.
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, since February 
1st, millions of people from all walks of life across Burma, 
including police and soldiers, have come together to reject the 
military's unlawful coup attempt.
    The civil disobedience movement has effectively prevented 
the military from controlling the administration of government, 
banks, hospitals, and other sectors. We can thus say that the 
attempted coup is failing.
    In response, the junta has launched a nationwide campaign 
of terror attempting to force people into submission using any 
means necessary. Peaceful protest has been met with murderous 
and indiscriminate violence, including execution-style killings 
and the use of heavy military weaponry.
    The deadliest single day of bloodshed occurred on March 
27th with the mass murder of 169 unarmed civilians. Every day 
the violence and death continue. At least 766 people have been 
killed and over 4,600 arbitrarily arrested.
    All of this is conducted with complete impunity. The junta 
has also added new laws to criminalize protesters, including 
sentencing 19 protesters to death. They're also deliberately 
destroying the evidence of their crimes, such as by removing 
bullets from those they have killed before stitching them back 
together.
    Often cash is demanded from the victim's family in exchange 
for the bodies to be returned. And they're not just taking 
lives. They are destroying houses, private property, and food 
stores at random and robbing people of their cell phones, 
computers, and motorcycles.
    Torture and beatings in detention are commonplace, with no 
access to legal representation or contact with families. For 
women and LGBTIQ, the situation is far worse with reports of 
rape, sexual violence, and psychological abuse.
    Sexual and gender-based violence has long been used by the 
Burma military as a weapon of war against ethnic nationalities 
to terrorize them into submission. They have murdered at least 
51 children, including those in their homes and playing in the 
streets.
    Abduction and torture of family Members, including children 
as young as two, are increasing. Since the end of March, 
they've launched air strikes in Karen and Kachin States.
    In the last week of April alone, there were 68 air strikes. 
This has led to the displacement of over 45,000 people and 
killing of at least 20. Furthermore, people are fleeing into 
ethnic areas, exacerbating a humanitarian crisis that was 
already teetering toward catastrophe before the coup.
    The U.N. warns of a slow-burning food crisis. Severe 
restrictions on freedom of movement and information are being 
imposed, including nationwide internet cuts and declaration of 
martial law in some townships, sending Burma back into 
darkness.
    Mr. Chairman, in spite of such brute force and violence, 
the people of Burma continue with their daily protest, standing 
firm in their defiance against this illegitimate military junta 
and in their support for--in their support of their legitimate 
government, the National Unity Government.
    They ask for the international community, including this 
legislative body, to do all they can to recognize and support 
the NUG.
    I appeal to this Congress and the Biden Administration to 
stop the flow of oil and gas revenues from Chevron to this 
unlawful military junta, impose a comprehensive embargo on the 
transfer or sale of military arms and equipment, including 
dual-use goods, continue to impose and enforce targeted 
sanctions aimed at the military and their business interests, 
and support efforts to hold the military to account under 
international law for their atrocity crimes, including for the 
Rohingya genocide in 2017.
    Mr. Chairman, I'd like to, once again, thank you and the 
Members of the committee for allowing me to testify today. I'll 
close my statement with this. Today's violence and atrocities 
are only possible because of a lack of accountability for the 
past crimes.
    There can be no democratic and peaceful Burma unless this 
military is held to account and placed under total civilian 
control.
    I've spent the past 32 years trying to bring about 
democratic change in Burma. I'll continue to fight for the 
people.
    But drawing on my decades of experience, I know that the 
people of Burma need concrete actions from you and the broader 
international community. There's this unprecedented window of 
opportunity that the people of Burma, so many of them young, 
have created by sacrificing their lives to topple this military 
junta once and for all.
    We must not allow it to slip through our fingers. I look 
forward to your concrete and swift action and answering your 
questions today. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Ohmar follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     

      
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you, Ms. Khin Ohmar.
    I now recognize Ambassador Currie for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF KELLEY CURRIE, FORMER AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE FOR 
                     GLOBAL WOMEN'S ISSUES

    Ms. Currie. Thank you, Chairman Meeks, Ranking Member 
McCaul, and the rest of the committee for the opportunity to 
appear before you today with my distinguished co-panelists.
    In the midst of all the devastation and cruelty that you've 
heard about from the previous speakers, Burma's spring 
revolution has actually been characterized by this incredible 
optimism, creativity, public spiritedness, and this amazing 
inclusiveness that's, largely, been lacking in previous 
movements.
    And it's this dynamic that I want to speak to a little bit 
today, because the way that the CDM and protest movements have 
cut across class, geographic, ethnic, religious, and 
generational distinctions in unprecedented ways gives me a lot 
of hope for where things are actually headed if we can break 
the circuit on violence that's currently accelerating across 
the country.
    The ethnic nationalities of women who have played 
increasingly critical and leadership roles in this movement 
have opened up long suppressed dialogs on key societal issues 
at the same time they're fighting a military junta.
    This is really unprecedented, and it's this increased 
awareness of and empathy for the situation of the ethnic people 
among the majority Bamar protesters that's one of the most 
important features of what is happening today and one that I 
think we need to look at as a critical element, going forward, 
as we analyze our own policy prescriptions.
    You've heard from my colleagues about the unprecedented 
combination of persistent nationwide protests and 
nonparticipation through the civil disobedience movement and 
how this has tested the junta's ability to retain effective 
control of the country.
    And I think this is also important, especially as we look 
at what the young people are doing, how their savvy digital 
native kind of behavior has allowed the whole movement to stay 
a half step ahead of the junta as they cutoff internet access 
and tried to censor content.
    Instead, these groups have been able to keep the content 
flowing into the global and regional media, and they've been 
really connected with regional activists and to the Milk Tea 
Alliance, and have created this--have been part of this very 
creative regional network. That is another thing that we can 
build on with our own policy approaches.
    As we pass the 3-month mark, though, I think that we are 
seeing that the conflict is starting to morph into a new phase 
and we need to be very conscious of this.
    In recent weeks, as my colleagues mentioned, we have seen 
this effort by the democratic and ethnic nationality forces to 
come together to disavow the military-drafted 2008 
constitution, to issue a new Federal Democratic Charter, to 
appoint a new National Unity Government that is among the most 
diverse cabinet in the country's history.
    There's also a lot of anecdotal evidence, however, that 
young people are giving up on nonviolent struggle and are 
joining up with the ethnic armed organizations with the intent 
to form the basis of a new Federal army to support the National 
Unity Government, and the National Unity Government itself has 
been very open about its intentions there and what they want to 
do.
    The Tatmadaw has, of course, responded with more violence, 
and so we see this increasingly likely scenario of 
Balkanization and State failure, especially when you understand 
that there are so many well-armed groups in the country and 
that have never operated under effective State control.
    And this is a really critical element, again, as we think 
about what U.S. policy should be, going forward, and how we 
should respond.
    We have seen that the international community, instead of 
reacting appropriately to the situation, has delegated the 
international response to one of the weakest regional 
organizations in the world, the Association of Southeast Asian 
States, ASEAN, and left to its own devices, we saw what 
happened with that where the five-point consensus that came out 
of a special summit in Jakarta recently has utterly failed. The 
junta had disavowed it and violated it before Min Aung Hlaing 
even returned back to Burma from Jakarta.
    And the United Nations has been no better, frankly. The 
Security Council has absolutely failed in its responsibilities 
to support international--to protect and promote international 
peace and security.
    As the penholder on Burma, the United Kingdom has been 
reluctant to table a resolution, reportedly out of fear of 
joint Chinese and Russian vetoes, and frustration with the 
Council on the ground is growing as well as within the ranks of 
the United Nations, who are looking at alternatives to the 
Security Council.
    So I think that there are a number of things that--in my 
last minute here that we can highlight and I'm happy to go into 
more detail on in the Q&A about where the U.S. can and should 
encourage its allies to take action around three key issues.
    One is around recognition and legitimacy, and things that 
we can do relatively low cost to support the National Unity 
Government, cutting off the junta's money supply, which you've 
heard from my colleagues about a little bit, and then moving on 
a Security Council, which would also include accountability 
issues.
    So, again, I'm happy to talk about more of those things 
during the Q&A and get into some of the details. They're also 
found in my written testimony, which has been submitted to the 
committee.
    Thank you, again, for the opportunity.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Currie follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     

     
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you, Ambassador, and thank you all 
for your testimony today. Very enlightening.
    I now recognize Members for 5 minutes each, pursuant to the 
House rules, and all time is yielded for the purposes of 
questioning our witnesses.
    I'll recognize Members by committee seniority, alternating 
between Democrats and Republicans. If you miss your turn, 
please let our staff know and we'll come back to you. If you 
seek recognition, you must unmute your microphone and address 
the Chair verbally, and identify yourself so that we know who 
is speaking.
    I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    Let me start with Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun. Again, thank you 
for appearing before us today and for your bravery in speaking 
out against the coup. I'd like to ask you about the National 
Unity Government and how representative is it for the vast 
diversity of your country?
    There has been, you know, a long simmering civil war in 
Burma and there are many ethnic groups there that are not just 
antagonistic toward the military but also dissatisfied with the 
lack of progress in the peace process under the NLD. So how is 
the National Unity Government working to date to reassure those 
ethnic groups? That's my first question.
    And second, then what vision does the CRPH and the National 
Unity Government have for the ethnic community in Burma?
    Mr. Ambassador, I believe you're on mute.
    Mr. Tun. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the 
question. As Ambassador Currie also rightly point out the, you 
know, the NUG how diverse it is and, you know, the composition, 
it's, you know, it's very unprecedented.
    It's composed of, you know, the Members from the different 
ethnic groups, including the ethnic organization. So it's quite 
diverse. It's also--it includes quite a number of women in the 
government. So that is why we see it's very encouraging.
    So this kind of, you know, the NUG it's, you know, come up 
with the close consultation among all the relevant 
stakeholders. So that is what we see. So it's very encouraging 
for us, I mean, the people of Myanmar, where how the NUG come 
up and how it will proceed with the--you know, the goal of 
building a Federal democratic union.
    That is, you know, the people all over the country give 
their overwhelming support to the NUG because of the--you know, 
the--its credibility, and it's because of the support from the 
people.
    So and the NUG and CRPH, you know, as the--as you know, the 
CRPH is, you know, it stands like a now the legislative body, 
or body. So the NUG as the executive body and the CRPH as a 
legislative body. So we are working hand in hand.
    NUG and CRPH working hand in hand so because what we are 
doing is that we are trying to control the area as much as 
possible together with ethnic organizations.
    You may notice that lately there are the, you know, fight 
between the ethnic organization and the military, the terrorist 
group because the ethnic organizations now stand with the 
people of Myanmar, providing all the support to the people and 
the people also supporting the organization.
    Now, as Ambassador Currie also mentioned, the young people 
who drive the protests now are taking some trainings under 
the--at an area controlled by the organization.
    So for us we do not want to go that much farther because of 
the, you know, we need to fight against the military. We still 
need to have the support from the international community, Mr. 
Chair.
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you so much.
    Let me ask Ambassador Currie real quick to followup on 
that, and also, what do you think the ASEAN should be doing? 
What more should they be doing that they're not doing right 
now?
    Ms. Currie. Well, I think that the National Unity 
Government is doing a good job of reaching out to ethnic 
nationalities. The biggest challenge right now, though, is that 
they continue to struggle on dealing with the kind of birth 
defects of Burma's independence and it's a very complicated 
dynamic around who has status as a recognized ethnic 
nationality, and it gets into a lot of very difficult issues.
    This is where the Rohingya, for instance, fall into a gap 
and have been able to--and have been subject to deep 
discrimination as a result.
    With regard to ASEAN, they are very poorly set up to deal 
with political problems like this. The best thing they could 
do, frankly, would be to ask the Security Council to take 
responsibility for the problem and hand it over to them instead 
of being an obstacle and a fig leaf that allows for Security 
Council inaction, in my opinion.
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you. My time has expired. You know, 
we try to get as many Members as we can, to hold all Members to 
the 5-minute rule.
    I now acknowledge Ranking Member McCaul for 5 minutes for 
questions.
    You have to unmute, Mr. McCaul.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Meeks. Office, can we unmute Mr. McCaul?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Stiles. Mr. Chair, the next member is Mr. Chabot. Mr. 
McCaul had to drop off for a moment.
    Chairman Meeks. Very good. Mr. Chabot, you're now 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. I'll start with Ambassador 
Currie, if I could.
    Ambassador, you mentioned that the U.N. has, basically, 
totally failed in its effort, and my thinking when you 
mentioned that was so what else is new.
    But since February, Beijing and Moscow have blocked 
international efforts to restore stability in Burma, including 
blocking U.N. Security Council statement condemning the coup 
before eventually agreeing to a more limited statement that did 
not use the word ``coup.''
    How can the U.S. work with other nations on the Security 
Council, including India and Vietnam, for example, to coax 
China and Russia into being more helpful, although, as we know, 
that experience can be about as frustrating as anything on this 
globe, trying to get them to cooperate constructively on 
virtually anything? But I'd love to hear what you have to say, 
Madam Ambassador.
    Ms. Currie. Thank you, Mr. Chabot, and thank you for your 
historic leadership on Burma. It's deeply appreciated. In my 
experience working in the Security Council, China hates to be 
isolated. Russia does not. Russia is more tolerant of it and a 
little bit more risk tolerant and more of a chaos agent.
    But the Chinese have a lot of vested interests on the 
ground in Burma, and I think that to say that they've been 
blocking something is a little bit of a mischaracterization. 
The U.K. and the U.S. and other so-called like-minded countries 
haven't really tried to drag things out into the open and force 
the issue in a way that would force the Chinese to make choices 
that they currently are avoiding making and are very happy to 
avoid making.
    I believe that the best way to see progress in the U.N. is 
to actually force the issue and to start talking about tabling 
a resolution to actually accomplish some of the things, whether 
it's an arms embargo or a no-fly zone, that the Burmese have 
asked for, to have open meetings instead of closed ones where 
the Chinese and others can hide behind the process.
    But the more openness there is, the more I think that the 
like-minded countries can benefit and pressure the Chinese into 
being less obstructive.
    Mr. Chabot. Okay, thank you very much. And just to followup 
if I could, could you maybe expound a little bit upon what 
China is up to in Burma? What are their interests there?
    What are they doing behind the scenes? You know, what, if 
anything, can the United States do to, obviously, promote 
regional stability and democracy and, you know, push back on 
their malevolent, you know, desires, not only especially there 
but, really, throughout the region? Could you kind of discuss 
what China is really up to?
