Final Part - Burma Discussion on th

[freeburma@xxxxxxx]

Subject: Final Part - Burma Discussion on the U.S. Senate floor (July 25, 1996)

The Discussion on Burma Sanction Amendment on the Senate Floor (Final Part)
                 July 25, 1996
               -----------------

Less we forget, the NLD did not squeak by with a 43 percent mandate as did our sitting 
President--the leader of the free world. The NLD claimed 392 seats in the parliament 
winning 82 percent of the vote. Now that's a mandate. 

Unfortunately, a shining moment for democracy has been blackened by a ruthless 
dictatorship. To this day, the generals who make up the State Law and Order Restoration 
Council [SLORC] maintain a chokehold on Burma 's life. 

Burma is a battleground between democracy and dictatorship, between those who believe in 
open markets and those who openly market their self-enriching schemes, between the many 
who embrace freedom and the few who breed fear, and between Suu Kyi's supporters and 
SLORC's sycophants. 

There are few modern examples where our choice is so stark, where the battle lines are 
so sharply drawn.

Shortly after her appeal to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, Suu Kyi called the 
elected members of the 1990 Parliament to meet in Rangoon. True to her commitment to be 
inclusive of all Burmese, she even invited SLORC supporters who had been elected. 

SLORC's response was swift and devastating. In a matter of 48 hours they rounded up over 
200 members of the NLD. If the member was absent when troops arrived for the arrest, a 
family member was detained instead. While each and every arrest was outrageous, I want 
to call attention to one which ended tragically. 

As many people know, Suu Kyi's father died when she was quite young. In stepped Leo 
Nichols. He assumed an important role in her life offering friendship and support. He 
was often referred to as her godfather. The closeness of their relationship was 
reflected in the fact that following her release last July, Suu Kyi had breakfast every 
Friday morning with her `Uncle Leo'. 

Sixty-five years old, Leo Nichols was picked up in the April sweep and charged with the 
illegal use of a fax machine. Even the State Department acknowledged that his 
relationship with Suu Kyi was the motive behind his arrest. For his crime he was 
sentenced to 3 years prison. Suffering from a heart condition, he was denied medication 
and kept in solitary confinement at Insein Prison until June 20, when he was transferred 
to Rangoon General Hospital. An hour later he died, according to SLORC of a cerebral
hemorrhage. He was immediately buried, with family and friends warned not to attend the 
funeral. 

Given his transfer, death, and hasty burial, accounts of his torture have been difficult 
to confirm. There has been claims that he was badly bruised and beaten--true or not, 
there is no question his detention contributed to his death, reconfirming the brutal 
nature of this regime. 

Leo Nichols is not SLORC's only victim. There is no question that arbitrary killings, 
detentions, torture, rape, and forced labor and relocations are tools routinely abused 
to secure SLORC's position, power and wealth. The U.N. Special Rapporteur for Burma has 
investigated and documented the abuses in several reports which I urge my colleagues to 
read. 

Nonetheless, some may argue that Burma is too far away from the United States to warrant 
any interest, time, or attention. But, there are compelling reasons for every community 
and politician to be concerned about developments in Burma beginning with our drug 
epidemic. 

The 1996 International Narcotics Control Report makes the following points: 

Burma is the world's largest producer of opium and heroin; 
Opium production has doubled since SLORC seized power; 
Burma is the source of over 60 percent of the heroin seized on our streets; and 

SLORC is making less and less effort to crack down on trafficking, in fact there has 
been an 80 percent drop in seizures and the junta is actually offering safe haven to 
Khun Sa, the regions most notorious narco-warlord. 

Now this is a regime with over 400,000 armed soldiers, evidence that if SLORC wanted to 
crack down on trafficking, they clearly have the means to do so. 

The Golden Triangle's deadly exports initially caught my eye, but it is the 
administration's policy--or lack thereof--which fixed my gaze. This is one of the few 
occasions where the White House has been consistent; unfortunately, they have been 
consistently wrong. 

As Suu Kyi has repeatedly emphasized since her release, Burma today is not one step 
closer to democracy. Indeed, I think the situation has seriously, dangerously, and 
unnecessarily deteriorated. 

