 to this morning's event, a conversation with Danny Russell. I'm Vikram Nehru, I'm a senior associate in the chair in Southeast Asian Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and I'll be moderating this event. Thank you very much, Danny, for coming. I know you were in Myanmar earlier this week for three days, and you've literally just stepped off the plane, so these are going to be fresh impressions, even though I know Danny must be suffering from jet lag. Well, before becoming the assistant secretary of state for East Asian in the Pacific in July 2013, Danny was a special assistant to the president, and he was the NSE senior director for Asian Affairs of the White House, where he was one of the architects of President Obama's rebalancing strategy towards the Asia Pacific. Now, this event that we're having here today is part of a series that we're having on Myanmar Votes 2015, and it's co-sponsored by the Asia Society Policy Institute, as well as the Southeast Asia Studies program at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and we're also grateful to the Japan External Trade Organization for their support for this project. We've organized several events as part of this series, and I will shamelessly plug the next one, which is on the role of the military in the elections, which will be held on September 22nd, but I hear that the Pope will be here around that time, so we're gonna have to be careful as to how we schedule that event. May I also recommend that you visit the Carnegie's website, especially devoted to the Myanmar elections, because there will be an article that we bring out on a regular basis that will populate that webpage, so keep a lookout for that. Today's event is being live streamed, as indeed are all our events, and there will be a video recording of this event on our website in due course as soon as this event is over. Now, what we'll do initially is Danny will give his initial remarks, after which we'll have a short conversation, and then we'll open it up to questions from the audience, so Danny, the floor is yours, and thank you so much for being here. Great, thank you. Well, hello everyone. Thank you, Vikram, for the introduction. Thanks, I'm a great admirer of Carnegie's work to advance our understanding of Burma and Southeast Asia more broadly, and thanks very much to the many friends of Burma that I see here today. I know you all have worked very hard and very long to help the people of Burma and to help us to get our policy right, and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that today is 9-11. It's the anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and I wanna honor the memories of those who lost their lives. My colleagues and I in government work to keep Americans safe with them in our hearts. But I'm here today because this is such an important moment in Burma's transition. The electoral campaign has begun and there's less than 60 days until a pivotal transitional election. So I'd like to share some observations from the visit I just made to Burma as well as our views and goals on Burma's transition, and I think we ought to really try to drill down a bit on the upcoming elections, on what's happening on the ground, what the U.S. is doing to support the elections, and how to think about the reform effort that's underway. What is it that we all wanna see? What is it that we all wanna encourage there? But let's keep in mind that this is their election, not ours, we've got our own. So the focus needs to be on the things that we can do to help them to get it right and to make the right choices. Now, we've all seen Burma undergo a really dramatic evolution from a military dictatorship, from decades of military rule, to a country where political questions are in fact being debated in the press, in the parliament, in civil society, and on the streets and in the coffee shops. I can attest to the fact that problems abound. Progress is wildly uneven. Their capacity is stretched to the breaking point, but you cannot help but be struck by the good news. Some of Burma's institutions are really taking shape and operating. Some of the groups, in fact, the spectrum of Burma's civil society is actively working to change the country for the better. The proliferation of independent media is providing increased transparency and accountability and so on. Now, we all know that the reforms are very much a work in progress. But for the first time in the last 50 years, Burma has given itself the chance, as a country, to give its people a voice in their government. They've given themselves the chance to be a country with a new and ultimately a more productive way to address the formidable challenges that Burma faces. And these challenges, of course, range from forging a sustainable peace out of the world's longest running civil war to national reconciliation and ending civil conflicts, to enhancing protections for civil rights, for all of Burma's people. Building democratic mindsets and institutions and promoting economic growth and opportunity, promoting education. There is no certainty of success, but there is certainty of purpose among the people that I met with in Burma. People want their country to succeed in meeting these challenges. Nobody wants to go back to the old Burma. Now, it will take an unrelenting effort by the Burmese themselves. But frankly, I found them determined and undaunted. They told me that it's essential to have sustained support from the United