    Ms. Currie. I think that on Burma the Chinese have built up 
a lot of infrastructure. So they have sunk costs in Burma. They 
do not love dealing with the military there. They find them an 
unreliable partner but--and they had invested a lot in working 
with the democratically--elected government of Aung San Suu 
Kyi.
    And so they were quite comfortable having her imprimatur on 
their big economic Belt and Road China-Myanmar economic 
cooperation engagements in Burma and were willing to deal with 
a democratic government quite fine. Found it very comfortable 
for them.
    So there's no reason they cannot do that again. The problem 
is that they do not--they continue to hide behind this 
noninterference posture, which is part of a broader global 
issue, and so there is that.
    I think that if they were forced to choose that they 
would--it would improve the odds that they at least would have 
to make a choice toward the democratically elected government 
and move in that direction and show some favoritism.
    But they're not going to do it absent others who are more 
naturally inclined toward doing that and unless they feel boxed 
out. And so I think that that's the key for us. I think that 
cuts across everything in Southeast Asia, that we have got to 
stand on the side of democracy and human rights and these 
values in order to highlight the difference between what we 
offer the region and the model that the Chinese are offering 
them, which is very extractive, very narrowly self-interested.
    One example where we could do this, for instance, is if we 
were to work with the National Unity Government to help get 
vaccines cross border through trusted NGO's that have 
experience while China is giving vaccines to the junta and 
contrast that, for instance.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. My time is expired, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I now 
recognize Mr. Sherman of California for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I want to point out that Congress 
provided about $135 million of assistance to Burma. USAID and 
State have redirected $42 million. I can see a use for our 
money in supporting anti-government democracy activists, press 
etc.
    But the USAID seems to be bent on spending money on general 
economic development which, while it might be good for people 
in Burma, is also good for the junta, and we should not 
evaluate whether these programs are good--some of them help 
people in need--but whether the best use for American foreign 
aid dollars, which could instead go to help India deal with 
COVID-19, allow us to do even more, and we're doing a lot--to 
do more for the Rohingya refugees or support political 
engagement and in Nigeria, or election observation in Benin or 
a host of other issues.
    That would be a better use than strengthening the economy 
of a country that is right now run by the junta.
    I want to focus on the Rohingya, and last month the--we saw 
the formation of this National Unity Government, which has said 
it will deliver justice for our Rohingya brothers and sisters.
    But it's a council of 27 people, none of whom are Rohingya. 
And so I know Your Excellency Mr. Tun is not officially part of 
the National Unity Government but I want to give him an 
opportunity.
    Should they add a twenty-eighth member to the council to 
represent the Rohingya community and is it important for this 
National Unity Government to declare that they will give 
citizenship documents to all Rohingya who were born in Burma or 
in the refugee camps?
    Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sherman, for the 
questions.
    So, you know, the NUG government and the CRPH make it very 
clear that, you know, now the common enemy of us is the 
military. So when we end the, you know, this murderous regime, 
as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, I said it's clear 
that, you know, we want it ending this kind of military regime. 
We are in the--a better position to promote and to protect the 
rights of the----
    Mr. Sherman. Sir, if I can interrupt. I think there's no 
doubt that the National Unity Government is better than the 
junta. But that's a very, very low standard.
    Will this government provide citizenship documents--do you 
want to urge them to provide citizenship documents to all 
Rohingya born in Burma or in refugee camps?
    Mr. Tun. Thank you. The point that you raised, of course, 
you know, as a government, we will--of course, we will be, you 
know, in line with the, you know, the existing law, but those 
existing laws may not be, you know, the standard.
    So we are of the view that those--the law that, for 
example, the 1982 citizenship law that need to be amended, that 
is what is clear. And then the--those who are in line with 
existing law, of course, they will be----
    Mr. Sherman. Sir, existing law deprived them of citizenship 
and set them up for murder. Before the coup, the government 
that appointed you committed genocide against the Rohingya.
    Can you call upon the National Unity Government to provide 
citizenship documents to those born in your country, including 
the Rohingya?
    Mr. Tun. Yes, of course, you know, we are very clear that, 
you know, the--those who ever are born in Myanmar and then 
those who have entitled they have to be. You know, according to 
their----
    Mr. Sherman. Under the law that existed, they're not 
entitled. There are laws that existed for decades saying that 
people whose grandparents were born in Burma are denied 
citizenship.
    And for you to say, we're going to carry out existing law 
would be like a post-Nazi government saying, we're going to 
carry out existing German law.
    Mr. Tun. I see it differently, sir. Because, you know, they 
are the same difficulty that, you know, the previous NLD 
government had. If we go according with--strictly according 
with the law, they are there--a lot a--lot of Rohingya are 
entitled to become a citizen. Very clear. That is, you know----
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Sherman. My time has expired. Thank you.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize Mr. Wilson from South Carolina, who is the 
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee of the Middle East, North 
Africa, and Global Counterterrorism, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you for calling this important hearing. And we appreciate so 
much the witnesses who are appearing here today on behalf of 
the freedom and liberty of the people of Burma.
    I actually grew up with an appreciation of the people of 
the region, and then my father served in the Flying Tigers, 
China, Burma, India. And we know that the United States had 
such a positive role of liberating and keeping free the people 
of the region.
    With this in mind, Ambassador Currie, the United Nations 
estimates that approximately 20,000 people have fled their 
homes and remain displaced within Burma, while almost 10,000 
have fled to neighboring countries.
    How does the current crisis in Burma inundate the already 
stretched thin resources available in the region that are being 
used to assist Rohingya refugees?
    Ms. Currie. Thank you for that question because it is very 
important. Most of those people are fleeing either internally 
up north and east away from the area affected by the Rohingya 
crisis, more toward Thailand and China, and so the population 
movements have been in different directions.
    In the past, the United States and other donors operated 
very robust cross border assistance, humanitarian assistance, 
into some of these areas. But most of those channels have been 
allowed to atrophy over the past decade as we moved more 
humanitarian assistance through channels through the government 
of Burma.
    Now we need to really look at widening and reopening and 
reinvigorating a lot of those cross border channels in order to 
reach those populations who cannot be reached through 
humanitarian assistance, which has been--access to those areas 
has been cut by the junta as part of their attacks on these 
areas and on the civilians living within them, sir.
    Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you very much for your insight.
    And Representative Tun, how incredible your courage to 
speak out on behalf of the people of your home country.
    And with that in mind, U.S. trade with Burma is limited 
and, therefore, the United States has little financial leverage 
over the military.
    What can the United States do to encourage countries in the 
region to put real financial pressure on Burma to isolate the 
military and to restrict foreign financial flows benefiting the 
military junta?
    Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
    I think because the role of United States is very important 
influencing the, you know, regional countries, because many 
bank accounts and the financial flows coming through the 
countries in the region.
    So I think it's very, very--very, very important that if 
you put, you know, sanctions on the, you know, some additional 
entities like the MFTB, MOGE, and the Myawaddy Bank, Innwa 
Bank, so that, you know, the financial flow where we, you know, 
cutoff, and that is--will make a lot of pressure on the 
military.
    So what we want is that we want the military to--back to 
the table to discuss to restore the democracy in Myanmar. That 
is the role that United States can play a very influential role 
to put pressure on the military.
    Mr. Wilson. And, again, thank you for your personal 
courage.
    And final question, again, for Representative Tun, although 
China has strong incentives to avoid chaos in the region, it, 
sadly, also views the country as a battleground for preventing 
the encroachment of democratic values and Western interests in 
its backyard.
    How can the United States engage with civil society leaders 
in Burma, Myanmar, to fortify the democratic values and 
institutions of the country?
    Mr. Tun. Well, what I see is that please continue to 
support the--you know, the--all the--that you continue support 
to the, you know, the civil society as well as, you know, if I 
may, please support the NUG, the National Unity Government, and 
recognize them.
    So that's the way we can put a lot of pressure not only to 
the military but also to China so that, you know, China will 
turn to--turn to, you know, engage with the NUG.
    So that is very important that, you know, please continue 
support to the CSOs as well as the National Unity Government, 
all stakeholders who are fighting for the democracy. Please do 
support us. Thank you.
    Mr. Wilson. Well, your insight and courage, again, is so 
inspiring and I just appreciate the efforts of Chairman Meeks 
to bring this to the attention of the world. I yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia, 
who is a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
your leadership on this critical issue and insisting that the 
U.S. Congress bring attention to what is happening in Myanmar, 
and I thank you for your leadership.
    And I echo Joe Wilson--Congressman Joe Wilson on that. It's 
vital that we elevate this issue in the Congress because we can 
save lives.
    I have two questions I want to put to the whole panel and 
I'll start with you, Ambassador Currie, if you do not mind. One 
is when we think back about the U.S. sort of loosening up its 
restrictions--travel restriction sanctions and the like 
starting around 2012, are there things, in retrospect, we could 
have, should have, insisted on that might have prevented or 
mitigated the coup that happened 9 years later?
    And, second, what role will the military have to play, if 
any, in a government post-coup that, presumably, favors the 
pro-democratic forces, but, I mean, the military--Tatmadaw is 
there whether we like it or not, and what role are they going 
to insist on and what role should we accept?
    And if I can put that question to all three of you and 
start with you, Madam Ambassador.
    Ms. Currie. Thank you, sir.
    With regard to 2012, we should not have lifted sanctions on 
the military-owned enterprises at that time and should have 
been more clear that those were not going to be lifted until 
and unless the military moved forward with more reforms to the 
constitution that address issues of civilian control of the 
military and began a glide path toward removing the military 
from political institutions.
    I do not think anybody in the--in the democratic forces, at 
least not prior to February, would have advocated for the 
dissolution of the Tatmadaw, but that it should be under 
democratic control--under democratic civilian control in a 
democracy is kind of a sine qua non and it never happened.
    And that was a mistake for the international community not 
to insist that that be part of the package.
    On the--on the--and so I think that that also gets to the 
role that the Tatmadaw should play in a democratic Federal 
union is that it needs to be reformed.
    It needs to be heavily reformed, including by changing its 
force posture, its makeup, its structure, and most critically, 
putting it under legitimate and seriously strong civilian 
controls over.
    Mr. Connolly. Yes, because it's--culturally, isn't it 
they're creating a culture that's entirely separate from the 
rest of the country. What could go wrong with that? Thank you.
    Mr. Ambassador, those two questions, and then Khin Ohmar.
    Mr. Tun. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. I think it's very 
important. You know, our aim is to end the military regime. The 
military should not be in politics, should not be in economy no 
longer.
    That's the way we can bring them--the, you know, military 
under the civilian government. Otherwise, you know, it's where, 
you know, this vicious cycle we were faced, you know, again and 
again.
    So this is the time that we have to make it or not. You 
know, we have to do or die. This is the time that we have to do 
it. So within the country, we have the full strength, but at 
the same time we need help from the international community, 
especially like the country like United States. We need a lot 
of help from you.
    Please continue put pressure on the military, whatever way 
that we can. That is the--that is, our top priority now is 
saving lives of innocent civilians, and then also providing 
humanitarian assistance at this point.
    And then once the Federal democratic union form and the 
Federal army were established, then the military has to be 
under the civilian government. That is what I think.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, and I 
want to give Ms. Ohmar a chance to respond as well.
    Ms. Ohmar. Thank you, Congressman Connolly. To respond to 
your question on the--like, whether the--you know, the 
restrictions--I'm sorry, the sanctions in 2012 whether it was--
in responding to your question, I want to recall my 
conversations and meetings with the officers from the State 
Department that I--that I was actually appealing to the State 
Department not to let go of all of these measures because we 
know so well of how this military mind set is, and we do not we 
do not have the confidence enough yet.
    Yes, of course, there was--there were cautious optimism. 
But also we know that we cannot take confidence in that yet. So 
I was actually appealing to the State Department to have the 
plan B and also go through step by step calculations of lifting 
of, you know, like, the measures depending on what are we 
getting from this, you know, like, the military-guided, quote/
unquote, civil--the disciplined democracy.
    So I think it was quite too early to have lifted all of 
those measures. So I would like to respond for this question. 
But coming to the question on, like, what do we do with this 
military, you're right. Of course, the military will be there.
    But I think we need to ensure that they must go back to the 
barracks and under civilian control. And also, most 
importantly, we need to address the transition to justice. 
Without the justice and healing, we will not be able to have a 
way to move forward. Thank you.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. I now 
recognize Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Perry. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Without my--but good 
to see everybody. Ambassador Currie, you know, I got to tell 
you, I look at this situation in Burma and I'm not sure what 
the best position for the United States to be.
    I mean, obviously, we do not support the junta or the coup. 
But Suu Kyi, of course, you know, was no friend of the 
Rohingyas and, you know, most of us in this committee, if not 
all of us, voted to characterize that as a genocide against the 
Rohingya.
    I do not know if the administration has taken that up yet 
or plans to, but it does not seem like a great outcome. I mean, 
the Chinese military, I think, is probably sending arms to 
the--to the military right there to oppress the people, and 
even if it were to work out with Suu Kyi, it would not work out 
for the Rohingya.
    So maybe my question--first of all, my question would be, 
at a minimum, why would not we sanction the State-owned oil--
the energy company there? I think it's MOE or something like 
that.
    And then--and then next would be, what can the United 
States do unilaterally--unilaterally to advance our efforts in 
Burma vis-a-vis China? How about--how about those two 
questions?
    Ms. Currie. So I do agree that we should have already put 
sanctions on the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise, MOGE. That is 
the main recipient of royalties and funds related to the oil 
and gas extractive industries in Burma.
    And I hope that the administration will do that soon, 
together with other countries, and put pressure on the 
multinational oil and gas industry partners that are continuing 
to pay royalties to the junta to put those funds into escrow 
accounts and keep them from going into the hands of the junta.
    Yes, China and Russia, of course, are selling weapons and 
providing some political support to the military junta. But the 
Chinese above all want stability in Burma and want an 
environment where they can do business and a permissive 
business environment for them.
    That is not what they have right now. So this has not 
exactly worked out well for them. I believe that there is a 
path where we need to make sure that they--well, we can do 
things as a country that put a thumb on the side of democracy, 
human rights, and the values that we care about as the 
preferred outcome here, not the ones that the Chinese care 
about, which are antithetical to those.
    And I believe that if we can work with the National Unity 
Government and the forces that have emerged that are far more 
progressive than what we saw from the last NLD government, to 
be quite frank, even, you know, especially at the grassroots 
level, they're much more progressive and much more diverse and 
open minded, and Khin Ohmar can speak to this more fluidly than 
I can.