In November 1994, after a long, disheartening silence, Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
State Tom Hubbard, traveled to Rangoon to issue an ultimatum. The administration called 
international attention to their new, tough line. SLORC was expected to make concrete 
progress in human rights, narcotics, and democracy.

If they were appropriately responsive, they could expect improved ties. If not, in 
Hubbard's words, `the U.S. bilateral relationship with Burma could be further 
down-graded.' 

As most of us learn early in life, you don't taunt a bully. SLORC moved swiftly to call 
our bluff. Major attacks were launched against ethnic groups, generating tens of 
thousands of refugees. Democracy activists were rounded up, tortured, and killed. 
Negotiations over Red Cross access to prisoners ground to a halt, prompting the 
organization to close its office in Rangoon. And, the administration remained
strangely silent. 

As the situation worsened, there was another burst of interest, and Madeleine Albright 
was dispatched to repeat the message. This time it was underscored with a personal 
meeting and statement of support for dialog with Suu Kyi. Those of us who follow Burma 
were hopeful that our U.N. Ambassador with a reputation for toughness would press 
forward with a clear strategy. 

Sadly, again, SLORC rose--or should I say sunk--to the occasion. As the noose tightened 
around Suu Kyi and the NLD, the administration remained silent. 

In the wake of the April sweep against the NLD, there was stepped up grass roots 
interest in sanctioning Burma . To preempt these calls, once again the administration 
dispatched officials to size up the situation. This time, instead of visiting Rangoon, 
they traveled the region. 

A stinging column carried in the Nation, characterized the American approach as 
`outspoken and critical but its repeated messages or threats often carry no weight 
because of a lack of back up action. It is a typical case of words not being matched 
with deeds.' 

The column quoted a senior Thai official who suggested the trip was `a conspiracy to 
thwart attempts by the U.S. Congress to pass an economic sanctions bill which is gaining 
growing support.' The official went on to note `The American government is good at 
making empty threats and last week's trip is just another example.' 

In briefings following up the trip, the State Department made clear that the Special 
Envoys were not dispatched with a specific message--they had no orders to press any 
agenda for action--and as the Nation so clearly stated: `The two failed to spell out, in 
concrete terms, possible U.S. retaliatory measures.' 

After hollow policy pronouncements and weak-willed waffling from the administration, 
SLORC is convinced it will pay no price for repression. We are left with few real 
options with the potential for success. 

The business community understandably prefers the status quo. They suggest that our 
ASEAN partners will not support a strategy of escalating isolation. A tougher line will 
only result in a loss of market share to our French, Italian, or other competitors. 

But, let me point out, just as the call for sanctions has grown stronger in the United 
States, it has resonated through corporate halls and the corridors of power in Europe. 

The European Parliament has called upon its members to take action to suspend trade and 
investment in Burma . The European Union has taken up legislation suspending visas and 
all high level contacts with the Burmese. 

Heineken and Carlsberg have pulled out in response to public pressure. And, in an 
important development, the Danish Government has sold off all its holdings in TOTAL, the 
French oil company with the largest investment in Burma . In announcing its decision, a 
spokesman for the fund said it was made in anticipation of `a possible international 
boycott of TOTAL due to its engagement in Burma and because of a televised report 
showing the intolerable living conditions in that country.' 

In this context, U.S. sanctions are hardly a radical step. In fact, I think it would be 
an unprecedented embarrassment to all this Nation represents to fall behind the European 
effort in supporting Burma's freedom. 

In addition to suggesting that sanctions will only hurt U.S. business, opponents of my 
legislation argue economic progress will yield political results. This is Vietnam, they 
say. Burma is like China. 

Well, I am a vocal advocate of MFN for China. I have supported normalizing relations 
with Vietnam. In both instances, we have effectively used an economic wedge to pry open 
access to totally closed societies. Trade is an important tool in these two cases 
because it is our only tool. 

Burma is quite different. In Burma , millions of people turned out to vote for the NLD. 
The fact that they were robbed of the reward of free and fair elections defines both 
America's opportunity and obligation. 

The appropriate analogy with Burma is not China or Vietnam, it is South Africa where our 
application of sanctions clearly worked, just ask Nelson Mandela. That is the course I 
recommend the United States pursue. 

In 1996, the advocates for democracy in Burma are facing the same challenges 

as the 1986 opponents of apartheid. I heard exactly the same arguments then, as I do 
now. Let me draw some parallels for you. 