States and from the country's other friends and the international community. And we, the United States, other countries, you, we've already done a lot. For our part as part of President Obama's strategic priority in the Asia Pacific region, the rebalance, our top government officials, including the president himself, have engaged extensively with all elements of Burmese society. We've leveraged our engagement to support the resolution of ethnic and civil conflict, to support the conduct of free and fair elections, the release of political prisoners, the protection of the freedom of the expression and assembly, an end to human rights abuses. These are very much priorities. They are also very much ongoing projects. It is my absolute conviction based on my many visits to Burma that the Burmese people are not giving up on these goals. And I can attest to you, as a policymaker, responsible for Asia, neither are we. Now one key goal is ethnic reconciliation and the peace process. The government and the ethnic armed groups have made significant progress towards completing a draft nationwide ceasefire agreement, which of course we welcome. If they can sign it, this agreement would be an important first step in the long and difficult path to a durable peace at last. And the trust established through these negotiations will be an essential foundation for an inclusive, transparent, and meaningful political dialogue. And that remains an essential ingredient, a core prerequisite for a lasting peace. Another goal, of course, is free and fair elections. So last week in Napida, I met with the chairman of the Union Election Commission. I met with presidential ministers, including the home minister, members of parliament, both in the government and the opposition, including in Rangoon, Aung San Suu Kyi. I met with civil society activists, with representatives of the ethnic groups, with religious leaders, with youth leaders, with the press. And I also met with specialized election support agencies and NGOs that are very deeply involved in the preparations and the conduct and the monitoring of both the campaign and the election itself. And of course, I had a chance to consult in depth with our outstanding ambassador, there, Derek Mitchell, and the embassy team. So I came away with an appreciation deeper than ever of the complexities of Burma and the difficult road that Liza had for Burma's leaders and Burma's people. But equally important for me was the chance to raise a number of very specific concerns in my meetings, particularly with the officials. My objective was to leave them in absolutely no doubt that the United States and the international community are watching closely that, although we want reform in Burma to succeed, because we want reform in Burma to succeed, we will not turn a blind eye to problems. We will not give a pass to shortcomings in the election process, whether before and the campaign, during or after in the implementation phase. So I underscored our concern about the conditions for vulnerable ethnic and religious communities in Burma, including the Rohingya. I reiterated that the government has a responsibility to ensure that humanitarian organizations have unfettered access to all communities in need, that internally displaced persons can return to their places of origin, and that there's a path for citizenship for stateless people, including the Rohingya, that doesn't compel them to self-identify against their will. I raised serious concern that the four recently passed race and religion laws could be enforced in a way that would undermine respect for religious freedom, for women's rights. I told them very directly that I thought that the legislation threatens to undermine the government's own efforts to promote tolerance and diversity, and importantly, national unity. I made very, very clear that the politicization of religion is very alarming and very dangerous. The government of Burma has emphasized, Burmese leaders emphasize that Burma is a union, but the strength of that union depends on all groups being included, feeling included, and it's incumbent on Burma's government and all of Burma's parties and its groups to commit and to speak to and to practice an inclusive type of politics. Democracy has to be more than just the rule of the majority, it has to protect the rights of the minority as well. I also pointed out that a recent incident involving the use of security forces in connection with the internal leadership dispute within the USDP had a chilling effect on the political climate. The government and the ruling party has to act in a way that increases, reinforces, not undermines public confidence in the public's, public confidence in the government's commitment to democratic processes. Now, we all know that the election isn't going to resolve these challenges in one fell swoop, it's not going to produce fully fledged democracy. But if it's done well, it can mark a significant step closer to the democracy that we all and that the people of Burma, the United States and the international community want so deeply. So where do things stand today? Well, we recognize from the outset in a clear-eyed way that there are structural imperfections in this election, that's not a secret. The military's automatic 25% share of seats in parliament, the disenfranchisement of white card holders, including the Rohingya, these are people who were able to vote in the previous election, but now can't. That's a step back. The