    But there is an opportunity here to empower a better path 
for this country. But we have got to lean into it a bit more 
than we have been doing up to now. We have been taking a very 
cautious and incremental approach up to now and there are a 
number of steps we can take that would help move us forward--
most of them pretty low cost and low risk, frankly.
    Mr. Perry. Well, I appreciate your answer and I appreciate 
the caution as well. However, we have been talking about the 
Rohingya issue--I mean, I'm actually surprised there are any 
Rohingya left at this point.
    But that having been said, what would be in the National 
Unity Government--what would--what would be the position or 
where would Suu Kyi be in such a--in such an arrangement that 
the United States would support it?
    I, certainly, do not want to see the United States kind of 
go from the pan into the fire, so to speak.
    Ms. Currie. I would actually love to have Khin Ohmar answer 
that question because she works a lot with these issues----
    Mr. Perry. Okay.
    Ms. Currie [continuing]. Of how to address this problem 
within Bamar politics.
    Mr. Perry. All right.
    Ms. Ohmar. Thank you. Is it okay--can I get the question 
again, please? I'm sorry.
    Mr. Perry. Yes. You know, what position would Suu Kyi have 
in a National Unity Government that the United States would 
support? What would be her influence? What would be her 
position?
    Would she have no influence, no--because we're, 
essentially--we're essentially talking about potentially 
supporting someone who is antithetical to our--to our efforts 
regarding the Rohingya. So we just need to know what we're 
getting into here.
    Ms. Ohmar. Thank you. Thank you for the question.
    Just for us as our organization, Progressive Voice, and our 
partners who work to advance the human rights agenda and as 
well as for the protection of the vulnerable communities, 
including the Rohingya community, for us, we are putting forth 
our suggestions to the National Unity Government that they must 
actually come up with a clear policy and our stand on the issue 
for the Rohingya peoples and the protection and how the 
government will actually take on this issue without waiting 
for, like, anyone like Aung San Suu Kyi.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Ohmar. Oh, sorry.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize Representative Ted Deutch of Florida, who 
is the Chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, North 
Africa, and Global Counterterrorism, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Deutch. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 
the witnesses for appearing before the committee today and for 
that important testimony from all of you.
    It seems to have become a hallmark of our work on this 
committee to hear, unfortunately, again and again about the 
constant relentless threat authoritarianism poses to 
democracies and democratic values, and as with anti-democratic 
backsliding elsewhere, the struggle in Burma is one that we 
cannot ignore. I'm really grateful for today's hearing.
    I've said before the battle lines in the fight to protect 
democratic values and human rights transcend State boundaries 
and peoples, and it's imperative that those who stand for 
democracy everywhere, including here in the United States, 
recognize one another as partners in that struggle.
    So in that vein, I've been encouraged by many of the 
administration's actions to pressure the Tatmadaw to support 
the Burmese people, including economic, diplomatic, and 
humanitarian measures.
    But it's clear that, as we have discussed, that more can 
and should be done. I'm disappointed that ASEAN did not include 
releasing political prisoners among its five points of 
consensus.
    Troubled, as we have been discussing, the Tatmadaw has 
failed to heed ASEAN's call for ending violence, and I hope 
that coming out of here there will be even greater urgency 
beyond this committee to resolve the crisis of Burma and fuel 
positive momentum behind the legitimate demands of its people, 
including the Rohingya community and other persecuted 
minorities who have suffered so much in recent years.
    And I want to actually talk about the ethnic minority 
inclusion in the resistance, and, Ambassador Currie, you note 
in your testimony that increased awareness of and empathy for 
the situation of ethnic people among Bamar protesters has been 
one of the most remarkable and important features.
    But we have also heard that there's a strong feeling among 
some ethnic groups, including the Rohingya community, that the 
National Unity Government, the Federal Democracy Charter, need 
to be more inclusive. We have talked about that here today.
    What more can our government--can the U.S. Government and 
like-minded partners do really to promote inclusion and full 
representation of all ethnic communities in Burma and help the 
credibility of the National Unity Government, which--where 
that's sorely lacking?
    Ms. Currie. I think that's a great question. First, we 
cannot solve this problem for the Burmese people. The solutions 
for it do have to come from within Burma because it is--these 
are problems that predate the founding of the country.
    Just as in our own country, we have had to struggle with 
the issues that came into our society through the founding of 
our country with slavery and racism and all of these things.
    The same challenges are there in Burma, and they've spent 
the past 70 years since independence more or less under 
authoritarian and very racist and chauvinistic governments that 
have not allowed any of those conversations to take place.
    So some of those conversations are, essentially, frozen in 
1960, or 1950. So if you think about our own experience and 
where we were back at that time and our own discussions around 
racism, you can understand how far they have to go and how 
quickly they have to move to catch up to what the modern world 
expects from a country in terms of how it treats its ethnic 
nationalities or minority communities and vulnerable 
communities.
    I think what Khin Ohmar said is right. The groups that are 
pushing within Burmese politics to change this dynamic are 
critical to it, and will continue to be.
    We have to continue to empower those voices and reflect 
them in our own engagement with the National Unity Government, 
and then use what leverage we do have.
    Again, we want to support the National Unity Government. 
It's, obviously, better than the coup, as Mr. Chairman said.
    But that's not good enough. I think we do have to hold them 
to a standard of expecting them to acknowledge and do better on 
Rohingya than the NLD did in the past.
    I've seen some movement in that way. It's not fast enough. 
It's not far enough. But I think it is in the right direction 
overall, and we need to do the things we can to facilitate it.
    Mr. Deutch. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Ohmar, if I could just ask you about your concerns with 
respect to the treatment of refugees in the border regions. 
What--and again, what more can the United States and the 
international community do to ensure that their basic human 
rights are protected when they flee Burma to neighboring 
countries?
    Ms. Ohmar. Thank you very much, Representative Deutch. So 
for now, this challenge that people are having is the 
neighboring countries' government, such as Thailand, are not 
allowing the people to--like, those who are fleeing from the 
air strikes to come across the border to their country, while 
also there are no free passage or the humanitarian corridors 
are not allowed to open to reach to those most needy ones 
across the border back in Burma.
    So I think we would like to really see your support in your 
communication and advocating to the Thai government, in 
particular, to help open those humanitarian aid corridors.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize Representative Ann Wagner of Missouri, 
who's the Vice Ranking Member of the full committee, for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Wagner. I thank--thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you for organizing this very important hearing. What is 
happening in Burma is a tragedy and my heart breaks for the 
Rohingya who continue to suffer unimaginable atrocities at the 
hands of the genocidal Burmese military, or Tatmadaw, and for 
the courageous protesters braving the brutal crackdown as they 
fight for democracy.
    The United States must continue to support the people of 
Burma as they stand up to the military junta and to bring to 
justice those responsible for egregious human rights violations 
and crimes against humanity.
    I'm very proud that Congress has never hesitated to call 
the violence against Rohingya what it is--genocide. The United 
States has now at last recognized the Uighur and Armenian 
genocides but has not yet recognized the Rohingya genocide.
    Ambassador Currie, why has the United States neglected to 
make a formal determination on Rohingya genocide?
    Ms. Currie. I believe that a lot of it goes back to this 
kind of tradeoff that we have bounced around a little bit here, 
which is this belief that we had to protect the--Burma's 
democratic transition and we were trying in the past to protect 
Aung San Suu Kyi and not destabilize the country and promote or 
encourage or trigger a coup by the military.
    But I think the lesson we should learn from the past 4 
years of refusing to call things by their right name, and 
you're right, it meets all the criteria for genocide----
    Mrs. Wagner. Yes.
    Ms. Currie [continuing]. And the U.S. has done--the State 
Department did an investigation, has compiled the data. It's 
all there to--for anybody who wants to see it.
    But and I think now that we have seen that trying to 
tradeoff the rights of a vulnerable minority to protect a very 
fragile and flawed democratic process, you end up with both 
getting stomped all over.
    And so I think that we should be true and call things by 
their right name. I totally agree with you.
    Mrs. Wagner. It's time. It is----
    Ms. Currie. Agreed.
    Mrs. Wagner [continuing]. It is past time. The 
International Court of Justice, or ICJ, has ordered Burma to 
take action to prevent further acts of genocide as it 
investigates the atrocities committed against the Rohingya.
    Yet, human rights groups report the regime continues to 
actively destroy evidence and engage in acts of genocide.
    Ambassador Currie, how should the United States lead 
international efforts to pressure Burma into compliance with 
the ICJ's order?
    Ms. Currie. Again, I think this is an area where we can 
work with the National Unity Government to set out some 
benchmarks for cooperation with the ICJ investigation, too.
    They are very interested in having the ICJ investigate also 
the post-coup activities. We have also been supporting the 
international investigative mechanism on Myanmar, the IIMM at 
the--in Geneva under U.N. auspices.
    It's headed by a wonderful American lawyer named Nick 
Koumjian, who does a great job, and is also expanding their 
remit to include events since the coup.
    And so I think that there is an opportunity to take a more 
holistic look at accountability and transitional justice, as 
Khin Ohmar has said, and really bring all of these things into 
a rubric that allows for a meaningful conversation about 
accountability with the Tatmadaw, whether it's in the ICJ 
context, the ICC, or through other mechanisms, including local 
mechanisms that the NUG could start to set up themselves with 
support from donors.
    Mrs. Wagner. And to that point, Ms. Ohmar, Burma's civil 
society organizations have formed kind of the backbone of the 
opposition movement for protesting the coup, with the Tatmadaw, 
working to isolate Burmans from the international community and 
resist the flow of information.
    How can the United States strengthen these civil society 
groups, Ms. Ohmar?
    Ms. Ohmar. Thank you. Thank you. At this point, for the 
last 10 years of all of the great work our civil society 
partners have done on the ground building the blocks for the 
like, you know, like democracy, now, with this military coup, 
it's been very challenging.
    Everything that we have built seems like it's we're losing 
at the moment. So yes, we need desperate help. We desperately 
need your help and support.
    My first is also--I will--I will make it very practical. 
Like the USAID--for example, the USAID grants can make it 
flexible to the civil society organizations who are losing 
their ground in the country to be able to have access from the 
cross border, for example, you know, which is not something 
that we have seen the U.S. aid has been able to do. So that 
kind of flexibility.
    Thank you.
    Mrs. Wagner. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank 
you.
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you.
    I now recognize Representative Bill Keating of 
Massachusetts, and the Chair of the Subcommittee on Europe, 
Energy, and the Environment and Cyber for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank 
you and the Ranking Member for holding this meeting. I think my 
question will be directed at Khin Ohmar and maybe a secondary 
question to Ambassador Currie.
    The Burmese military is notorious for its use of sexual and 
gender-based violence as a weapon of war, and it still seems to 
be holding true, as seen with the relentless perpetrated acts 
of violence, you know, by security forces against protesters.
    And despite this, the women that are involved in this, in 
particular, they're risking their lives and playing a central 
role in this nonviolent action of protest to bring about 
democracy.
    So my question is, what's your view of the status of their 
involvement right now, the risks they're taking, which we have 
seen so many brave women around the world in leadership roles 
at protests in countries like Belarus, and what can we do to 
support their actions in particular?
    Ms. Ohmar. Thank you, Congressman Keating. Yes, you're very 
right. Even compared to our time back in 1988 democracy 
movement, this movement has seen much more young women, in 
particular, at the forefront leading the movement.
    But now, many of them are in prison and detention and also 
facing the sexual and gender-based violence--sexual assault. So 
it's very worrying for me, personally. I have met so many 
survivors of the military rape from the different ethnic 
communities for the last 20 years at least.
    And now, knowing that there are so many young women are 
even missing, that we do not know where they are, so it's very 
worrying for us to think of, like, you know, what could have 
happened or will be happening.
    So many of them already are in hiding at the moment, and 
many of them fled into the ethnic areas at the moment. So while 
we need so much support also, like, I think, like, the U.S., 
you know, including the mission in Yangon will be able to help 
support, for example, like hiding places, which is the 
practical support that we need, and as well as also 
establishing their secure communications equipment.
    Again, that is also something that we need in our effort, 
including those young women and women in the movement to be 
able to access or communicate to the outside world. So these 
are the practical support that we need, along with the other 
material and financial support as well.
    Mr. Keating. And how important is it, hopefully, in a 
democracy, going forward, to have women included in that 
government and in the administration of government in the 
country?
    Ms. Ohmar. Being a longtime women's rights activist I will 
be very practical with you. It's still a long way to go. 
However, I'm encouraged to see that NUG--this NUG government 
has included many women, including the young women also from 
the ethnic communities are already included in the ministry 
positions, which I take it as a very historical step, which I 
hope that they will actually carry on, you know, by the time 
when the democracy comes back there for us to really, like, 
establish the full democracy.
    I hope that women will not be left out or marginalized when 
everything comes back to the--in the place. For now, we still 
have a long way to go. Yes.
    Mr. Keating. Okay. We are seeing authoritarian governments 
trying to press themselves around the world. But it's 
comforting to know we're seeing so many women and young women 
rising up for democracy and standing up for that.
    Thank you for your comments.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Meeks. Representative yields back. Representative 
Keating yields back.
    I now recognize Representative Tim Burchett of Tennessee 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the guests. 
I have a couple of questions. I'll just throw it out to the 
panel.
    Does China really have a dog in this fight or will the 
Chinese Communist Party simply back the side it thinks will 
win?
    Ms. Currie. I will go ahead and take that.
    China definitely has had a dog in the fight in Burma for 
since before--since--for decades, really. The Chinese Communist 
Party helped to create the Communist Party of Burma, armed it, 
and led to instability in Burma since the 1960's, which is one 
of the reasons that there's been military government in Burma 
since the 1960's is because of Chinese interference in Burmese 
internal affairs and attempts to shape and mold the country and 
make it malleable.
    China seeks a Burma that's dependent, weak, internally 
divided, and easy for it to get what it wants out of, which 
right now primarily consists of passage to the Indian Ocean, 
because Burma cuts--Burma, the--China's path to the Indian 
Ocean cuts directly through Burma, and so they want that very 
much.
    They are very--they have strategic interests. They have 
economic interests. They're--they, and as--you know, they, 
obviously--I think, ideologically, they're neutral They've 
shown they'll work with whatever kind of government does come 
along.
    So I do not think those things are mutually exclusive. But 
they do want a government that's willing to work with them. 
They do want to keep us out. They especially want to keep us 
out of upper Burma, where they are involved with a lot of the 
ethnic armed organizations and are playing both sides of the 
street in Burma.
    It's a very--they have strategic depth in Burma in a way 
that the United States does not. But that also means that 
they've got--they've been tagged with a nasty history of doing 
things in Burma that the United States has not, and that can 
redound against them if we are standing on the side of the 
people in the country.
