Even in these divided political occasions, elected officers can usually be counted on to agree on one factor: Genocide is dangerous.
That’s, apart from Andy Biggs.
On Wednesday, Congress voted on a decision condemning the continued ethnic cleaning of the Rohingya, a Muslim minority group in Myanmar. And Biggs was one in every of solely three members of Congress to vote towards it.
Each different member of Arizona’s congressional delegation, Democrats and Republicans alike, supported the decision, which primarily asks Myanmar’s authorities to a) cease killing individuals and b) permit in humanitarian assist teams.
This clearly brings up an uncomfortable query: Is Andy Biggs saying that he’s okay with ethnic cleaning?
Up to now, Biggs hasn’t made a public assertion somehow. We’ve reached out to his workplace to request an evidence of his vote, and to ask that he make clear whether or not he condemns the genocide in Myanmar.
The opposite two members of Congress to vote towards the invoice, Walter Jones of North Carolina and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, have not defined their choice, both. Each are Republicans.
Biggs pulled an analogous stunt again in September, when he was one in every of simply three members of Congress who voted towards a catastrophe aid invoice for victims of Hurricane Harvey. He later defined that he didn’t like the truth that laws addressing instructional packages in creating nations had been tacked onto the invoice.
Undoubtedly, including unrelated provisions to a invoice that’s more likely to move is a shady transfer. However voting towards help for hurricane victims due to your “principled stance” is a nasty look, interval.
And there are not any random add-ons to Home Concurrent Decision ninety, the invoice condemning the ethnic cleaning of the Rohingya. You’ll be able to learn the complete textual content right here; it’s fairly simple and sticks to the topic at hand.
It additionally does not compel the USA authorities to do something. There is a name for the White Home to impose sanctions, positive, however Congress’ choice to cross the decision is a largely symbolic transfer, indicating that sanctions may be coming sooner or later sooner or later. (Which is not precisely information — Secretary of State Rex Tillerson already stated as a lot in November.)
So what’s Biggs’ beef, precisely? Was voting towards the invoice some type of unintentional oversight? Did a staffer fail to correctly temporary him concerning the large human rights disaster in Myanmar, which even Tillerson agrees is extraordinarily dangerous? Does he have beforehand-undisclosed ties to the Burmese authorities? Might this have something to do with the truth that the Rohingya are Muslim? Or did Biggs merely have an issue with how the decision was worded?
We have now no clue, as a result of his workplace is not answering our telephone calls, emails, or Twitter messages. We sit up for updating this story with an evidence when one turns into out there.