disqualification of dozens of parliamentary candidates, including a preponderance of Muslim candidates who've been disqualified on various grounds, including citizenship grounds, the constitutional provision we're all familiar with, barring on-sensei chief from the presidency. The election commission's recent statement that candidates and parties mustn't criticize the military or the constitution when they're using state media. I told all of the government officials and the chairman of the election commission that the problems that I mention, which concern us, risk making the election will make the election less inclusive, less representative, and that they can and should do something about it. I encourage them to do everything in their power to make this election more transparent, more inclusive, more credible in the eyes of the people of Burma and the eyes of the international community. And I also underscored the essential requirement that all parties, including the military, abide by the results of the election and forming a new government next year. My message was that the government has some fundamental obligations. And among these responsibilities is protecting the rights of all the people, regardless of religion or other considerations, and avoiding decisions that reduce political participation because that raises questions about the government's stated commitment to inclusivity and to free and fair elections. I underscored that it's important that all the rules and the regulations are applied fairly and consistently throughout the country without regard to ethnicity or religion or political party. But all that said and the problem's not withstanding, and despite these flaws, this election can be a significant step forward for the credibility and the sustainability of Burma's reform process. And I say that in full recognition of all the work that remains to ensure that Burma fulfills these promises of protecting human rights and promoting development and justice and democracy. I met with a group of NGOs and specialized agencies that are involved in the election preparation. Some of them have been at work for several years now. And they reported to me that what they are seeing is in their view a serious effort to improve the administration of the elections. And that's pretty significant given the capacity constraints and the limited democratic experience of Burma's government. They confirmed to me that the election commission has made very significant efforts to engage openly with civil society on election prep and that the election commission has in fact a very diverse membership to include ethnic representatives. They confirmed that as the chairman of the UEC did that they have an invitation out to international organizations whether it's the EU or the Carter Center to field professional observation teams. I was also very encouraged by the public's obviously vigorous participation in the electoral process. Over 90 parties are fielding candidates for parliament. They're also fielding candidates for state and regional seats as well. Many of these contests are genuinely competitive and the parties are working hard to get out to vote. So what I stress with the chairman of the election commission and with others is the kinds of steps necessary to build out the voter lists to ensure that they're accurate and transparent and that people believe in them to protect freedom of expression on the campaign trail, to ensure that advance voting for the military will be transparent, will be above board and will be credible by virtue of real observers and real transparency. And also to develop a consultative mechanism that people can believe in in the event that some polls in conflict areas can't be opened on election day. I urged the chairman directly to review the UEC's questionable judgments on disqualification of candidates. The commission is responsible for ensuring that those who run are qualified, I accept that fully, but they're also responsible for ensuring that those who are qualified can run and that they can do so equitably. The commission is responsible for transparently communicating decisions to the candidates, to the public and that's why we're watching this so closely. But all right, that's talk, that's diplomacy. What else are we doing? We are providing more than $18 million to strengthen Burma's democratic institutions, to support the development of civil society, political parties and the media and to assist the government in conducting the elections that includes support for NDIs, work with PACE, the People's Alliance for Credible Election, which is a coalition of domestic monitors. We're helping to build their capacity to conduct the election monitoring and advocate for electoral reform and develop an integrated nationwide observation, electoral observation plan. We're assisting IRI to help the political parties develop their platforms and their campaign skills and support voter education. We fund IFIS, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, which is embedded in the election commission, which is providing technical assistance from the inside on strategic planning on international standards of voter registration, advanced voting, polling procedures, integrity measures, the electoral legal framework. IFIS has helped the UEC to digitize and centralize and update the national voter list, which has been the source of fraud in the past and yet is going on extended public display in just a