    Mr. Burchett. Anybody else on that or is that pretty much 
it? Okay, good. If the Western companies end up leaving due to 
the unrest, do you think that China would end up taking over 
the Western assets?
    Ms. Currie. Ms. Ohmar, do you want to take that?
    Ms. Ohmar. Please go ahead, Kelley. Thank you.
    Ms. Currie. I think that, you know, it's a possibility. But 
the other thing you have to remember about the Tatmadaw--we 
talked a lot about what the Chinese want, but the Tatmadaw are 
also quite anti-Chinese themselves. They aren't--you know, 
they're not just anti--they're kind of anti-everybody.
    They're quite xenophobic and nationalistic. So I think that 
there is a limit to which they will allow Chinese incursion 
into the country. When they did open up the country back in 
2010, it was, largely, because they felt they had become too 
dependent on China in the preceding years and wanted to--and 
did not--and they do not want to be that dependent on the 
Chinese again.
    So they will seek to retain independence of operation and 
will not--and they'll look for other partners, whether it's 
other Asian partners or, more likely, the Singaporeans.
    Even the Japanese and South Koreans have been more amenable 
to working with military-led governments than the United States 
and some of the European partners.
    Mr. Burchett. All right. What are the implications for the 
instability in Burma, more on a broader, I guess, regional 
security issue? Anybody?
    Ms. Ohmar. I will--I will say the regional security issue 
there are actually different--quite a few, I will say. First is 
the spillover effects into the neighboring countries, 
particularly the people who are actually fleeing from the 
military violence as we see now. But also, traditionally, in 
the past decades, people have been fleeing Burma for all kind 
of reasons across the border, including as the migrant 
laborers.
    So there is this regional--there is an impact on the 
regional stability from that aspect that comes with the other, 
like the health as well, especially now during the COVID-the 
pandemic time.
    You can imagine of how also the neighboring countries might 
be thinking at the moment. But the reality is Myanmar people, 
Burma people really need to flee for their security. So that's 
one.
    The other is we have this drug problem where the military 
themselves have been involved and implicit--complicit in that, 
along with their militias that they have set up.
    And so these are also the issues that the region, 
especially for the ASEAN, have been dealing and need to deal 
with, which we feel quite frustrated that ASEAN is not able to 
see that they need to focus the solution for Burma based on the 
people instead of based on this military.
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you. The gentleman's time has 
expired.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Another excellent 
meeting.
    Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Ami Bera of 
California, who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Asia, the 
Pacific, Central Asia, and Nonproliferation, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you for 
this timely hearing.
    You know, as I think about, you know, the resolve of the 
Burmese people, it's quite remarkable. I've heard up to 90 
percent of the country is currently shut down with, you know, 
essentially, a general strike, which it probably is the largest 
general strike that I can recall in my lifetime and it does not 
seem like that resolve is shifting. If nothing else, it seems 
like the Burmese people are digging in, even with the hardship, 
you know, electricity shut down, water shut down, food markets, 
everything, shut down.
    At the same time, when I listen to the Tatmadaw, it also 
does not seem like their resolve is changing as well, even as, 
you know, we put in sanctions, increased sanctions, you know, 
perhaps, you know, consider secondary sanctions and the like to 
continue to isolate them.
    I guess a question for any of the witnesses, within the 
military, you know, the generals, certainly, seem to not care 
about what's happening to the civilians, but within the rank 
and file military, as they exert violence against their own 
fellow citizens and others, are we seeing any erosion of that 
and folks defecting and, you know, et cetera?
    Ambassador Currie?
    Ms. Ohmar. Yes, I'll take the question. Yes.
    So, yes, there are actually many hundreds and perhaps even 
a few thousand of police have joined the civil disobedience 
movement, as well as those from the army are also joining. We 
have some level, like, including the police chief, for example, 
position as well as those who are the captain level from the 
military are also joining.
    But, of course, we do not see into the point of, like, the 
large scale or the large number. I think that the problem is 
also that because the military already cut down within--like, 
they are also living themselves in the open prison.
    There have been an internal cut to the military and 
military family Members. So that a lot of these measures and 
restrictions are already imposed. What worse for them is, like, 
if they are found to be, you know, like suspicious of even 
joining the people's movement, they will be immediately put in 
jail and face a lot of harsh punishment.
    So I think we are having to--that situation. But I have to 
say, though, that there are so many that we know--there are so 
many, including the high levels, who want to join the civil 
disobedience movement or who just disagree with the military 
coup.
    Ms. Currie. I can add to that. There have been some 
defections. What we're also seeing is a lack of will to fight 
on the front lines, because you have to remember that even 
before the coup there was a civil war going on in Burma and had 
been since 1948.
    And what we're hearing from some of the ethnic armed 
organizations is that they are seeing people just running away 
from the front lines, abandonment of posts and bases on a scale 
that they're not used to seeing. And so there is some question 
about whether--you know, about order and discipline within the 
ranks. I think that there is a--that is a potential point of 
exploitation.
    Mr. Bera. Great, and are there any specific steps that, you 
know, we ought to be thinking about as Congress to, again, 
support, you know, both the people, but also, I think, if the 
rank and file starts that--the morale of the rank and file 
military starts to erode, the longer this goes on, I think, 
then you can get to an endpoint perhaps.
    Ms. Currie. If Congress can--if Congress can authorize 
cross border assistance at scale and make it very flexible so 
that it can be used to support, you know, deserters who leave 
the military, some DDR, and things that are going on to 
demobilize people, that would be helpful, because there are 
groups within the--in the cross border space that could carry 
out that mission, and I think that's something that would be 
helpful.
    The other thing that the United States can do is really 
make sure that we are leaning heavily on the side of the NUG 
and against the junta on things--like, on, really, technical 
things like not giving to diplomats that the junta tries to 
send to the United States or to other countries--we can all 
refuse that--and to extend visas for diplomats who are loyal 
and for others who are loyal to the--to the NUG.
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you. The gentleman's time has 
expired.
    I now recognize Representative Andy Barr of Kentucky for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I join my colleagues 
in condemning the junta and the Tatmadaw's military coup, the 
unlawful detention of the State councilor, declaration of 
martial law and the human rights abuses against civil 
disobedience and peaceful protesters.
    This is, clearly, obviously a major setback for democracy 
in Burma. But I want to return, Ambassador Currie, to the 
important strategic implications and the considerations that we 
have to give to China's malign influence in the region. You did 
a good job painting the picture for us in terms of China's 
long-standing interest in Burma.
    But can you--can you elaborate a little bit on what ties 
exist between the CCP and the Tatmadaw? And, obviously, I heard 
your testimony that the Tatmadaw was skeptical of Chinese 
investment in Burma and that Burma's prior civilian government 
was, perhaps, closer to the Chinese Communist Party.
    But given the current state of affairs and the coup, what 
inroads are the CCP making with the current military 
leadership?
    Ms. Currie. I think that the situation is never quite black 
and white. I do not--it's not--you know, it's not a zero sum 
game, in many ways.
    I think that what we're seeing is that the Tatmadaw will 
never want to be dependent on the CCP, and the people of Burma 
will never accept a government that's completely dependent on 
the CCP.
    This isn't Cambodia, for instance, where you can get away 
with that sort of thing, like Hun Sen has been able to get away 
with it in Cambodia.
    The other thing that I think that more than--more than 
democracy the Chinese Communist Party does not want State 
failure at its border there. It shares a border with Burma, and 
there are ethnic groups that straddle that border that--and we 
have seen in recent days that they've put up heavy fencing and 
cameras to try to reinforce their border with Burma to keep 
refugee flows out. They--and they also are cognizant that 
there's a lot of crime and illicit activity that goes on across 
that border, that it can be a vector for disease and 
criminality as well.
    If there is State failure and breakdown on the Burma side 
of the border, it negatively impacts China's aspirations in 
southwest China to improve the economic and--economic situation 
in Sichuan province and in that area.
    So they do not want that. They will try to work this--they 
will navigate the situation as best they can and do--you know, 
they'll play all sides. They do not--they're not--they have no 
moral compunction about working with anybody. I mean, let's be 
very clear. Whereas, we do. We do have a limiting principle.
    Mr. Barr. Understood.
    Ms. Currie. They do not. That's the main difference.
    Mr. Barr. I understand, Ambassador.
    Let me--let me just ask you to kind of comment on the fact 
that Beijing, along with Moscow, have blocked the U.N. Security 
Council statement condemning the coup. Your testimony was 
pretty rich about the failure of the Security Council.
    I mean, if China is a big player in blocking the 
condemnation of the coup at the Security Council level, what do 
you read into that? What is going on? What is the CCP trying to 
accomplish there?
    Ms. Currie. Well, China typically tries to block things 
like this at the Security Council. It's not necessarily Burma 
specific. They have a whole excuse matrix that they will, 
basically, have to be worked through in order to get to them 
being willing to abstain on any resolution that would involve 
insertion in what they consider to be a matter of internal 
affairs of a country.
    And they and Russia both still consider the coup to be a 
matter--an internal matter for Burma and, therefore, not 
actually a matter of international peace and security.
    Now, what we need to do is put them on the spot a little 
bit more, I believe, and I think that if--up to now because all 
the meetings in the Council have taken place behind closed 
doors, all the negotiations on statements have taken place 
behind closed doors, they've been able to hide behind all of 
that.
    If we push some of this more out into the public, then they 
have to be more accountable for what they're doing in the 
council. Right now, they haven't blocked anything because the 
U.K. has not brought forward a resolution. So there's been 
nothing for them to really block except for statements.
    Mr. Barr. In my remaining time, just really quickly--and I 
did not get a chance to ask about Chinese vaccine diplomacy in 
Burma--but, broadly, how can the U.S. prevent Chinese malign 
influence in Burma?
    Ms. Currie. By associating ourselves with the people and 
the positive aspects of this movement that have such broad 
popular support.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you. Yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Joaquin 
Castro of Texas, the Chair of the Subcommittee on International 
Development, International Organizations, and Global Social 
Impact, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman. I joined Rep. Tenney in 
introducing a resolution urging the United Nations Security 
Council to impose an arms embargo on the Burmese military. 
Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun, I know you've also been urging for the 
same action.
    So, Ambassador, can you explain the dynamics at the U.N. 
Security Council around imposing such an embargo? What 
countries are preventing this action and what can we in 
Congress do to help?
    Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Castro.
    In the Security Council, you know, so I approached the--
China. We have got to--we'd like to have, you know, stronger 
action from the Security Council.
    But China, clearly, stated to me that whatever resolution 
that include a sanction regime they will not accept it. But for 
us, we need really strong action from Security Council.
    So that is why I fully agree with Kelley that, you know, we 
make it--things open--open settings. So that's the way we can 
push harder and handle, and I also wish that the United States, 
together with the United Kingdom, to push harder in the 
Security Council.
    That's the way we can get something from the Security 
Council, not--it is the press statement--the Presidential 
statement is not really enough for the people of Myanmar 
because what we are facing at this time is saving lives of 
innocent civilians.
    So that is why we need stronger action from the U.N. 
Security Council. So we need to push it further ahead. But the 
difficult thing that we hear in the Security Council is, 
basically, is that COVID setting, because, you know, those--you 
know, the agenda, there is no consensus, that this will be 
difficult to have an open debate on the--in the particular 
issue.
    That is the--you know, I always have the feedback from our 
colleague from the U.N. Security Council. But we need to push 
harder and harder to have something from the U.N. Security 
Council for the--for sake of the people of Myanmar. Thank you.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you.
    And, Ambassador, many of us in Congress have spoken out 
strongly against the coup and urge for stronger actions like 
sanctions against the military. We're in agreement that the 
military should restore democracy and return back power to the 
civilian government, which you represent.
    But if we're honest with ourselves, when the civilian 
government was nominally in charge of the country, things 
weren't exactly peaceful. Most notably, what many have called 
genocide occurred against the Rohingya.
    Obviously, the civilian government had only limited power 
and the violence was done by the military. However, the 
civilian government was not critical of these actions and was, 
in many ways, supportive.
    Was this a mistake on the part of the civilian government? 
And if the civilian government is restored, will it take 
actions to allow for the voluntary and safe return of the 
Rohingya people?
    Mr. Tun. I think, as I said, the NUG is very clear that, 
you know, we respect the--you know, the agreement, the 
bilateral agreement that we have with country concerns like 
Bangladesh and that also we will pursue, address the issue with 
the international norms and standards as well as human rights 
norms and standards.
    That is what we are--definitely we are going to pursue it. 
So the NUG is the interim government, so that we are going to 
do it once the--you know, the full blown--the government is 
being established. So we will address the issue with the 
international norms and standards.
    So those who have a--have the, you know, the right, we have 
to respect it. So for those whoever inside--in the country we 
have to respect it. Equality should be respected so that, you 
know, those who are now in the Bangladeshi side we are always 
welcome them back to Myanmar.
    So we will definitely pursue with the--you know, the 
agreement that we work with with Bangladesh. So we work on them 
to live together with us in the peace and harmony. That is what 
we are looking for.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you. I yield back, Chairman.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Representative Claudia Tenney of New York, 
Vice Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on International 
Development, International Organizations, and Global Corporate 
Social Impact for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
having this important meeting, as well--along with the Ranking 
Member, and I also want to say thank you to my colleague, 
Representative Castro, for being the lead on this with me, and 
so many other Members who have joined on.
    And why this is so important to me, in my district I have 
over 4,000, maybe 5,000 Burmese refugees, many who have become 
citizens and outstanding Members of our community. They've been 
coming to our community for many, many years.
    They've been vigilant and diligent in protecting the rights 
of their family Members and friends, and marching peacefully 
throughout our community to defend the democratic principles in 
Burma, and so we are doing everything we can support them.
    And Mr. Castro actually kind of took my question, but I 
thought I'd maybe give the Ambassador, you know, another chance 
to take a look at it. I just wanted to maybe pose it in a 
different way.
    When we're discussing the--you know, the bill that we put 
in in our U.N. Security Council arms embargo that we proposed, 
do you think--and I know this is--this is going to be directed 
to Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun--do you think that the--that, 
obviously, we're going to be struggling to get this through 
China and to Russia because they control so much in the 
Security Council, and you indicated you're keeping in touch, 
how--do you think that the possibility of working with India, 
Vietnam, and other Members to pressure them in a public way as 
we're trying to do would have any impact on them and bring them 
to understand the human rights violations and the issues that 
we're--and trying to restore the democratically elected 
government back in Burma?
    Ambassador?