When Senators Roth, Dodd, and I introduced the first sanctions bill a decade ago, both 
the Reagan administration and the business community argued the political value of our 
sizable capital investment. 

U.S. investment was a meaningful catalyst for change. Major American corporations called 
attention to their hiring policies, scholarship programs, and contributions to 
hospitals, schools, and community development projects. 

In sum, I was told that withdrawing U.S. investment would hurt, not help, the common 
man. Not so, says Bishop Tutu. In an April letter to the Bay Area Burma Roundtable he 
said, `The victory over apartheid in South Africa bears eloquent testimony to the 
effectiveness of economic sanctions.' 

There are other, relevant parallels. 

South Africa was the African fault line in our cold war struggle for power. With Soviet 
proxy forces engaged in neighboring conflicts in Angola and Mozambique, South Africa 
assumed an important position in our regional security strategy. 

The Chinese colonization of Burma should sound similar alarms. If there is a single 
issue which should cause our ASEAN partners deep concern, it is the expanding military 
and political ties between Rangoon and Beijing. Like South Africa, Burma may not 
represent an immediate security problem, but the long term regional trends demand our 
attention. 

In South Africa, there was a grassroots, well-organized, vocal African-American 
constituency supporting sanctions. 

In Burma , the constituency should be every American community concerned by our drug 
epidemic. 

In South Africa, good corporate citizens developed a corporate conscience and pulled 
out. 

In Burma , Amoco, Columbia Sportswear, Macys, Eddie Bauer, Liz Claiborne, Levi Strauss, 
and now Pepsi have answered the call to divest. 

In South Africa, sanctions affected substantial, longstanding foreign investment. 

In Burma , less is at stake and sanctions are largely preemptive. 

But, American investment--however little--is still propping up a few generals. We are 
not improving the quality of life for most Burmese. U.S. capital is simply subsidizing 
global shopping sprees for a handful of SLORC officials and their families. 

Just as SLORC has increased pressure on Burma 's democracy movement, we must increase 
pressure on SLORC. 

I believe the time has come to ban U.S. investment and aid and oppose any international 
lending to this pariah regime. We should cut off the source of SLORC's power. 

Several weeks ago, Suu Kyi noted: 

There is a danger that those who believe economic reforms will bring political progress 
to Burma are unaware of the difficulties in the way of democratization. Economics and 
politics cannot be separated, and economic reforms alone cannot bring democratization to 
Burma. 

She has emphatically opposed any foreign investment, calling instead for the 
international community to take firm steps to implement the 1990 elections. And, while 
she has stressed the NLD's commitment to solving political problems through dialogue, 
she recently warned the world that she was not prepared to stand idly by as SLORC 
attacked her supporters. 

Shortly after these remarks, SLORC surrounded her compound with razor wire, effectively 
cutting off the thousands of loyal and peaceful citizens who make a weekly pilgrimage to 
hear her speak. 

Suu Kyi is prepared to accept her rearrest. Although she is under constant surveillance 
and severely limited in her movements, she has not chosen to join her husband and 
children in exile. Aung San Suu Kyi has sacrificed over and over again to secure Burma's 
freedom. 

Let us hope it will not take the sacrifice of her life to impel this administration to 
assume the mantle of leadership, fitting for the only remaining superpower, and chart a 
course for the ship we captain called liberty. 

How much time do I have remaining? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 45 seconds. 

Mr. McCONNELL. I will reserve the 45 seconds. 

Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine. 

Mr. COHEN. How much time is remaining? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes and 53 seconds. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thomas be added as a 
cosponsor to the Cohen amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, as my friend from Kentucky has indicated, we have to set aside 
ideology on this particular vote, that and labels. He would have you believe that those 
who support the Cohen-Feinstein-Chafee amendment are for repression, for dictators, for 
brutality, for house arrests, against sanctions, against morality, against protecting 
Aung San Suu Kyi, against democracy. 

My friends, it is not nearly so simple. And perhaps I have overstated the statements of 
my friend from Kentucky, but when we have allegations made that this is a profound moral 
choice, that this measure that I offer would, in fact, negate the impact of sanctions 
upon this particular regime, that it would lend support to the military junta--and we 
have heard statements made by our colleague from New York that adoption of the Cohen 
amendment would, in fact, aid and comfort the enemies of democracy--I must speak out 
with some vigor on such suggestions, or even implication. 