couple of days. These efforts, according to the NGOs themselves, are making a difference. The groups, despite the recent floods and natural disaster, the groups report that election preparations are largely on track. The credible efforts are being made to be transparent and involve all the stakeholders in the process. The unanimous view is that these will be genuinely contested elections. That's what I heard from the NGOs. And I made the point that democratic reform in Burma is an evolutionary process and that these elections are a defining step for reform. So ultimately, our assessment of the elections will be based not only on what happens on election day but on the whole process, the campaign, the vote count, the post-vote, politicking, the negotiations that may be necessary to form a new government. And of course, the adherence by the institutions to the outcome, their respect for the results. I think the critical question will be whether the people of Burma believe that the elections were credible, that their votes mattered, that the results, despite the structural shortcomings and flaws that I've described and that they're very well aware of, that the results reflect their collective will. And our assessment will also, of course, weigh the overall integrity of the process, including the findings of the international observers. We'll be looking specifically for indicators that, despite the limitations and the systemic flaws, that the people's vote registered. And we'll look to see if a more representative government is able to be formed and take power, one that will continue the reforms and the policy changes that the Burmese public demands. But whatever the results of the election, it's going to be important that Burma's next government move forward on this wide range of reforms. It will have to address the issues that are crucial for the country's long-term stability and its prosperity. These are the chronic issues I've mentioned of enhancing human rights protection and the treatment of vulnerable minority populations. It includes releasing political prisoners and reducing the role of the military and politics, meeting the challenges in Rakhine State, and finally achieving a sustainable national piece based on principles of equity and democracy, self-determination and justice for all. So we are keeping our eyes on the prize. And the prize is progress, progress towards democracy. And we're using all of the tools in our disposal to push progress forward. So I and my colleagues welcome and appreciate the work and the role of all of you who are working towards the same goal and look forward to talking to you. Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much, Danny. That was really an excellent, excellent overview. You mentioned that you met Ong San Suu Kyi for a fairly long meeting. Yes. Tell us a little bit more about that. You didn't dwell on that. What did she have to say? Well, I've met Ong San Suu Kyi a number of times during visits to Burma as well as her visit to the Oval Office where she met both President Obama and I suspect the highlight of her trip, Bo the Dog. She is very much the leader of a political party. She is determined, she is active, she's confident, and she's a realist. She was able to share with me her perspective on the challenges that face the NLD and the challenges that face Burma. She helped walk me through the timeline and we discussed the timeline for elections. And we also talked through our respective takes on possible scenarios and outcomes. I took away from the extended conversation with Ong San Suu Kyi not only, again, a refreshed sense of admiration for her as a champion of democracy and reform, but also a even clearer focus on the importance of ensuring that we look at the elections not just as a one-day affair but as a process and do what we can collectively as outsiders to help ensure that the run-up campaign period, of course, the technical aspects of the election, but also the follow-on government formation process is as free and fair, as credible, as transparent and as inclusive as we can make it. Is she confident that the electoral process will indeed be free and fair? What does she say specifically about the process itself? Ong San Suu Kyi went into this campaign with her eyes wide open. No one knows better than she does the extent to which the political landscape in places may be tilted and not in her favor, not in LLD's favor. But she has undertaken to meet this challenge knowingly contesting the election. She evinces confidence but also realism about many of the problems. There's no doubt in my mind but that she is appreciative of the work that the international community, whether governmental or non-governmental, does and the role that we play in trying to hold all parties including the ruling party, the government and the military to acceptable standards. You know, she called Ushwayman an ally and in fact we had Ushwayman come and talk on this podium a few months ago. And you described Ushwayman's ouster as chairman of the USDP as having a chilling effect. But at the same time, he remains a member of parliament. He continues to be the speaker of the house. So it's a very different kind of purge from previous purges in Myanmar. So I guess there are two questions here. The first is how do you interpret that particular move by the military? What would you read into it? And did you convey any messages besides the fact that it has a chilling effect? Did you convey