    Mr. Tun. Thanks. Thank you, Ms. Claudia. I think this is 
very important that, you know, the--we need to put pressure on 
the--some Members of the Security Council, you know, through 
all from different channels, you know, through India, through 
Vietnam, and the others in the Europe and the Latin America and 
the Africa.
    We need to do it from all channels. But the most important 
thing is we need to point out that this is saving lives, not--
nothing else. So this is the humanitarian crisis that we are 
facing.
    So without intervention from the U.N. Security Council, the 
people in Myanmar will be killed more and more, and if you wait 
for a minute, an hour, a day, the more people will be killed.
    So that, you know, that is, immediate action from the U.N. 
security is very, very needed, and then the intervention from 
the U.N. Security Council and international community is 
needed.
    So we--better to put it the way that, you know, saving 
lives. That is humanitarian. Saving lives, and it is the noble 
task for the human being. So that is what we really need from 
the international community and that we need the leadership of 
the United States in this program.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you.
    Do you think the U.S. should consider secondary type 
sanctions to target other countries, maybe, who have more 
extensive trade with Burma? And I'm thinking things like 
limiting not just the arms trade but, possibly, expanded to 
commercial trade, investment in gems, timber, energy resources, 
obviously, very important revenue for the Tatmadaw leadership.
    Is that something that we could possibly do as a unit in 
America--a unified front from America.
    Mr. Tun. Yes. You know, getting a resolution that involves 
a sanction from the U.N. Security Council may take time. But 
time is really of the essence for the--for us. So what we need 
is some sort of, you know, targeted coordinated sanction for a 
group of country, like, a group of like-minded countries 
imposed on this kind of, you know, sanction.
    Then this will definitely have the impact on the military 
as well as those in the region. So that is what we need. So 
it's that coordinated targeted tougher sanction from a group of 
country is, you know, this can do it, you know, very quickly 
manner. And because while we are waiting the--any action from 
the Security Council, we can do it as a coordinated manner.
    Ms. Tenney. I know you may have answered this question. I 
just wanted to run it by you again. Do you think that it was a 
mistake that the ASEAN agreement to recognize or acknowledge 
the junta leader, Min Aung Hlaing, as Burma's representative? 
Do you think that was a mistake?
    Mr. Tun. It's a--it's very difficult to say, but it's a--
one, it's the outcome from the ASEAN leaders meeting. It is--to 
me, it is very disappointing. Thank you.
    Ms. Tenney. Oka. Do you think that the five-point--we're 
missing anything in the five-point consensus from the ASEAN 
leaders summit that----
    Mr. Tun. Of course, this is very--they missed a very 
important point. They should at the--you know, calling the 
release of, you know, the leaders, Aung San Suu Kyi, president, 
Win Myint, and unlawful detaining unconditionally and 
immediately. It is very, very much important point that they 
are missing because, you know, this is linked to the meaningful 
dialog among the relevant stakeholders.
    Without release of them, there will not be any meaningful 
dialog among the relevant stakeholders. This is very important.
    Ms. Tenney. Do you think those leaders in exile----
    Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for taking----
    Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Dina Titus 
of Nevada for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Ambassador Tun, I just tell you how much we respect your 
courage for being with us today and speaking out about the 
terrible things happening in your country.
    I'd like to ask you and Ms. Ohmar about the humanitarian 
side of things, if you could comment on just the struggles that 
everyday people are facing in their lives from shelter to food 
to just living essentials.
    The U.N. has reported that more than 2 million people are 
facing growing food insecurity due to the political crisis but 
compounded by COVID, and they are expected to right--scale up 
their program to provide nutrition assistance in Burma.
    I wonder if you could talk to us about what the daily life 
is like, how the U.S. might work with other agencies through 
the U.N. or other countries to provide some of the supplies 
that might be needed, and what we can do to guarantee that 
those supplies actually get to the people who need them the 
most.
    Ms. Ohmar. May I go ahead with this?
    Ms. Titus. Please.
    Ms. Ohmar. Thank you very much. So thank you for this 
question.
    Right now, the humanitarian challenge is really immense. 
It's actually getting quite widespread across the country for--
first of all, is also because this military junta is, like I 
was saying in the statement, they are--they are, in fact, 
destroying the people's food storage.
    At the same time, they are trying to actually steal even 
the people from the--like, the rice as a result like that. But 
the other problem is those as civil servants and public and 
private sector workers who have joined this movement, there 
are, like, tens of thousands of them and across the country, 
and they do not--they do not get their salary for the last 3 
months already, and you can imagine how desperate their family 
situation will be.
    And many of them were even kicked out of their public 
housing by this junta at gunpoint and also now, like, you know, 
now, right now, the civil servants are now being forced to the 
point that they were--some of them were at gunpoint but some of 
them were actually told that they have to return the past 2 
months' salary if they do not come and walk right now.
    So that's where the challenges they're facing. The civil 
society also where there are many people depend on, the civil 
society organizations are being raided, and their bank accounts 
that the donors are supporting them are now sort of, like, you 
know, more or less seized by the military, because if you go to 
get the money from the bank, you will be asked so many 
questions to the point that you--like, you know, they will end 
up being arrested. Many of them are very worried about that.
    So they do not have access to the money and they're not 
getting salary either. So that's why we are having so much 
problem, and many of the factories are also closed. So now the 
people are not having this regular income for the last 3 
months.
    So, yes, it is a very serious situation. The banks are 
almost bankrupt. I'm sorry, banks are also collapse. So they're 
having a very serious situation at the moment. Yes.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you. Thank you. I was afraid that that was 
the case.
    Ambassador Tun, do you want to add to that? I know there 
were some of the USAID folks were there working with some of 
the civil society, but I'm sure all of that's gone now.
    Mr. Tun. Yes, I agree with Ms. Khin Ohmar with regard to 
what she responds to your question. So because, you know, it is 
really--we are now in the humanitarian crisis because you know, 
the economy, according to the U.N. it's going to collapse.
    So that is the serious situation that we are having, so we 
cannot prolong this kind of crisis for the--for our future. So 
we need to take action as quick as possible. People--now people 
are really in a dire situation. I definitely can--coming, you 
know, months it's a more difficult situation that, you know, 
people will be facing.
    So that is why we always trust that we need immediate 
action from the international community to stop the situation 
that we are facing.
    Ms. Titus. You know, the United Nations High Commissioner 
on Human Rights said in late March that Burma may be headed for 
full-blown conflict like you're seeing in Syria. Is your 
assessment of it that dire and that immediate?
    Mr. Tun. Thank you. May I take this question? I think that 
that is what we want to avoid. But the situation that we are--
we are facing----
    Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    I now recognize Representative Peter Meijer of Michigan for 
5 minutes.
    Ms. Titus. I yield back.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Meeks. Representative Meijer, unmute.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Meeks. Representative Meijer?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Meeks. We will come back to Representative Meijer.
    I now recognize Representative Young Kim of California, the 
Vice Ranking Member of California and Asia, the Pacific, 
Central Asia, and Nonproliferation for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman Meeks, and 
thank you, Ranking Member McCaul.
    You know, we had this briefing our committee first held on 
the situation in Myanmar in February. Since then, my office has 
received calls and requests from the small but very significant 
number of Burmese Americans to meet with them and participate 
in the rallies that they organized to raise awareness of the 
ongoing human rights situation. So I greatly appreciate our 
committee taking the time to discuss this ongoing crisis in 
Myanmar.
    This has really resulted in a deteriorating civil and human 
rights situation, the murdering of unarmed civilians and 
continued persecution of ethnic minorities, all at the hands of 
a brutal military junta that unilaterally seized power in a 
coup against Myanmar's democratically elected government in 
February.
    However, Myanmar is no stranger to conflict and strife. 
Over the past few decades, the ethnic minorities of Myanmar 
have been subjected to targeted violence from the military and 
militias, as well as larger-scale ethnic cleansing campaigns, 
stimulating widespread unrest and forcing hundreds of thousands 
to flee their homes into refugee camps in neighboring 
countries.
    With the coup in February, these trends are likely to 
worsen further. So a question to you, Ambassador Currie. What 
new challenges may rise in the weeks and months ahead, 
including the possibility of new refugee flows to neighboring 
countries or the deepening of the country's decades-long civil 
war?
    So how should the United States seek to avoid such 
scenarios and what could Congress do to guide the U.S. policy?
    Ms. Currie. Thank you, Congresswoman Kim.
    I believe that the biggest threat right now is complete 
State collapse and State failure with the economy going just 
completely in free fall. The governance structures that the 
junta relies on to govern the country have collapsed in many 
places or are only being held up through martial law and at the 
point of a gun.
    You're really looking at a State failure scenario if the 
trends continue at the levels of violence and the level of 
noncooperation from the population continues. You just--they 
are on a collision course right now.
    And yes, this will inevitably lead to greater refugee 
outflows across the region and will really--and lead to 
increased criminality, increased narcotics trafficking, just 
all sorts of ill effects across the region.
    I think that what the U.S. Congress can do is, as I 
mentioned in previous--mentioned previously, explicitly 
authorize cross border assistance that will allow U.S. 
humanitarian assistance, including assistance provided through 
U.N. agencies, funds, and programs to reach those who are 
fleeing into what are called liberated or safe areas that are 
under the control of ethnic nationality arms group--armed 
groups, and be willing to deal with those local authorities; 
also by reinforcing, strengthening, and working directly with 
the National Unity Government and helping it to stand up 
structures that can govern the country, that can distribute 
humanitarian assistance, that can reach people in need we can 
help the Burmese people and make our assistance to them more 
effective and avoid some of the unintended consequences if we 
were to, for instance, continue to use existing channels that 
flow through ministries that are nominally under the control of 
the junta.
    We do not want to subject our assistance to misuse or abuse 
by the military junta. So we need to go back to our past 
practice of using parallel and cross border structures to 
deliver assistance to the people.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you very much. Those are 
great suggestions. We should take--very much take heed of your 
advice. You know, I would also like to highlight the role of 
ASEAN that it has played in attempting to mediate the crisis in 
Myanmar.
    Although ASEAN acted in unison to hold a summit with its 
Members in the months following the February coup and released, 
like, a five-point plan to resolve the crisis.
    Multiple missteps have been made along the way that 
seriously jeopardize the effectiveness of their influence and 
response. So, in particular, the summit was jeopardized from 
the start by inviting a representative of the militia junta to 
represent Myanmar in negotiations but excluded any 
representation from the National Unity Government.
    You know, ASEAN's capacity to mediate Myanmar's crisis 
further when, after specifically calling for an end to the 
violence, Myanmar's military continued to quash dissent and 
protest violently by openly attacking and killing its own 
people.
    So, Ambassador Currie----
    Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired. The 
gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Okay. Well, thank you. I hope I can 
continue this if there is time. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Ted Lieu of 
California for 5 minutes.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Levin. You're muted, Ted.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chairman Meeks, for calling this 
important hearing.
    I'd like to followup on the line of questioning from 
Representative Brad Sherman.
    So Ambassador Tun, is there a representative from the 
Rohingya?
    Mr. Tun. So I--could you repeat the question again, because 
I missed----
    Mr. Lieu. In the National Unity Government that was 
recently formed does it include a representative of the 
Rohingya people?
    Mr. Tun. So, so far there is no representative from 
Rohingya in the NUG.
    Mr. Lieu. So let me--let me just tell you the problem 
there. There was a article in Time magazine dated March 8th, 
2018, that estimates more than 43,000 Rohingya parents have 
been reported lost, presumed dead. Other reports estimate about 
25,000 Rohingya may have been killed.
    There was a study in January 2018 that estimated that there 
are also an additional 18,000 acts of sexual violence against 
women and girls, and it's estimated that 116,000 Rohingya were 
beaten and 36,000 were thrown into fires.
    In a recent New York Times article--I'm just going to quote 
from it--states that, ``rather than condemn the systematic 
executions, rapes, and village burnings, Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, 
a Nobel Prize Laureate, defended the generals. There was little 
outcry in Myanmar over the brutal persecution of ethnic 
minorities.
    Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi defended the military at The Hague, 
where Myanmar was accused of genocide against Rohingya. 
Myanmar's diplomats, including Mr. Kyaw Moe Tun, fell in line, 
earning the country's international scorn.''
    So how can we trust that the Rohingya aren't going to be 
continued to be killed if we support the National Unity 
Government? Why should we support you?
    Mr. Tun. Thank you. You know, because, you know, as I 
mentioned earlier, now we are fighting the common enemy. So all 
the issues that happened in Myanmar are because of the 
military. So we--first, we need to focus on the common enemy 
first.
    Then, you know, as I mentioned earlier, the NUG government 
addressed the issue in line with the, you know, international 
norms and standards, in line with the, you know, the 
international human rights--human rights law and international 
humanitarian law, and then also what we--what we believe is 
that NUG is the interim government.
    And then when it's come to the, you know, the permanent 
one, we were the--you know, because we believe in engagement, 
we believe in dialog, so all the outstanding issue that we 
faced, definitely, we can resolve it through the dialog or with 
the participation from the--all relevant stakeholders and this 
kind of inclusive dialog will find a way to get the--you know, 
to solve the problem.
    That is what we believe is that, you know, that is what we 
need, the support from the international community toward the 
National Unity Government.
    Mr. Lieu. Let me ask you another question. Can the Rohingya 
people get citizenship in your country?
    Mr. Tun. Yes, of course. Of course. Those who are in the--
you know, that is why we--I want to point out is that, you 
know, those we--the NUG government will pursue in accordance 
with the international norms and standards. Those who are 
entitled they were the--get the citizenship and those whoever 
get their citizenship they were enjoying the fundamental rights 
that the others like.
    So that is what we believe. We believe in the democracy. We 
believe in the human rights. That is why I am in favor inside 
the country they have to enshrine the right, same like the 
others. That is what I believe.
    Mr. Lieu. So thank you. I'm going to reclaim my time.
    So the military coup is unacceptable, and I would hope that 
the military would stop killing people and we need to reverse 
the coup. At the same time, I do not see any change in the 
National Unity Government when you cannot even include a 
representative of the Rohingya people.
    The U.N. has said that the government of which you were a 
part of had genocidal intent and ethnic cleansing of the 
Rohingya people, and you still cannot even manage to have a 
representative of the Rohingya people in the Unity Government.
    So I cannot support your National Unity Government and I 
will oppose efforts for the United States to support the 
National Unity Government until you commit to having at least a 
representative from the Rohingya people and you commit to 
stopping the genocide of the Rohingya people.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. Time has expired. The gentleman's time has 
expired.
    I now recognize Representative Meijer of Michigan for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for 
holding this hearing today and to our guests who are joining us 
to share their wisdom and their experience.