We heard talk about the European Parliament boycotting Burma . Well, the European Union 
said no. As a matter of fact, there is a report in papers as of yesterday: `A Danish 
proposal for sanctions against Burma was toned down last week to one condemning the 
Government of SLORC.' So they toned it down from sanctions to simply condemning, and we 
condemn them. 

It was said that Mickey Kantor favors the subcommittee's approach, our Trade 
Representative favors it. I do not understand that. We have a letter introduced on 
behalf of the administration that the White House supports the approach that I and 
Senators Feinstein and Chafee and others have taken. 

No one has fought harder, if we talk about ideals, than our colleague from Arizona, 
Senator McCain. He spent more than 6 years in prison keeping that flame of idealism 
alive, representing this country in a way that few of us can even begin to contemplate, 
and yet he is supporting the approach that I am suggesting. 

Those of us who are urging the support of this amendment are, in fact, calling for 
sanctions. We are calling upon our administration to impose sanctions, to not issue 
visas--except those required by treaty--to any government official from Burma . We are 
insisting that we cast a vote of `no' on any international lending organization loans to 
Burma . We are saying that if they make any attempt to imprison or harass Aung San Suu 
Kyi, sanctions go into effect immediately, that no further business can enter that 
particular country. 

We are for sanctions. We are for, however, limited exemptions in the field of human 
rights, certainly for humanitarian assistance. Does anyone here want to cut off an 
attempt to feed starving people? 

On counternarcotics: We have heard by just the last vote, an overwhelming vote, of our 
concern about narcotics coming into this country. Over two-thirds of all the heroin 
production in the world is coming out of Burma , are we saying let us walk away? Do we 
not want to engage in any way, even if it is certified by the administration that the 
SLORC is cooperating to try to reduce the flow of narcotics coming into our country? Is 
that what we want to go on record in favor of? Do we want to deny funding for the 
National Endowment for Democracy, organizations that people like Senator McCain are 
actively involved in, that actively promote change by the Burmese junta? 

My amendment tries to carve out a narrow exemption to give some flexibility to this 
administration or the next administration, 

not simply to look to the past and punish this junta for past deeds, but rather to see 
if there is any way we can use whatever leverage we have, and it is very small, to 
encourage this junta to come into the 21st century of pro-democratic activity. 

It has been suggested that we have commercial interests in mind. I do not represent any 
oil companies. I do not have any business interests in mind. What I am asking is, what 
is the most effective way to produce change? Do sanctions work? Yes and no. They worked 
in South Africa because the world supported it. The frontline countries in Africa 
supported it. The frontline countries in Asia do not support this action by the 
subcommittee. Iran is another exception where sanctions can and do work. It is a
terrorist-sponsoring nation, destabilizing its region, and so there is world 
condemnation of Iran. 

And China, let me just mention China. Mr. President, I was looking through my desk here 
while the debate was going on, and I came across some interesting remarks made by my 
former colleague from Maine, Senator Mitchell, some years ago in 1991-92, when debating 
China. He said something at that time that I think may bear some relevance here today. 
He said: 

The year-long renewal of most-favored-nation trade status for China has brought the 
world precisely nothing in the way of reform in the Chinese regime. 

It has not encouraged the Chinese regime to respect the human rights of any Chinese 
citizen. 

It has not emboldened the Chinese Government to broaden its experiments with a market 
economy beyond one province. 

That was said back in 1991, and then again in 1992. He may have been right at that time 
as far as his perception, but things have changed in China. They are now, in fact, 
making changes in Shanghai. They are now providing a legal system based upon ours, they 
are giving an accused individual a right to an attorney before he can be arrested and 
apprehended. They are making vast changes. It comes about more slowly there, not nearly 
as fast as we would like, but change has occurred. 

Yes, we are standing up to our ideals on the issue of democracy in Asia, but when you 
talk to the Chinese they say, you talk about ideals. For 200 years you enslaved people. 
You put people in chains. You treated them like subhumans. You robbed them of their 
families and their dignity and their lives, and it was not until about 30 years ago you 
finally decided to change. Give us an opportunity to bring about change in this region. 
Do not lecture us that you achieved your ideals all in one period of time. 