any messages to the government on that particular event? And did Ong San Suu Kyi refer to this issue in your conversation with her? Well, I asked various people with whom I spoke including Ong San Suu Kyi about the event and the implications. I'm not in the business of handicapping the leadership decisions of political party in a foreign country. The USDP has the right to make their own internal personnel decisions. I'm also not in the business of attaching more corroborating labels to individual players in Burma. The fact of the matter is this is an unbelievably complicated country. It's a tremendously complex political environment. But what I've focused on is that the deployment of police forces around the party headquarters in connection with the ouster of Ushui Man was seen by so many Burmese as a return to the battle days. And I tried to make very clear that whatever the rationale, whatever the excuses, the government and the party really needs to bend over backwards to demonstrate that the battle days are in fact over and that they will not avail themselves of the tools of oppression that marred Burma for so many decades. Now the focus of virtually everybody including the election observers, the press and everything is on the November the 8th parliamentary elections. But after that we enter into the second phase of the elections which is the presidential election which start once parliament sits which will be on January the 31st, 2016. Do you have any concerns? Do you see any potential pitfalls in that phase of the elections because that will be much less transparent and much more opaque? And what sort of criteria would you use to assess whether that phase of the elections are indeed democratic? Well look, ultimately the criteria that matters most is the prevailing view of the people of Burma, the voters of Burma, as to whether they're satisfied that their voices have been heard even if their preferred party or candidate didn't win. Now the scenarios range from a crushing NLD win on the one hand to a USDP or a USDP plus 20% 25% military vote majority on the other and the entire spectrum of possibilities in between that open the door to compromise, to horse trading, to deal making, there's a technical term for that it's called politics. What we need to ensure though is that the process is not opaque and it is as important as ensuring transparency in the voters list or transparency in the actual polls that all parties work to ensure transparency in the government formation process that comes. The thing that I think we need to keep our eyes fixed on firmly is that whatever government comes into office early next year, it is going to face the same challenges that Burma faces today and in some cases more intensively and whatever government comes into power after the election must be committed to the fundamental political message of the Burmese voters and that fundamental political message is reform. No one disputes that the people of Burma want to move forward and not backwards. Now the process has been one of a couple of steps forward and I'm sorry to say a few steps backwards as well and there've been some significant steps backwards which I've outlined in some detail. What we don't want is for the reversals to overwhelm or to outnumber the progressive steps and I think that the scrutiny attached to every step of the process by the international community has an important salutary effect. One last question before we open it up to the audience and that is I think you better than anyone else can help us understand where you see Myanmar in the context of the overall US re-balancing strategy towards the issue specific. Could you provide us with some of your ideas on that? Well, first and foremost, Myanmar is a country that has decided to shake off the shackles of decades of military government and repression and make a serious effort at pursuing political reform, economic reform. That is a country that is a people that can count on the United States as a partner, as a helper and as a friend and we're determined to help. We have a huge interest in the ultimate success of this challenging Burmese experiment. In addition, Burma is a tremendously young country with immense potential for growth, great natural resources, fantastic human capital that is undereducated, underserved and underutilized, under empowered. We are promoting a wide range of exchange programs. We're supporting English language and other educational programs in Myanmar. Raising the standards, creating opportunities for youth, these are hugely in US interest. Thirdly, Myanmar is a member of ASEAN and so much of ASEAN's time and attention in the past have been absorbed with the problem of Burma. Now we have a chance to harness Burma's many great strengths as an asset in developing a more effective and a more unified ASEAN. That's a tremendously important goal for the United States and last year Myanmar's very credible chairmanship of ASEAN represented an important step forward. The list goes on but I'll stop there. All right, thank you very much. All right, so let's open it up to the audience. May I just ask you to put up your hand, wait till you get a microphone because this is being live streamed and recorded. Give us your name and your institutional affiliation and I'd be very grateful if you could keep the questions as brief as possible. So let's have Tom Rekford here, start with him. Thank you, Tom Rekford with the Foreign Policy Discussion Group and