    Like Ms. Tenney, I also have a significant Burmese 
population in my district. There are over 4,000 Burmese and 
Burmese Americans in west Michigan, many of whom were--fled 
during the 1988 coup, which I know that both Ambassador Tun and 
Ms. Ohmar, you know, lived through, right, experienced 
firsthand.
    I think of the earlier comments just about how, initially, 
when the kind of green shoots of democracy were first occurring 
when Aung San Suu Kyi kind of burst onto the scene and then the 
Nobel Prize--the Nobel Peace Prize and all these positive 
efforts how much excitement there was that after decades of 
kind of brutal repression and military dictatorships and coups 
that the Tatmadaw were finally starting to relinquish some of 
their grasp.
    I think it's pretty clear to us right now that that was, as 
Ms. Currie mentioned, that that relinquishment was a bit in 
name only, and I think they have sought to take the best 
benefits of that cooling--or that warming of relations, that 
thawing of tensions with the rest of the world and the Western 
world in particular, and turn that into being able to line 
their own pockets and do what they can to further cement their 
hold on the country, and the coup on February 1st, I think, 
made that very clear.
    I'm, obviously, very sympathetic to the tension between the 
recognition of the genocide against the Rohingya and the plight 
that they're in, you know, in balancing how we can achieve 
stability and peace and prosperity in the region in the short 
term.
    But I guess I'm very concerned about the way that the kind 
of--the peaceful urban protesters and some of the existing 
fighting organizations like the Kachin Independence Army, which 
I think just a day and a half ago shot down a helicopter of the 
junta regime.
    You know, I wanted to ask Ambassador Tun, I guess, first 
and foremost, while I see the benefit of kind of a rainbow 
coalition of various ethnic groups kind of coming together who 
had traditionally been just aligned against the government but 
now have common cause in kind of bringing--or gets aligned 
against the Tatmadaw and now have common cause in establishing 
a unity government, are--do you think that that can be a 
sustainable balance in the long term, especially when you 
have--when we have seen evidence in the past of when long-
running armed conflicts then try to implement the more 
reformist democratic mind set individuals and how they can 
quickly result in the people who have the guns having the say? 
Could you speak to that, Ambassador Tun?
    Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Meijer.
    It is true that, you know, the situation that we are 
having, especially, you know, unprecedented unity that we are 
having at this point, as analysts pointed out that it is over 
20 years we do not have this kind of unity among different 
players, different organizations. It is the time that we have 
unprecedented unity.
    So for sustainability, that is, of course, we also have the 
consent, you know, because now we are fighting against a common 
enemy. Once we over this kind of enemy, we still need to talk. 
That is why we are aiming to help the Federal democratic union.
    So because we want to bring all relevant stakeholders in 
the equal footing in the work together or for the country, 
because their Federal democratic union, their constitution, 
will give them the way to bring everyone together again.
    So that is the hope. So we always hope for the best. But, 
of course, you know, we prepare for the worst. Of course, we 
have to believe very positive points on this regard.
    Mr. Meijer. Yes, thank you, Mr. Ambassador. I think we have 
spoken to the failures of ASEAN, more broadly, to try to tackle 
and kind of have a hard framework. So I hope that partners in 
the region step up.
    But just finally, Ms. Currie, can you speak to the fact 
that if we were to implement sanctions and cutoff some of that 
funding, specifically, Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise, do you 
think that that would really have an operative impact on the 
Tatmadaw's survival?
    Ms. Currie. I think it would definitely clip their wings. 
They rely on the revenue from oil and gas substantially for a 
lot of what they do. The other thing that I think that we could 
definitely do is put some more pressure on Singapore.
    The junta is, clearly, having some challenges with access 
to hard currency, and they hold accounts in Singapore that 
continue to be able to participate in purchases and dollar 
auctions. We need to do more to cutoff their access to hard 
currency, and putting sanctions on MOGE would, certainly, put a 
big chunk of pressure on them, yes.
    Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Bera [presiding]. Thank you. Let me go ahead and 
recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I really want to thank Chairman 
Meeks and Ranking Member McCaul for this really important 
hearing.
    I had the fortune of traveling to Myanmar and to meet the 
Burmese people and to see a nation struggling, and one that 
really has attempted to persevere under the weight of 
successive military dictatorships.
    But I also had the opportunity to visit the Rohingya in 
Bangladesh in the camps, and my first question is really to 
Ambassador Tun. Three quarters of a million Rohingya refugees 
were forced from Myanmar into Bangladesh at the direction of 
the Tatmadaw.
    Roughly, 600,000 remain in Myanmar and there is justifiable 
concern for their well-being and their safety. So what is the 
current state of Myanmar's remaining Rohingya? How likely are 
they to be--remain safe and what is the status of the Rohingya 
refugees?
    Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline. To be very 
frank, under the military government we all are the same. You 
know, we are--we--the human rights violations, atrocity taking 
place everywhere in the country. So we have a concern with each 
and everyone, including those Rohingya in the camps in Rakhine 
State.
    So, of course, we do not know exactly. To me, I do not know 
exactly the situation. But, of course, we have the concern 
because they already have the difficulties. So their situation 
because of the--you know, the coup and compounded the 
challenges that they already faced.
    So that is why we keep telling the international community 
that, you know, please end this military coup. Please support 
us to end the military coup. That is that what we really want.
    So then the next step where we will, you know, we work 
together to solve the problem, find a sustainable solution with 
regard to this matter. You know, that is very important for us.
    Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Ambassador, thank you.
    You know, I've heard your responses to Mr. Lieu and Mr. 
Sherman, and I can tell you I met with Members of the Rohingya 
community who were Members of the elected government and no 
longer have citizenship.
    So this issue about making the Rohingya a Stateless people 
is a serious one. Democracy means more than uttering the words. 
It means respecting the basic human rights of all of your 
citizens.
    And so I hope you hear the message loudly and clearly that 
we expect the Rohingya to be repatriated to their own country 
and, obviously, be kept safe.
    But I want to turn now to a question about food security. 
The U.N. has reported more than 2 million people in Burma are 
facing growing food insecurity due to this crisis, and both the 
political crisis as well as the COVID-19 pandemic, with 
families being forced to skip meals, obviously, having less 
nutrition.
    The World Food Programme is scaling up its response in 
Burma to providing assistance to more than 3.3 million people 
in the coming months. What is the kind of current status of the 
humanitarian effort in Burma?
    I do not know, Ambassador Currie or Ambassador Tun, who is 
best prepared to answer that.
    Mr. Tun. May I--may I take it?
    Ms. Currie. Sure, Ambassador Tun. Please.
    Mr. Tun. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
    Because this is a really huge challenge that we are facing, 
because the one hand we do not want any country to recognize 
the military, to engage with the military.
    But at the same time, we pay attention for the humanitarian 
assistance. But this is why what we like to request the 
international community, including the United Nations and our 
government partners, whatever the assistance that you make 
please consult with the National Unity Government and go 
through the CSO and the other NGO's.
    That is what we'd like to request. The humanitarian 
assistance is very important for all of us at this point. I 
think that Ambassador Currie may have some more points to add.
    Mr. Cicilline. And, Ambassador Currie, if you can also 
respond to the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar. 
I know there's been some concern about evidence being 
destroyed, and is this an effort that we can provide additional 
resources to? This is, ultimately, about accountability.
    And Facebook, I know, the platform was used to spread hate 
speech against the Rohingya and the ability to kind of collect 
that information is going to be really critical.
    Ms. Currie. Thank you. I would add that right now is--it's 
rice harvesting season. It's the dry season. Rice harvest is 
taking place (audio interference) very critical that that be 
able to take (audio interference). Can you all hear me?
    Mr. Cicilline. Yes.
    Ms. Currie. And then on the IIMM, we need to increase U.S. 
contributions and also work within the Human Rights Council and 
within the General Assembly to extend the mandate of the IIMM 
to make sure that they can investigate all the atrocities that 
have taken place, not just the ones in the Rohingya areas, and 
they're already doing that, to some degree. But we can--we can 
support that more robustly. Thank you.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you. Let me go to recognize the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pfluger.
    Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. (Audio 
interference) discuss this important issue and, obviously, take 
a look at the atrocities that have happened and make sure that 
we, as a country, are standing up for the ideals that have made 
America what it is, and that we continue to look around the 
world at ways to influence.
    And so I'd like to start, Ambassador Currie, by just kind 
of asking about the--some of the investments that have been 
made by some Western energy companies, whether it's Chevron or 
Total or some of the others, and how important has that 
infrastructure been to helping with the poverty, to helping 
with some of the quality of life throughout the country in the 
last couple of decades?
    Ms. Currie. I would say that, on balance, the investments 
in oil and gas infrastructure not just by Western countries but 
overall have, largely, enabled the military to avoid the 
consequences of its failure to use resources to invest in the 
people of the country and have allowed the military to purchase 
weapons to turn on its own people.
    The civilian government, ostensibly, gained control of 
those resources starting in 2010, 2012, and the NLD government 
controlled them starting in 2015 and started to institute 
policies under the Extractive and--the Extractive Industries 
Transparency Initiative and other ways to try to make them 
more--make those revenues go more toward the health and welfare 
of the Burmese people.
    But now that those revenues are flowing back into the 
pockets of the Tatmadaw they will, once again, be used to 
torment the Burmese people, not to support and help them.
    Mr. Pfluger. What are the chances and the threat of if they 
were abandoned and, you know, expropriated or, even worse, you 
know, is there a threat that the Chinese could somehow take 
over those assets and do something else with them? Can you kind 
of talk to that line of thinking?
    Ms. Currie. Well, it depends on the assets. You know, you 
have the offshore facilities that are in the Andaman Sea and 
then you have onshore facilities, including pipelines that cut 
across.
    The Chinese already have a substantial investment in the 
oil and gas industry in Burma, as does India and even Malaysia, 
the United States, others.
    The Yadana pipeline is servicing a mature field and it--
they're--it's unlikely that it would be--that the impact of the 
U.S. withdrawal there would mean much.
    One of the challenges for the Burmese is that they have no 
refining capability. So even if they're able to export the oil 
and--or even if they're able to pump the oil and gas that they 
cannot refine it and sell it on the open market.
    So that's why the Yadana pipeline flows to Thailand, where 
the Petroleum Authority of Thailand actually refines it and 
then gives a portion of it back to Burma and then sells the 
rest on the stock market.
    So it's a--you know, they're the--what has--what I think 
there's a debatable proposition about whether shutting--whether 
pulling out U.S. investment will have much of an impact, I know 
that it will take some time for them to be able to replace the 
U.S. capabilities that are currently allowing the production to 
continue.
    And in that time, if we're also working on the financial 
side to cutoff the flow or to require that if U.S. entities 
stay involved that they put the funds into an escrow account 
instead of sending them to the military, that's another option 
where the U.S. companies and other multinationals do not have 
to withdraw. They just do not pay the royalties to the junta. 
They put them in an account that's set aside for the people.
    Mr. Pfluger. Ambassador, thank you very much for that 
explanation. Just very quickly, Ambassador Tun, in the 
remaining 40 seconds, do you agree with, you know, kind of the 
philosophy of making sure that the funds are going to be 
flowing in the right direction and that we do not have some 
secondary or tertiary effect that could be worse?
    Mr. Tun. At this time, our focus is to stop any money 
inflow into the military regime. So whatever way that you can 
cutoff, please do so. That is the quick question that I'd like 
to respond. Please cut the money inflow into the military 
regime.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I yield.
    Mr. Bera. Great, thank you. Let me go ahead and recognize 
the gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. Omar.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you, and thanks to our panel for joining us 
today for this really critical conversation.
    I wanted to chat a little bit with Ms. Ohmar. I know that 
you have previously been supportive of a U.N. Security Council 
referral to the situation in Burma to the International 
Criminal Court.
    Of course, the ICC has claimed some jurisdiction through 
the Bangladesh referral, and there's also an ongoing case at 
the ICJ regarding the Rohingya genocide.
    What would you like to see happen in terms of an 
investigation and prosecution for the atrocity crimes being 
committed this year, and do you see the ICC as the best venue? 
Should we be thinking about helping set up a hybrid court?
    Ms. Ohmar. Thank you, Congresswoman Omar.
    Yes, my stand and our organization's stand too was 
resistant on the support of the, you know, situation overall 
referral to the ICC, that we know that can only happen with the 
Security Council referral. So that's why we also are calling 
for the option--another option, if it is not possible, to set 
up an ad hoc international tribunal that can be commissioned as 
well.
    And if the Security Council will not move, that is another 
possibility through the General Assembly as well. So that's 
something that we have been calling for, and we know the 
current--the jurisdiction that ICC can exercise through the 
Bangladesh is very limited.
    It is not enough and it does not cover all these--all these 
violence the Rohingya community face before they fled into 
the--into Bangladesh.
    And we mean all of these crimes, including the sexual 
violence against women. All of these are--like, I met with many 
of these Rohingya sisters, you know, who are the rape survivors 
of this military regime--the military.
    So we need to address all of these crimes, but not only for 
the Rohingya people but also for all of the crimes across other 
ethnic areas as well as those crimes against humanity happening 
for the last 3 months.
    And only with the Security Council referral that we will be 
able to address all of these crimes at the ICC. So we would 
like for the U.S. Government to also just recognize the 
genocide definition and also support all our efforts to--at the 
Security Council either to refer to ICC or set up an 
independent ad hoc tribunal.
    That will be the best option. But we are also calling on 
the National Unity Government to actually sign the Rome Statute 
so that we will be able to have the ICC also look into the 
other crimes as well.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Omar. I know Currie wants to add something but let me 
pose this question and then I'll give you a minute to do that 
as well.
    Obviously, one of the barriers to establishing justice for 
the victims, both with the Rohingyas and the pro-democracy 
protesters, right now is destruction of evidence, and I know 
that you mentioned in your testimony that the Burmese military 
is covering up their gross humanitarian violations.
    So how can the United States be supportive in terms of 
documentation so that there are--there is sufficient evidence 
when the ability for prosecution can exist?
    Again, to Ms. Ohmar and then we'll let Currie chime in if 
we have a couple of seconds.
    Ms. Ohmar. Thank you for this question.
    For the last few decades since the previous military 
regime, the local organizations, local civil society 
organizations, when it comes to the rape and sexual violence, 
particularly, the ethnic women organizations, they've been the 
one who have been documenting and presenting to the United 
Nations and to the international community.
    I will come back to this--to them for this one as well, 
because they are well experienced, you know, how to document 
not only the human rights documentation but also the evidence 
collections.
