U.S. Sanctions on Burma
Michael F. Martin
Specialist in Asian Affairs
February 7, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41336
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

Summary
Existing U.S. sanctions on Burma are based on various U.S. laws and presidential executive
orders. This report provides a brief history of U.S. policy towards Burma and the development of
U.S. sanctions, a topical summary of those sanctions, and an examination of additional sanctions
that have been considered, but not enacted, by Congress, or that could be imposed under existing
law or executive orders. The report concludes with a discussion of options for Congress.
The current U.S. sanctions on Burma were enacted, for the most part, due to what the U.S.
government saw as a general disregard by Burma’s ruling military junta, the State Peace and
Development Council (SPDC), for the human rights and civil liberties of the people of Burma.
The actions of the new quasi-civilian government in Burma have initiated a discussion on when
and how to possibly remove some of the existing sanctions. The Obama Administration recently
announced it would for the first time in 21 years nominate a candidate to serve as U.S.
ambassador to Burma and would welcome a Burmese ambassador to the United States.
Burma-specific sanctions began following the Tatmadaw’s violent suppression of popular protests
in 1988, and have continued through several subsequent periods in which Congress perceived
major human rights violations in Burma. The result is a web of overlapping sanctions with
differing restrictions, waiver provisions, expiration conditions, and reporting requirements.
The United States currently imposes sanctions specifically on Burma via five laws and four
presidential documents. These sanctions can be generally divided into several broad categories,
such as visa bans, restrictions on financial services, prohibitions of Burmese imported goods, a
ban on new investments in Burma, and constraints on U.S. assistance to Burma. Past Congresses
have considered a variety of additional, stricter sanctions on Burma.
In addition to the targeted sanctions, Burma is currently subject to certain sanctions specified in
U.S. laws based on various functional issues. In many cases, the type of assistance or relations
restricted or prohibited by these provisions is also addressed under Burma-specific sanction laws.
The functional issues include the use of child soldiers, drug trafficking, human trafficking, money
laundering, failure to protect religious freedoms, violations of workers’ rights, and threats to
world peace and the security of the United States.
On March 30, 2011, SPDC formally dissolved itself and transferred power to the new Union
Government, headed by President Thein Sein, ex-general and prime minister for the SPDC. On
four separate occasions since his appointment, President Thein Sein has ordered the release of
prisoners, including a number of political prisoners. The Union Government has also initiated
ceasefire talks with various ethnic-based militias, and altered laws to allow opposition parties to
participate in parliamentary elections. However, the continuation of serious human rights abuses
has raised questions about the extent to which there has been significant political change in
Burma. Consideration is being given by the Obama Administration to the selective removal or
alteration of sanctions as part of an effort to foster more reform in Burma.
The 112th Congress may consider either the imposition of additional sanctions or the removal of
some of the existing sanctions, depending on the conduct of Burma’s new Union Government and
other developments in Burma. This report will be updated as conditions warrant.

Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

Contents
Overview of Sanctions..................................................................................................................... 1
Brief History of U.S. Sanctions on Burma ...................................................................................... 3
Summary of Burma-Specific Sanctions........................................................................................... 7
Visa Bans................................................................................................................................... 7
Restrictions on Financial Services........................................................................................... 10
“Frozen Assets” ....................................................................................................................... 12
General Import Restrictions..................................................................................................... 16
Specific Import Restrictions .................................................................................................... 19
Investment Ban........................................................................................................................ 20
Bilateral and Multilateral Assistance Ban ............................................................................... 21
Additional Sanctions Based on Functional Issues ......................................................................... 22
Additional Sanctions Previously Proposed.................................................................................... 25
Options for Congress ..................................................................................................................... 27

Tables
Table 1. Visa Bans............................................................................................................................ 8
Table 2. Restrictions on Financial Services ................................................................................... 10
Table 3. “Frozen Assets”................................................................................................................ 13
Table 4. General Import Restrictions ............................................................................................. 17
Table 5. Specific Import Restrictions............................................................................................. 19
Table 6. Investment Ban ................................................................................................................ 20
Table 7. Bilateral and Multilateral Assistance Ban........................................................................ 21

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 29
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 29

Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

Overview of Sanctions
The United States imposes sanctions on Burma by a variety of means, including certain laws and
presidential executive orders (E.O.s) specifically targeting Burma, as well as laws that impose
sanctions on countries for unacceptable behavior related to functional issues of importance to the
U.S. government, such as nuclear proliferation or human trafficking. The Burma-specific laws
and E.O.s were issued between 1990 and 2008, often in response to actions on the part of
Burma’s ruling military junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), that were
considered sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of sanctions. The result is a web of
overlapping sanctions subject to differing restrictions, waiver provisions, expiration conditions,
and reporting requirements.
U.S. sanctions targeted solely at Burma are specified in five federal laws, a series of presidential
executive orders, and certain presidential determinations. The five laws are
• Section 138 of the Customs and Trade Act of 1990 (Section 138) (P.L. 101-
382)—requires the President to impose “such economic sanctions upon Burma
as the President determines to be appropriate,” unless the President certifies
certain conditions pertaining to human rights and counternarcotics have been
met;
• Section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Section 307) (P.L. 87–
195), as amended by the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994
and 1995 (P.L. 103-236)—withholds U.S. contributions to selected international
organizations with programs in Burma;
• Section 570 of the Foreign
Defining “Sanction”
Operations, Export
Financing, and Related
The term “sanction” has a number of different legal meanings,
depending on the context and/or circumstances in which it is being
Programs Appropriations
used. “Sanction” can be used to describe tacit or explicit approval,
Act, 1997 (Section 570)
but can also be used to describe disapproval. For international
(P.L. 104-208)1—imposes
matters, the word often refers to measures taken by a nation or a
various specific sanctions on
group of nations to coerce another nation to comply with
Burma, unless the President
expected conduct or behavior. These may include diplomatic
measures (e.g., severing diplomatic ties), economic measures (e.g.,
certifies that certain human
restricting trade), or military measures (e.g., the imposition of a
rights and democracy
“no fly zone”).
standards have been met;
For purposes of this report, “sanction” refers to any measure or
• The Burmese Freedom
action of a diplomatic, economic, or military nature taken by a
nation (usually, the United States) or a group of nations to coerce
and Democracy Act of
Burma to comply with expected conduct or behavior.
2003 (2003 BFDA) (P.L.
108-61)—requires the President to impose a ban on the import of products of
Burma; freeze assets of certain Burmese officials; block U.S. support for loans
from international financial institutions; and ban visas for certain Burmese
officials; and

1 The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 was merged into Title 1
of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

• The Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta’s Anti-Democratic Efforts)
Act of 2008 (2008 JADE Act) (P.L. 110-286)—bans the direct and indirect
import of products containing Burmese jadeite and rubies; expands the list of
Burmese officials subjected to visa bans and financial sanctions; and allows for
the placement of restrictions on use of correspondent accounts to provide
services to Burmese officials.
Four presidential executive orders (E.O.) currently in force impose sanctions on Burma. The four
E.O.s are
• E.O. 13047—Issued on May 20, 1997, by President Bill Clinton, it bans all new
investments in Burma, as required by Section 570;
• E.O. 13310—Issued on July 28, 2003, by President George W. Bush, it brings
the sanction regime into compliance with certain provisions of the BFDA,
including the freezing of assets of certain Burmese officials and the prohibition
of the provision of financial services to Burma;
• E.O. 13448—Issued on October 18, 2007, by President Bush, it added to the list
of Burmese officials and entities subject to the freezing of assets; and
• E.O. 13464—Issued on April 30, 2008, by President Bush, it added to the list of
Burmese officials and entities subject to the freezing of assets.
On October 3, 1996, President Clinton issued Presidential Proclamation 6925 denying entry into
the United States of “persons who formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that impede
Burma’s transition to democracy, and the immediate family members of such persons.”2 President
Bush issued Presidential Determination No. 2009–11 on January 15, 2009, providing a limited
waiver of some of the sanctions in the JADE Act, stating that doing so was “in the national
interest of the United States.”3
The E.O.s sanctioning Burma rely on the authority vested in the President by the Constitution and
the following laws:
• The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1997, or IEEPA
(P.L. 95-223; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)—authorizes the President to impose
certain types of international trade or financial sanctions to deal with a threat to
national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States; and
• The National Emergencies Act, or NEA (P.L. 94-412; 50 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.)—authorizes the President (under certain conditions) to declare a national
emergency.
To carry out and execute the authority conveyed by the IEEPA, the President must declare a
national emergency by invoking the NEA. Invocations of the IEEPA are subject to annual renewal
requirements. Section 301 of U.S.C. Title 3, Chapter 35 allows the President to delegate authority

2 Presidential Proclamation 6925, "Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons Who Formulate
or Implement Policies that are Impeding the Transition to Democracy in Burma or Who Benefit from Such Policies,"
61 Federal Register 52233-52234, October 7, 1996.
3 Executive Determination 2009-11, “Limited Waiver of Certain Sanctions Imposed by, and Delegation of Certain
Authorities Pursuant to, the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta’s Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008,” 74
Federal Register 3957-3958, January 21, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