Malaysia America Society. I think all of us here are great admirers of Aung San Suu Kyi but there's been a bit of criticism lately about what some people say are her dictatorial ways of picking candidates in her own party and at least outside Burma, Myanmar, some criticism of her not very favorable attitudes towards the Rohingya. Would you comment on these two matters? Well, if I'm not gonna take a public position on the USDP's decision to oust Shwayman as its chairman, I'm not gonna take a public position on the head of the NLD's skill set when it comes to managing her own party. When I visited Rangoon with President Obama and he and Aung San Suu Kyi stood in front of the cameras on the steps, the back steps of her porch, he spoke very directly and in my view eloquently about the plight of the Rohingya and the challenge of religious intolerance in the country. And I thought that Aung San Suu Kyi stepped up to the issue and spoke out on that occasion quite clearly about the importance of respecting the rights of all religions and promoting unity. Now, it is clearly a hot button issue in the country. There is a very worrisome trend towards allowing the voices of religious extremism to speak unchallenged, use hate speech. There is, I think, an unenforced or an underenforced prohibition against the divisive insertion of religion and politics. That is a problem. But it's not a problem that any one leader or any one party can solve on their own. And that is very much what I was thinking of when I said that the next government will inherit the challenges that Myanmar faces now. And among those challenges, the situation in Rakhine state, the treatment of the Rohingya, the terrible problem of irregular migration and human trafficking, and more broadly, the challenge of creating e pluribus unum, a union that is unified not only in national terms and ethnic terms, but also in religious terms. I made the point very directly to the leadership that it would be the bitterest of ironies if after all the work that the Tainsin government has undertaken to reconcile with the ethnic community and ethnic minorities in order to create a unified Burma that by their tolerance of hate speech could ultimately result in a Burma that was divided on religious lines. That cannot be allowed to happen. Let me turn, I don't have a lady in the audience before I come to the, yes, please. Thank you, Secretary, and I'm Rita Chen from Central News Agency, Taiwan. Thank you for your information you shared. Some Chinese think tanks think that China should work harder to build a stronger relationship with Myanmar because they think that some major power step up a lot of effort to build a stronger relationship with Myanmar as well. And I think that the major power that implies US, you can correct me if you don't agree. And then I'm just wondering what's the election and how important and what's the value for Myanmar's election for American in region? And then my second question is another young democracy, Taiwan is going to have a presidential election next year. And then I also wonder what's the value and how the US will maintain the stability for the Taiwan Strait, for the both sides. Since there is some reports say that the POA is doing the military exercise currently. And what's the US concern? Do you have any concern about that? Thank you. Well, look, China and Myanmar share many thousand mile border. They're neighbors and they're going to stay neighbors. So we believe that China, of course, has a stake as we all do in maintaining and developing the best possible bilateral relations. And this is in no way a zero sum game. Good relations with the United States don't come at the expense of relations with another partner, including and especially with China. We strongly support Burma's economic growth, its economic autonomy, its political development and political independence, its territorial integrity. But those are principles that all countries should adhere to with regard to their neighbors. So good relations between China and Burma are in everybody's interests. And this is a topic of discussion between us when I meet with my Chinese counterparts responsible for the Asia Pacific region. Whether it is in Taiwan or whether it is in Burma or elsewhere, the US approaches to respect the will of the people, to respect the democratic process. Now, Taiwan has considerably more experience in democratic elections. Burma is still inching forward. And frankly, I think that there is a lot that Burma can learn from Taiwan. I think it may well be that the Taiwan example has served in some respects as an inspiration to many young Burmese. I think I spoke to the question of our policy interests and our strategy, so I'll let somebody else ask another question. Yeah. Yes, please. We'll come to the back in a second, but yes. I'm Josenda from Voice of America Burmese Service. In 1990, the military was expecting a victory for their allied NUP party. But at the election, NRE won a huge landslide victory and it was gone out of control by the military. The military didn't honor the results. Instead, they cracked down the winners. So do you have any plan, especially a concerted plan with EU or other international community, to make sure that these sort of things won't repeat again in Burma after this election? And if something happened like that, what will you do? What's your plan for that? Thank you very much. We have a plan. And we're executing that plan. And that plan