    And, of course, it's very--extremely challenging now and 
with this military junta how to collect and preserve those 
evidences. But together with this--the IIMM, the United Nations 
established mechanisms, I think the local civil society 
organizations, women's organizations, are in--they are placed 
best to collaborate with the international mechanisms to work 
together, and we need all your support for that to happen.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Bera. Ms. Currie, if you could keep your answer short.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Currie. Very, very short.
    Just that there is also the possibility without signing the 
Rome Statute for the National Unity Government to do a self-
referral under the ICC statute under Article 12. So they can 
just refer themselves--refer Burma themselves to the ICC.
    Mr. Bera. Great. Let me go----
    Mr. Tun. We have already engaged with the ICC. We are 
already engaged with that.
    Mr. Bera. Let me go and recognize the gentleman from 
Michigan, Mr. Levin, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, I want to, first, say that I stand with Mr. Lieu 
and other colleagues in that any simple return to the status 
quo ante before the coup is not acceptable, and I want to 
explore with you whether there's real hope of a new day between 
the Bamar majority and the various ethnic majority--ethnic 
minorities, not just the Rohingya but the Karen, Kachin, Mon, 
and others who make up 30 percent of the population of Burma 
all around the periphery.
    My first trip as a Member of Congress was to Bangladesh, 
including Cox's Bazar and the Rohingya refugee camps. I will 
not belabor the point of the horror of that. But, you know, 
Ambassador Tun, we--it is simply unacceptable that we are still 
where we are in talking about the lack of citizenship, the lack 
of safe return, and on and on.
    But my question is with the Rohingya and others, I've seen 
increasing reports about dialog between different minority 
groups and hope for a different future. You know, Burma was 
basically a State created--that's a child of colonialism. You 
know, a State whose boundaries were kind of imposed by European 
powers.
    It's never cohered yet to this day as an inclusive 
democracy. And, Ms. Ohmar, you know, I'm a scholar of Buddhism. 
I was supposed to get a Ph.D. and be a professor of Asian 
religions, but I realized I should come and hang out with you 
all instead and talk about policy.
    So I'm not shy to say that the Burmese majority, the 
Buddhist majority, has been unable to see the humanity and the 
citizenship of others.
    I feel like you might be a leader in this regard. Is there 
new hope in this horrible moment of repression from the 
Tatmadaw in a different future for Burma and how can we get 
there?
    Ms. Ohmar. I think that--the question is directed to me, is 
it? Sorry, I'm----
    Mr. Levin. Yes. Yes, ma'am. Yes.
    Ms. Ohmar. With--in the past 3 months, I see--I see a ray 
of hope because I see the different ethnic communities coming 
together while I also see, particularly from the Buddhists, 
Brahma majority, are showing their sympathy and understanding--
empathy to the other ethnic communities such as, like, you 
know, Karen and Kachin, who face the--this kind this kind of 
abhorrent violence from the military for many generations.
    Mr. Levin. Yes.
    Ms. Ohmar. They are publicly writing on the social media 
and also they are publicly apologizing to the ethnic 
communities, including to the Rohingya people. Even, 
Congressman, I received a public apology to my direct messages 
or, like, writing, for--like they have assaulted and threatened 
and harassment me for my support and standing for the Rohingya 
people.
    So I think this----
    Mr. Levin. So this--so let me just ask--I'm so glad to hear 
that. But this Unity Government, obviously, isn't the big 
vehicle here.
    What can we do as the Congress and as the United States to 
support authentic bottom-up dialog and, you know, democracy 
building amongst the Bamar majority and the different minority 
groups? And I--you know, Ambassador Currie as well, or if you 
have more to say about that, Ms. Ohmar.
    Ms. Ohmar. Yes, thank you. I will say that, first of all, 
Burma never had a chance to process a nation building. But with 
this current moment, this is the best chance and the best 
time--I mean, the first time that I've ever seen the opening 
opportunity.
    I would like you to help and facilitate and support us by 
bringing these communities together, and in that what we really 
need is, like, you know, I look into the NUG and there is a 
potential because within the NUG there are different ministers 
who already has taken the stand on the universality of--
universality of human rights as well as, like, supporting the 
Rohingya community as well.
    So we need to encourage these elements within the NUG to be 
able to go up to the level of holding such dialogs among the 
different communities and with your support.
    Of course, you know, like, we will--we will have to hold 
the NUG accountable for the human rights. We will have to hold 
the NUG accountable for the--for the Rohingya people as well.
    Make sure that Rohingya people are also included in the 
process of the NUG and the leadership. But at the same time, 
NUG needs your support to be able to get to that point.
    So I think this is our proposal to the U.S. Government is 
support the NUG but make sure that we all--we all hold the NUG 
to account for what they have to stand on the principles of 
human rights and as well as the protection of the ethnic and 
religious minorities, particularly the Rohingya people, that--
as they are the most persecuted.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Levin. Well, I guess my time has expired, Mr. Chairman, 
so I better yield back. Thank you. Beautiful statement. Well, 
I--we'll be here to support that dialog one way or another, 
whatever is most appropriate. Thanks.
    Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you. Let me go ahead and recognize 
the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Houlahan.
    Ms. Houlahan. Hi, and thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you 
so much to everybody for your really thoughtful conversation. I 
have also had the opportunity to go to Burma more than once and 
it's a beautiful country, and I'm devastated by what's 
happening there.
    I am fortunate enough that I'm on the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, but specifically on the Asia Subcommittee and 
another one that's new that's called the Foreign Affairs 
Committee on International Development, International 
Organizations, and Global Social Impact--its global corporate 
social impact, importantly.
    And so I was hoping that I might ask the both Ambassadors 
if they could speak a little bit about the role that the U.S. 
and our allies, businesses, for-profit businesses, could have 
if we stayed in country rather than imposing sanctions.
    I'm not specifically talking about no oil, gas, those kinds 
of, you know, meanies or baddies that we've all been talking 
about but I'm talking about other businesses that may be 
helping or not negatively impacting the Burmese people 
themselves and allowing them to continue to have, potentially, 
jobs and otherwise.
    So if maybe I could start with Ambassador Tun to ask if 
there's any value at all to maintaining some aspects of our 
businesses and our allies' businesses in Burma.
    Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Houlahan. I think it's 
very difficult, you know, if we keep the--you know, the 
business as usual, then it's a benefit to the military. So my 
short answer is that do not do any business under this 
military. That is what we--we need to change their behavior. So 
if we go like this, definitely, they will be surviving. So we 
need to stop that. Thank you.
    Ms. Houlahan. And, Ambassador Currie, would you--Currie, 
would you be able to add to that? Is it your opinion that no 
business at all--all business being barred from the U.S. and 
our allies would be their best course of action?
    Ms. Currie. I think that the key is to avoid doing business 
with the military. Sorry, my dog just started barking. I do not 
know if you hear. The perils of working at home.
    But I think the key is to avoid working with the junta, 
avoid dealing with military on businesses as well as the crony 
businesses that support the military.
    Unfortunately, right now due to the situation and, 
basically, the economic collapse or the country--of the country 
under the civil disobedience movement and the work stoppages 
that are going on, there's not a whole lot of economic activity 
taking place.
    What we do need to do is try to find those mechanisms. 
There are projects that do work on small-scale income 
generation for IDP women, for instance. Those activities can 
continue and should--we should continue to lean into that sort 
of thing.
    But that's not what's going to--that's incredibly different 
from the Chevron investment in the Yadana pipeline. I'm 
thinking about things like Turquoise Mountain's work with 
Rakhine IDP weavers on--in peri-urban areas of Yangon to 
produce woven fabrics for--that then get sold into high-end----
    Ms. Houlahan. But not all of those are NGO driven. Some of 
those are actually for-profit driven.
    Ms. Currie. They are--they are joint public-private 
partnerships.
    Ms. Houlahan. Right.
    Ms. Currie. And so I think that right now, if we can look 
primarily in areas where there are joint public-private 
partnerships available and where we can ensure that companies 
are engaging, either whether in their--if they're extractive 
industries they need to be strictly adhering to EITI standards.
    If they're not in extractive industries they need to have 
very high awareness around who their partners are on the 
ground. That's the key is being able to know your partner and 
being able to have confidence that they are not feeding into 
the military.
    And also, you know, looking at things like tax revenue and 
where your tax revenue is going.
    Ms. Houlahan. Yes, exactly. And my next question--my last 
question is in a similar kind of should we stay or should we go 
line, which is in light of the coup and the very clear 
uncertainty of the future and when, if at any point, this will 
all clear up, what should the U.S. assistance to Burma look 
like in the near term?
    What should it look like as we move forward? And I would 
love to know from Ambassador Currie and Ms. Ohmar, if you would 
not mind answering that question for me.
    Ms. Currie. So I'll very quickly reiterate. In the past, 
the United States was able to push assistance into Burma 
through parallel channels and through--and through cross border 
channels that avoided the military and military-run enterprises 
and ministries.
    We can go back to that model, and we have seen this happen 
in other countries and other contexts where the government is 
not trusted or capable.
    Ms. Houlahan. Ohmar? Ms. Ohmar?
    Ms. Ohmar. I will say again, Ambassador Currie as well, I 
think what we really need is the assistance to be able to reach 
to all the most vulnerable and needy communities across the 
country.
    In light of the coup, this is why the situation is. So we 
also need, like I said in the earlier, we need your support and 
your engagement with the Thai government, for example, to help 
to--for the Thai government to agree to open the humanitarian 
aid corridors along the border areas. That goes to the Indian 
government as well.
    So if you could help us do that, then we will be able to 
save a lot of lives by all kinds of means, and our civil 
society is very resilient and also very vibrant with so much 
capacity among the--also the--among the ethnic community. So we 
will appreciate that. Thank you.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you. Let me go ahead and recognize the 
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Malinowski.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much, Mr. Bera. Hello to all 
of our--all of our witnesses. I want to just start actually by 
saying a few words. I have--I have good friends on this panel, 
but particularly to Ms. Ohmar.
    Members of the committee heard a little bit about her 
story, how she was a refugee from the 1988 protest movement 
against the military government.
    You all should know that she was actually one of the first, 
I think, three or four Burmese refugees to come to the United 
States at that time, and I know because I was there and knew 
her as a slightly younger woman, college student at Simon's 
Rock College up in upState New York.
    And I saw you grow from those young confusing days into a 
leader and a leader in what turned out to be a multi-decades 
struggle to return democracy to Burma.
    You mentioned you testified to Congress 20 years ago, 25 
years ago, making very similar points as you are today about 
the Burmese military and, you know, I worry a little bit that 
you may feel that it was all in vain, that you're right back 
where you started. And I just want to tell you that that is not 
the case.
    Thanks to you and your generation, Burma does have a civil 
society now. It had 10 years of not true democracy but relative 
freedom, during which people had a chance to begin to have 
these kinds of conversations.
    Thanks to you and your generation, there is a younger 
generation in Burma now who really understands what it means to 
exercise the responsibilities of democratic citizenship.
    And we have heard in this hearing just how extraordinary 
this movement is. It's completely different from what we saw in 
past Burmese democratic uprisings in its sophistication, its 
level of organization, its determination, its skill, and that 
is the product of the work that you and many others did over 
the years.
    I believe the military has much less legitimacy today. Back 
in the 1990's when we were working on this for the first time, 
all the nations of Asia, basically, dealt with the military 
junta as the government of Burma that had always been the 
government of Burma. That's a little bit different right now.
    You know, we heard from Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun today and 
everyone should remember he is speaking to us as the Permanent 
Representative of the country of Burma to the United Nations, 
recognized by the United Nations.
    He's not speaking for some exile government or some 
nongovernmental group. He is the recognized representative of 
his country, and that complicates matters for the Burmese 
military junta in a very, very serious way.
    And I also think that although the U.S. has always been on 
the side of the Burmese people, this is now a much higher 
priority for the U.S. Government than it ever has been.
    I think the Biden Administration's response--there's more 
that can be done and we have heard great ideas here. But I 
think it has been exemplary in the first two or 3 months of 
this administration, from the freezing of over a billion 
dollars of funds held by this junta in the American financial 
system, to, I think, a very sophisticated sanctions policy that 
we have seen unfold, and I expect more to come.
    So you should feel a sense of accomplishment, as terrible 
as the situation is today.
    A couple of quick questions. Ambassador Currie, you gave us 
a really interesting and, I think, insightful assessment of 
China's complicated role, more complicated than some might 
imagine, based on just the fact that China, ideologically, is 
not going to be in favor of democracy in Burma.
    We have heard a little bit less in this hearing about 
Russia, which seems to me actually at the United Nations to be 
a much more unvarnished supporter of the Burmese junta. There's 
a military-to-military relationship. Could you say a little bit 
more about that?
    Ms. Currie. Sure. Russia is primarily the arms dealer for 
the Tatmadaw and they have no bones about it and they, as you 
said, have been more unvarnished in their willingness to accept 
the coup just as they were--you know, just as they are 
unvarnished in their support for Assad in Syria.
    They are completely amoral about all of this and they do 
not care. They do not care about democracy and they, certainly, 
do not care about any of that, the human rights considerations 
here. They will--they like their client.
    That said, if they are--if they lose China in resistance to 
U.N. Security Council action, I find it hard to see them acting 
alone on this. This isn't Syria.
    They do not have as much strategic input in Burma. It's 
much more transactional for them and just an opportunity to be 
chaos agents, in my opinion. And I think that if we can move 
China to abstain, then Russia will follow them.
    Mr. Malinowski. Great. Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you. I see Ms. Manning's camera, but 
I do not see Ms. Manning. So let's go to the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Vargas, and then we'll come back to Ms. 
Manning.
    Mr. Vargas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank 
the committee for holding this hearing and especially the 
witnesses today. Since I guess I'm not last but almost last, 
I've been privileged to hear most of the discussion here and 
many of the questions that I had have been answered.
    I do want to comment, however, that I, too, have great 
concern over the Rohingya and the situation that they face 
outside of the country and inside the country, and hope that 
they will be respected and cared for and I look forward to that 
happening.
    I do have one question that I thought Mr. Malinowski was 
going to followup on and that is China, and we have heard quite 
a bit about it.
    But I'm surprised that they're not meddling more in this 
situation, not only because, obviously, it's on the border but, 
as Mr. Wilson very appropriately and proudly mentioned, and his 
father was a Flying Tiger, the United States has a very long 
history with Burma, a very proud history, and that's why I 
would think that the Chinese would want to meddle more in the 
situation in Myanmar.
    But they haven't. Why is that? Ambassador Currie, why do 
not you handle that one?