So it took time for us to change over here. What we are saying with our amendment is 
that we can make more change in Burma from within than from without, and we can bring 
Burma out from the dark ages of repression into the sunlight of the 21st century and 
prodemocratic activity. We can do this not by trying to turn away, and trying to isolate 
them--because we cannot do it effectively--but by having some limited contact from 
within. 

Mr. President, I suggest that the passage of my amendment will accomplish the goals that 
we all want to change the military dictatorship's activity. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The Senator from Kentucky. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, with all due respect to my good friend from Maine, his 
amendment makes everything permissible or able to be waived. There is no indication that 
this administration is interested, and, frankly, nor was the last one, in tightening the 
screws on Burma. If we want to do something about a pariah regime in Burma , tonight is 
the time. This is the vote. I hope all my colleagues will oppose the Cohen amendment. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of boycott resolutions, a list of 
letters supporting sanctions, and a group of editorials, be printed in the Record. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as 
follows: 

Boycott Resolutions

American Baptist Convention. 
State of Massachusetts. 
San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, CA. 
Santa Monica, CA. 
Ann Arbor, MI. 
Chicago, IL. 
Madison, WI. 
Seattle, WA. 

Letters Supporting Sanctions

National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma 
AFL-CIO 
UAW 
Bishop Tutu 
Betty Williams, Huntsville, TX, Nobel Laureate, 1976 
Asia American Civic Alliance of Florida 
Kachinland Projects for Human Rights and Democracy of Illinois 
Democratic Burmese Student Organization 
United Front for Democracy and Human Rights 

                                     --

>From The Boston Globe, June 19, 1996

                    [FROM THE BOSTON GLOBE, JUNE 19, 1996]

Weld's Opportunity

Awaiting Gov. William F. Weld's signature is a bill that would prohibit the commonwealth 
from purchasing goods or services from companies that do business with the illegitimate 
military dictatorship ruling Burma . Weld should sign this bill, not because it might 
work to his advantage in the U.S. Senate contest with John F. Kerry, but because this is 
legislation that embodies a principle of democratic solidarity rooted deep in the 
American tradition. 

The people of Burma voted overwhelmingly in 1990 for the party of Nobel Peace Prize 
winner Aung San Suu Kyi. Although her National League for Democracy won more than 80 
percent of the seats in Parliament, the State Law and Order Restoration Council, or 
SLORC, thwarted the will of the voters by seizing power and conducting a reign of 
terror. 

The junta profits from a narcotics trade that exports more than 60 percent of the heroin 
sold on the streets of American cities. And because the uniformed thugs of SLORC have 
accumulated tremendous debt, they are dependent upon foreign aid and investment and are 
desperately trying to counter a grass-roots campaign for American sanctions. 

The timing of Weld's opportunity could not be more fortuitous. State Rep. Byron 
Rushing's Selective Contracting' bill, modeled on legislation that helped end apartheid 
in South Africa, reaches the governor at a time when thousands of Burmese democrats have 
been risking their lives each weekend to attend gatherings at Suu Kyi's house in 
Rangoon, and when the Clinton administration has dispatched envoys to Asian and European 
capitals to make the case for multilateral sanctions. 

If the envoys fail in their mission, a Senate bill proposed by Mitch McConnell, 
Republican of Kentucky, and co-sponsored by Democrats Patrick Moynihan of New York and 
Patrick Leahy of Vermont, will ask the United States to take the lead, as it once did 
for the people of Poland. 

Weld has a chance to help protect Suu Kyi and her followers and to encourage Washington 
to do the right thing. 

                                     --

>From the New York Times, June 15, 1996

                   [FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES, JUNE 15, 1996]

Burmese Repression

The Burmese military junta has outdone itself in advertising its own crude ineptitude. 
Frustrated by the popularity and prestige of their democratic opponent, Daw Aung San Suu 
Kyi, the generals have now erected huge red billboards denouncing the 1991 Nobel Peace 
laureate as a foreign stooge. But every Burmese knows that Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi endured 
years of house arrest rather than leave the country her father helped free from foreign 
rule. The real threat to the Burmese people is the junta, formally known as the State 
Law and Order Restoration Council, or Slorc. 