doesn't start the day after the election. That plan doesn't start when there is a challenge to the outcome of the election. That plan has been in place for several years and we are vigorously pursuing it. It includes everything from voter education to the active engagement and participation of NGOs and international institutions. And it includes diplomacy. And diplomacy is my line of business. The strong, unremitting messages from President Obama on down from other world leaders, the strong and active engagement of our talented ambassador in the country, Derek Mitchell, the visits by Secretary Kerry, by Deputy Secretary Blinken, by an entire range of US officials, the programs that get through to the leaders, that get through to the top military officials, that build up the institutions and the determination on the part of the Burmese people. That is our plan. Now, when it comes to the morning after, we will make our assessments based on the facts. We're clear-eyed. Now, being clear-eyed does not mean being cynical. You can be a realist and be committed to realizing ideals as well. We have done everything we can think of, although we're open to suggestion, to put in place the groundwork not only to foster elections that will be as free and as fair as they can be made, but also to inculcate respect for the results and a realization on the part of the military and other actors that Burma can't succeed, that Myanmar cannot move in the direction of international acceptance and prosperity if the results of a democratic process are not respected. All right, now I promised Danny that we'd finish promptly at 11 o'clock, so what I'm going to suggest is we have two questions if you don't mind together, and that way we'll save time. Let's have somebody right at the back. Yes, there's a gentleman there at the back. There you are, yes, please. Patrick, yes. And then we'll come to you. Hi, hello, my name is Nick Boros with TD International. My question regards regional developments. There have been setbacks in both Thailand and Myanmar in terms of military's willingness to hand off politics to civilians. And I know the situations are different, but there are some strikingly similar trends. The US response has been much more critical of Thailand. Could you please explain why? And one here, please. Up here, yes. All right, Bill, I quote independent business consultant. Mr. Secretary, there is a rather intricate legal framework in the United States with regard to Burma, Myanmar. And obviously some of that's congressionally created in some of its executive branch. And you've been operating, navigating through that over the last couple of years in the action for action process you've had going. So I'm just wondering if the elections go well, what you see as the next actions in that regard, and if they go poorly, what do you see as the next actions? Thanks. Well, as to the first question, look, there are any number of opportunities to compare and contrast the situations among countries and among challenged democracies in the world and in Southeast Asia in particular. The situation, as you pointed out, in Thailand and in Burma is different. But here's what's the same. Ultimately, long-term stability is achieved not through the imposition of order by military force. Long-term stability is achieved through inclusive, open, and democratic governance. The friendship between the American people and the Thai people has very, very deep roots. The US-Thai relationship is a tremendously important one. We want to see the process in Thailand succeed. We want to see the restoration of full democracy, a credible democracy. We want it to be done peacefully. We want it to be done credibly. Burma has had a very different history over the last 60 or so years. But the quest for fairness, the quest for representation, the quest for a responsive and a responsible government, we believe isn't a Burmese attribute. It's not a Thai attribute. It's a universal desire. As far as the impact of the election on congressional restrictions and US policies, I think that the most straightforward way to put it is that if a new government in Burma, as the product of elections that are deemed fundamentally by the Burmese people, credible, demonstrates through its policies and its actions a commitment to continuing the long road of reform, moving ahead, taking the steps to address the challenges that I've described, then it will find the United States a willing partner. And we will ourselves be able to move incrementally in adjusting our policy and in expanding areas of cooperation and support. I think the reverse is true. It makes it that much harder for any administration to contemplate, let alone to succeed, in gaining consensus and political space to provide the kind of support that the Burmese seek and need if there is sustained retrogression in the political process and unremitting but avoidable fundamental flaws in the upcoming electoral process. Well, Danny, the hour of 11 has struck. I could sit here and listen to you for another hour easily, and I'm sure everybody would agree with me, but I'm afraid we really do have to bring this to a close because I know you have so many other meetings to follow. I want to thank all of you for coming and for being such an engaged audience, but please join me in thanking Danny Russell for his outstanding comments. And am I right that you will be willing to answer? OK, that's it. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.