    Ms. Currie. Well, I think that--I think they're meddling a 
lot, actually. I think they're trying to shore up their own 
interest, which is what they do best in these situations, from 
their own perspective.
    But their interests are very narrowly cast and so they are 
doing things that are not helping them, and when they have 
taken an action in one way or the other, it has set off 
protests against them and put them in uncomfortable positions.
    I think they are in an uncomfortable position and they're 
not quite sure what to do because this has gone on and has 
unfolded in a way that they're not really comfortable with.
    I think the thing that makes them probably most 
uncomfortable is the way that the protesters in Burma have 
linked up with protesters across the region, several of whom 
also are agitating against the Chinese, whether it's the 
Chinese Communist Party, whether it's the ones in Taiwan or the 
protesters in Hong Kong as part of the Milk Tea Alliance.
    But I think that has really got them off balance. I think 
they, frankly, are a little off balance. They've resorted to 
their usual tools but they aren't working very well.
    Mr. Vargas. But I guess I would ask that--or comment that 
the Chinese oftentimes are uncomfortable and they seem to act 
anyway, and I see them with their Belt and Road acting in 
places where it's uncomfortable but they continue to act. And 
that's why the off balance sort of catches me off balance.
    I do not understand why they aren't more active here. I 
mean, it's right on there--obviously, it's on their border. You 
would think that they'd be much more engaged.
    Ms. Currie. Their preference is to see what happens and 
then deal with whoever comes out on top, and because nobody is 
on top right now and there's not a clear outcome, I think that 
they are continuing to hold that.
    And by keeping things like Security Council deliberations 
private and not holding them in the public eye more, we're 
allowing them space to continue to hold back and withhold 
until--and not have to put their chips on a number, that they 
can kind of keep their cards close to the vest. I'm sorry, I'm 
mixing gambling metaphors.
    Mr. Vargas. That's OK. But I do not--I do not understand 
why they do not want to force or influence who comes out on 
top. I mean, you mentioned they're going to sit back and wait. 
You would think that they would be more involved in pushing to 
see who does come out on top.
    Ms. Currie. I think they're outcome neutral here, actually. 
I mean, they just want an outcome. That's what they want. They 
want somebody to deal with that they can make deals with.
    Mr. Vargas. Okay.
    Ms. Currie. And they do not really care who it is because 
they've found over the past 5 years that they can deal with the 
NLD just fine. They have no problem manipulating the NLD and 
cutting deals with them.
    It worked out great for them the past 5 years, in fact, 
better than dealing with the junta because they had more 
legitimacy because they were dealing with a more legitimate 
government. So they would rather just wait and see and not be 
forced to make a choice. That's their preference.
    Mr. Vargas. Okay. I heard today and I've read, of course, 
about the potential 2 million people that have food insecurity. 
I have to tell you, I have great faith in the United Nations 
World Food Programme and, in particular, the leader there--the 
new leader that they've had for a few years, David Beasley.
    I always tell him if he was Catholic, we'd make him a 
saint. But I think he's done great things around the world. 
He's worked very hard. And, again, how can we help and how can 
the United Nations World Food Programme help more? Maybe tie it 
in with what we should do helping people with Taiwan because I 
know Taiwan also has, obviously, a lot of opportunity to help 
and has not really done much.
    Senator Currie? I mean--Senator Currie--Ambassador Currie?
    Ms. Currie. Thanks for the promotion, but I'll stick with 
Ambassador.
    Mr. Vargas. I'm not sure--yes, I'm not sure it is.
    Ms. Currie. All right. I'm a House girl. I've worked on the 
House side. So I hear you.
    I would say that, you know, the WFP does do amazing work 
and David Beasley is a wonderful leader there. But I think that 
the key is to give the U.N. agencies the flexibility to do more 
cross border.
    Again, I'm, like, a one-trick pony here--cross border, 
cross border, cross border, parallel systems. Allow them--you 
know, encourage and allow them to go around the blockages with 
the government or with the--I'm sorry, with the--with the junta 
that would keep the assistance from getting directly to the 
people who need it and the most vulnerable people in the 
country.
    Mr. Vargas. Okay, thank you very much. I have 23 seconds 
left, so I will not force a question upon anyone, that I just, 
again, want to thank everyone for being here. Appreciate it, 
and hopefully we can be more involved.
    But it's also a little tricky for us too because we do 
believe in the human rights aspect so deeply, and it's 
troubling, the former government.
    But anyway, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you, and I still see Ms. Manning's 
camera but do not see Representative Manning.
    So let me go over to--recognize the gentleman from 
Illinois, Representative Schneider, and I'll be passing the 
gavel off to the vice Chair of the full committee, Mr. 
Malinowski. Thank you.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Chairman Bera and Vice Chairman 
Malinowski, and I want to thank all the witnesses for sharing 
your perspectives today. So it's good to be here and I have 
what may or may not be the final question.
    But, you know, speaking of perspective, one of the things 
that has always struck me I like looking at maps in different 
ways, and if you look at the map of the Indian Ocean as the 
center of the map rather than the Atlantic Ocean, it's very 
clear to see the importance of Burma.
    It's wedged between China and India. It's--you know, the 
Indian Ocean, it's Africa, it's the Middle East, it's the 
Indian subcontinent, it's Australia and Indonesia. It's a 
rather important area and a lot of people have interest, and I 
know we have talked about those today.
    And maybe, Ambassador Currie, I'll start with you. But, you 
know, we have talked about China and Russia and India and their 
respective interests, but these interests intersect with each 
other and there's an interplay, and how does that affect the 
decisionmaking we should be doing in Congress and as the United 
States?
    Ms. Currie. Well, all of Burma's neighbors as well as 
countries that have an interest in it, including Japan, the 
United States, you know, we are all pursuing our own interests 
in Burma and that's to be expected.
    I think that we also have to account for the agency of the 
Burmese people here, that they're not just a pawn in our great 
game. They have agency and in the past, past Burmese 
governments have proven very good and very resilient at 
managing great power competition over and around their 
interests and playing powers off of each other, whether it's 
the U.S. and China or India or ASEAN.
    They are quite good at manipulating and the military junta, 
in particular, because they do not care about the people of the 
country except as they represent a resource for them to 
exploit.
    So they're perfectly willing to sacrifice the well-being of 
their own people in order to gain leverage with others, 
including the United States and other parties. So I think that 
we have to be mindful that this, you know, like other places is 
a--it's a complicated situation, and while we're pursuing our 
interests in this context we have to be mindful that their 
interests, their agency, people with agency on the ground, that 
this is not a tabula rasa blank slate, that nothing's going on 
there and we cannot just shape the events of this country to 
our will.
    So I think that's the first step is to really have a very 
kind of humble--and then to the extent that we can align our 
interests and our policies with what the desires and the clear 
desires of the people of the country are, we're long term going 
to be better off.
    And we saw this that even after people in the country were 
quite angry with the United States or critical or unhappy when 
we took the side--when we spoke out in favor of the Rohingya or 
to defend the Rohingya or criticize what had happened during 
the Rohingya genocide, there was still a very strong reservoir 
of support for the United States that underlied this momentary, 
you know, popular irritation.
    And so I think that there's still a strong desire for these 
things--for alignment with the United States and for what the--
the kinds of values that we represent, that we have an enduring 
appeal in Burma that we can rely on, even though we're not a 
neighbor and cannot rely on the strategic reserves that the 
Chinese or the Indians necessarily have.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you. And if I can turn to the 
Permanent Representative, and thank you for being with us here 
today.
    You're, I imagine, having conversations with the respective 
representatives from China and Russia at the U.N. Could you 
share a little bit about those conversations and how it might 
inform, again, the decisions we're trying to make here in the 
U.S. Congress?
    Mr. Tun. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schneider.
    Not lately but before, like, three, 4 weeks ago, when I 
talked to the Chinese Permanent Representative and he--because 
they are worried about the--you know, the perception of the 
people vis-a-vis China because the perception of people toward 
China is very negative.
    So that is what they worry because, you know, I--the 
perception, that because in the people's eyes, China's always 
with the military. But China said they are not with the 
military. They like to see the country, like, stable and the 
prosperous Myanmar.
    But what I was struck is that, you know, this is very 
important time for China to demonstrate they are with the 
people of Myanmar, not with the--with the military.
    How they can show it, they can, you know, the--condemn the 
military coup, to condemn the violent act, demand the release 
of, you know, the--all the unlawful detainees including 
leaders, and then to stop, you know, doing business with the 
military.
    That's sort of the point that I expressed. But the point 
that they always make is that they do not want to get 
misunderstood from the people of Myanmar because they like to 
show that they are with the people of Myanmar. But in the eyes 
of people of Myanmar it's very, very difficult.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you. And Ms. Ohmar, I'm sorry, we're 
out of time. I would love to hear your perspective as well. But 
with that, I will yield back.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you so much. 
And I see Representative Manning is back and I will yield 5 
minutes to her and then we'll close.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the 
witnesses for all your testimony and answering so many 
questions on this very difficult topic.
    Ambassador Currie, women continue to risk their lives and 
play central roles in nonviolence to bring about a true 
democracy in Burma, even as the Burmese military uses sexual 
and gender-based violence as a weapon of war.
    How can we best support women in the movement at this time?
    Ms. Currie. The United States has a long history, going 
back to the founding of the Women's League of Burma, where I--
and I was proud to be there with Ohmar at the first conference 
of the Women's League of Burma, quietly sitting in a corner 
crying, watching this amazing event unfold. It was so beautiful 
to see, and to see the generations that have followed and how 
they've stepped up in this movement has been tremendous.
    At the same time, the dark side of it is the stories that I 
hear, the messages I get about young women taking Plan B birth 
control pills with them when they go out to protest because 
they fear being raped by the military. You know, just these 
heartbreaking stories of sexual assault and abuse and sexual 
violence.
    Because this is a, you know, pathology that is highly 
present within the Tatmadaw, and I think that the key is to 
work with the U.N. agencies that actually do work.
    There are a few parts of the U.N. that actually function 
well. One is the Office of Pramila Patten, who's the SG's 
Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict, 
and she is fantastic and does amazing work.
    She has an MOU with the government on this issue that came 
out of the Rohingya crisis that can now be more broadly 
applied, and to also continue to support the investigative 
mechanisms and the other accountability mechanisms and make 
sure that we're holding people accountable and that we are 
sanctioning individuals who are involved in sexual violence 
when we get information about that.
    I think that that's a critical thing that we can do. We 
have done that in other contexts where we have specifically 
sanctioned in South Sudan, for instance, individuals for sexual 
violence.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. Some of those details are just 
horrific. But thank you for those--for your answer.
    Ms. Ohmar--and thank you for being with us today--what more 
can the U.S. and the international community do to ensure the 
basic human rights of refugees are protected in neighboring 
countries throughout what is--what is very likely to be a 
protracted displacement and what are some of your concerns with 
respect to the treatment of refugees in the border regions?
    Ms. Ohmar. Thank you very much for your question, Madam 
Congresswoman. The very needs at the moment is, as I was also 
mentioning earlier, we really need the Thai government to open 
their border but also allowing the humanitarian agencies to 
operate, because right now, I mean, the Thailand government has 
already said, you know, like, best examples are in the previous 
times for the people fleeing from Burma, and I think we need to 
get their support again.
    And I really hope that the U.S. Government and also the 
Congress will actually convince the Thai government that they 
are--this is also their--in their best interest to protect the 
people of Burma, as well as also, you know, like, to show their 
humanity side of the country, because Thai civil society has 
always been supporting our people and Thai government in the 
past has always been supporting, too, but only now that we are 
having some difficult times.
    So if you could actually get the Thai government on board 
for the humanitarian assistance to the refugees, not only those 
who are fleeing right now but also those who remain in the 
refugee camps who do not have--you know, who are surviving in 
the very minimum--minimum needs at the moment.
    And that we really need the cross border aid because many 
people in the ethnic revolutionary-controlled areas they really 
need their support and only through the cross border that we 
will be able to help them and get their needs reached to them. 
So thank you very much if you could take that. Yes.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. Let me ask one last quick question. 
Do you expect that this COVID-19 pandemic will add a 
complicating factor to get the Thai people to assist?
    Ms. Ohmar. This is one of the very worry, locally, 
definitely. But also, this is also--I think this is also--
COVID-19 can be the entry point for the Thai society, Thai 
communities, to feel confidence if the U.S. will, for example, 
like, support the Thai government with the COVID-19 vaccines, 
for example.
    And they need it so much. They need it so much. They are 
very worried or not willing to open the door to the Myanmar 
people, Burma people, leaving is because they worry about their 
own situation. So if you will actually support to the Thai 
government with the COVID-19 vaccines and other necessary--
like, including the--like, you know, like, including the 
quarantine, testing, and monitoring and all of those other 
necessary elements of what is needed to be for the COVID-19 
situation, I think there is a very good chance that the U.S.--I 
mean, sorry, the Thai communities will come back to welcome the 
Burma people, will also--I think the Thai government will also 
come back to take the--take the--take back the--you know, the 
people like they have done all along in the past. Thank you.
    Ms. Manning. Thanks so much. My time has expired. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much, Representative Manning, 
and to all of our Members and, of course, most of all, to our 
distinguished witnesses, Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun, Ambassador 
Kelley Currie, and our friend, Ms. Khin Ohmar.
    I know the Chairman would also want me to recognize our 
friend and colleague, the Ranking Member of the committee, Mr. 
McCaul, for his partnership and in helping to put this hearing 
together, and in all of our bipartisan work together on the 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
    The situation in Burma is going to demand America's 
attention and this committee's attention for some time to come. 
This is not a challenge that the United States can meet alone.
    But I think it's important for all of us to remember that 
the United States has a unique historical relationship with 
Burma and with the people of Burma, having led the 
international effort for decades to bring Burma closer to 
democracy.
    We cannot do it alone, but there is--there is about zero 
chance that ASEAN or the United Nations or our allies in Europe 
or any other international body or institution would be doing 
the things that they are doing right now to help the Burmese 
people if not for intensive American engagement and leadership 
today and in the many years that have preceded this moment.
    That's going to demand continued oversight for this--from 
this committee as we figure out the best ways, the most 
effective ways, to stand with the Burmese people, and 
recognizing as well that how we respond to the crisis of 
democracy in Burma is going to be a test of how the United 
States responds to the crisis of democracy throughout the 
world, a test that we absolutely have to pass here and more 
broadly.
    So with that, thank you once again to all of the Members, 
to our distinguished witnesses, and this hearing is now 
adjourned. Striking the gavel.
    [Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                APPENDIX
                                
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                 
                                

                        STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
                        
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]