The billboard blitz follows the recent detention of some 250 members of Mrs. Aung San 
Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, the undoubted winner of 1990 elections the 
Slorc then nullified. When, despite the crackdown, she attracted larger and larger 
crowds for speeches from her house, the junta responded with a decree banning virtually 
all political activities. So unwarranted were these measures that even diffident 
Thailand and Japan have condemned Burmese human rights abuses. Japan is the largest
outside aid donor to the country the Slorc has renamed Myanmar. 

Washington has commendably taken the lead in generating support for more effective 
collective measures to help the beleaguered Burmese democrats. The Clinton 
Administration has sent two senior diplomats, William Brown and Stanley Roth, to sound 
out Myanmar's neighbors on taking stronger olitical and economic measures against the 
Slorc. The mission itself may help deter still harsher repression. Its findings may also 
determine the feasibility of a ban on new American investment, as proposed by Senator
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, which the Administration is still weighing. 

When the Slorc lifted Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest last year, there was hope 
that the generals might loosen their stranglehold on Myanmar. Unhappily, that has not 
proved to be the case. Until the Burmese junta frees its political prisoners and enters 
into genuine negotiations with Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters, it merits the 
strongest international condemnation. 

                                     --

>From the Washington Post, July 20, 1996

                  [FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, JULY 20, 1996]

Burma Beyond the Pale

On June 22, James `Leo' Nichols, 65, died in the Burmese prison. His crime--for which he 
had been jailed for six weeks, deprived of needed heart medication and perhaps tortured 
with sleep deprivation--was ownership of a fax machine. His true sin, in the eyes of the 
military dictators who are running the beautiful and resource-rich country of Burma into 
the ground, was friendship with Aung San Suu Kyi, the courageous woman who won an 
overwhelming victory in democratic elections six years ago but has
been denied power ever since. 

Mr. Nichols's story is not unusual in Burma . The regime has imprisoned hundreds of 
democracy activists and press-ganged thousands of children and adults into slave labor. 
It squanders huge sums of arms imported from China while leading the world in heroin 
exports. But because Mr. Nichols had served as consul for Switzerland and three 
Scandinavian countries, his death or murder attracted more attention in Europe. The 
European Parliament condemned the regime and called for its economic and diplomatic
isolation, to include a cutoff of trade and investment. Two European breweries, 
Carlsberg and Heineken, have said they will pull out of Burma . And a leading Danish 
pension fund sold off its holdings in Total, a French company that with the U.S. firm 
Unocal is the biggest foreign investor. 

These developments undercut those who have said the United States should not support 
democracy in Burma because it would be acting alone. In fact, strong U.S. action could 
resonate and spur greater solidarity in favor of Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi 
and her rightful government. Already, the Burmese currency has been tumbling, reflecting 
nervousness about the regime's stability and the potential effects of a Western boycott. 

The United States has banned aid and multilateral loans to the regime, but the junta 
still refuses to begin a dialogue with Auug San Suu Kyi. Now there is an opportunity to 
send a stronger message. The Senate next week is scheduled to consider a pro-sanctions 
bill introduced by Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY.) and Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.). 
This would put Washington squarely on the side of the democrats. Secretary of State 
Warren Christopher, who will meet next week with counterparts from Burma 's neighbors, 
should challenge them to take stronger measures, since their policy of `constructive
engagement' has so clearly failed. 

The most eloquent call for action came last week from Aung San Suu Kyi herself, unbowed 
despite years of house arrest and enforced separation from her husband and children. In 
a video smuggled out, she called for `the kind of sanctions that will make it quite 
clear that economic change in Burma is not possible without political change.' The word 
responded to similar calls from Nelson Mandela and Lech Walesa. In memory of Mr. Nichols 
and his many unnamed compatriots, it should do no less now. 

                                     --

>From the Washington Post, May 28, 1996

                   [FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, MAY 28, 1996]

The Bullies of Burma 

The thuggish military men who rule Burma have now rounded up more than 200 democracy 
activists who were planning to meet last weekend. Again they show their regime, which 
goes by the appropriately unappetizing acronym SLORC (State Law and Order Restoration 
Council), to be worthy only of international contempt. 

To the extent that Americans are at all familiar with Burma 's plight, it is thanks to 
the courage of Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the nation's democracy movement. Her National 
League for Democracy won an overwhelming victory in parliamentary elections in 1990, but 
SLORC refused to give up power, putting her under house arrest and jailing many of her 
colleagues. Although Aung San Suu Kyi was nominally freed last July, after winning the 
Nobel Peace Prize, the regime has refused even to begin talks on a transition to 
democratic rule. 

It was to celebrate, as it were, the sixth anniversary of those betrayed elections that 
Aung San Suu Kyi called a meeting. In fear of the democrats' popularity, SLORC rounded 
up many of her supporters, including should-be members of parliament. This is far from 
SLORC's only abuse. Even before the latest events, hundreds of political prisoners 
remained in jail, according to Human Rights Watch/Asia. The regime promotes forced 
labor, press-ganging citizens to act as porters in areas of armed conflict and to
build roads, according to the U.S. State Department. It has built a massive army, 
equipped mostly by China. And Burma is the world's chief source of heroin. 

The United States already has barred official aid or government loans to Burma and has 
influenced the World Bank and other multilateral organizations to follow suit. Now Sen. 
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky wants to bar private investment as well, a step supported by 
many of Burma 's democrats. U.S. firms are the third-largest investors, Sen. McConnell 
said, led by Unocal Corp., which is helping develop Burma's natural gas fields. The 
structure of the dictatorship ensures that much of the benefit of foreign investment
goes into the generals' pockets. 

The most active proponents of trade, investment and engagement with Burma have been its 
neighbors in Southeast Asia. A nation of 42 million with high literacy rates and 
abundant natural resources, Burma cannot be ignored. But after SLORC's latest abuses, 
the burden is on those advocates of `engagement' to show what they have achieved and 
explain why sanctions should not be tightened. As much as South Africa under apartheid, 
Burma deserves to be a pariah until SLORC has given way. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, is all time used up? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. 

Mr. McCONNELL. I move to table the Cohen amendment. 

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to lay on the table amendment 
No. 5019, offered by the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen]. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. 

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] is necessarily absent. 

The result was announced, yeas 45, nays 54, as follows: 

Rollcall Vote No. 243 Leg.

                            [Rollcall Vote No. 243 Leg.]

                                  YEAS--45

     Abraham 
     Bennett 
     Biden 
     Boxer 
     Bradley 
     Brown 
     Bryan 
     Bumpers 
     Byrd 
     Campbell 
     Coverdell 
     D'Amato 
     DeWine 
     Faircloth 
     Feingold 
     Frahm 
     Frist 
     Gorton 
     Gramm 
     Grassley 
     Gregg 
     Harkin 
     Hatch 
     Hatfield 
     Helms 
     Jeffords 
     Kassebaum 
     Kennedy 
     Kerry 
     Kohl 
     Lautenberg 
     Leahy 
     Levin 
     Lugar 
     Mack 
     McConnell 
     Moynihan 
     Pell 
     Pressler 
     Robb 
     Sarbanes 
     Shelby 
     Smith 
     Specter 
     Wellstone

                                  NAYS--54

     Akaka 
     Ashcroft 
     Baucus 
     Bingaman 
     Bond 
     Breaux 
     Burns 
     Chafee 
     Coats 
     Cochran 
     Cohen 
     Conrad 
     Craig 
     Daschle 
     Dodd 
     Domenici 
     Dorgan 
     Feinstein 
     Ford 
     Glenn 
     Graham 
     Grams 
     Heflin 
     Hollings 
     Hutchison 
     Inhofe 
     Inouye 
     Johnston 
     Kempthorne 
     Kerrey 
     Kyl 
     Lieberman 
     Lott 
     McCain 
     Mikulski 
     Moseley-Braun 
     Murkowski 
     Murray 
     Nickles 
     Nunn 
     Pryor 
     Reid 
     Rockefeller 
     Roth 
     Santorum 
     Simon 
     Simpson 
     Snowe 
     Stevens 
     Thomas 
     Thompson 
     Thurmond 
     Warner 
     Wyden

                                NOT VOTING--1

     Exon 

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 5019) was rejected. 

Mr. COHEN. I move to reconsider the vote. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the amendment No. 5019 offered 
by the Senator from Maine. 

The amendment (No. 5019) was agreed to. 

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote. 

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 

Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Kentucky. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. 

Mr. McCONNELL. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel. 

# # # (end.)