(under certain conditions) to other government officials to carry out responsibilities on behalf of
the President. In most cases, this has been either the Secretary of State or the Treasury Secretary.
President Obama gave official notice to Congress on May 16, 2011, that he was continuing for
another year (May 21, 2011-May 20, 2012) the international emergency with respect to Burma,
and renewing the provisions of E.O. 13047, E.O. 13310, E.O. 13448, and E.O. 13464, which are
still in force.4
The implementation of the Burma-specific sanctions instituted by the preceding laws and E.O.s,
and that have been delegated to the Treasury Secretary, is governed by Part 537 of Title 31 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These Burmese sanction regulations cover the import ban,
the prohibition of the provision of financial services, and the prohibition of new investments in
Burma. Other portions of the CFR cover some portions of Burmese-specific sanctions.5
Brief History of U.S. Sanctions on Burma
The current U.S. sanctions on Burma are the end result of a general, but uneven decline in U.S.
relations with Burma and its military, the Tatmadaw, since World War II. For the most part, the
decline is due to what the U.S. government sees as a general disregard by the Burmese military
for the human rights and civil liberties of the people of Burma. However, part of the tensions
between the Tatmadaw and the United States can be attributed to a failure to address Burma’s
internal security concerns in the early years after its independence.
During World War II, the United States utilized Burma as a base of operations against Japanese
forces in China and Southeast Asia, engendering generally cordial relations with Burma’s civilian
and military leadership. Following the war, the former British colony of Burma became an
independent nation, led by a civilian government. The new nation became a member of the
United Nations in 1948, was a founding member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT), and joined the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1952—with the full support of the
United States. The United States and Burma also established full diplomatic relations.
Relations between the two nations began to sour following World War II for various reasons.
First, Burma was increasingly frustrated by U.S. reluctance to resolve the status of displaced
Kuomintang (KMT) soldiers operating out of northeastern Burma against the newly established
People’s Republic of China (PRC).6 In 1953, U.S. economic assistance to Burma temporarily
ceased in part because of the friction over the KMT soldiers in Burma. Second, Burma’s civilian
government proved to be unstable, due in part to various ethnic-based militia groups operating in
the country, and in part due to a 1962 coup d’état staged by the military under the name of the
Burmese Socialist Programme Party (BSPP). The new military government chose to foster closer

4 The President, “Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Burma,” 76 Federal Register 28883, May
18, 2011.
5 For example, Part 447.52 of Title 27 regulates the arms embargo, while Part 41.21 of Title 21 regulates the visa ban
on selected Burmese government officials, military officers, and their immediate family members.
6 When the KMT government collapsed in 1949, a group of about 12,000 KMT soldiers retreated into Burma and
continued their military operations against the PRC and its army, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), causing
problems in Burma’s relationship with the PRC. Burma asked the United States press its ally, the Republic of China,
now located in Taiwan, to remove their troops from Burma. Although the United States did raise the issue with the
Republic of China starting in 1953, the KMT troops remained in Burma until 1961, when they relocated into Thailand,
but continued to move across the border into Burma.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

ties to the PRC, a decision that the United States did not like. Third, the military government also
demonstrated a general lack of respect for the human rights of its citizens, clamping down on
opposition groups calling for a return to civilian rule.
Despite the cooling of relations, U.S. policy towards Burma remained relatively normal. The
United States also accepted Burma as one of the original beneficiaries of its Generalized System
of Preference (GSP) program in 1976. It also granted Burma Most Favored Nation (MFN, now
referred to as Normal Trade Relations, or NTR) status, and supported the provision of
developmental assistance by international financial institutions. There were also close military to
military relations (including a major International Military Education and Training [IMET]
program) until 1988.
The implementing of sanctions on Burma did not begin until after the Tatmadaw brutally
suppressed a peaceful, popular protest that has become known as the 8888 Uprising. Starting in
the fall of 1987, popular protests against the military government sprang up throughout Burma,
reaching a peak in August 1988. On August 8, 1988, the military squashed the protest, killing and
injuring an unknown number of protesters. In the aftermath of the event, the military regrouped
and the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) assumed power.
Three days following the crackdown, the Senate passed S.Res. 464, condemning the killings and
mass arrests, supporting a return to democracy in Burma, and calling on the Reagan
Administration to raise the issue of human rights and reconciliation with Burmese officials. On
September 7, 1988, the House of Representatives passed H.Res. 529 condemning the killing of
unarmed protesters, paying tribute to the people of Burma and their struggle for democracy, and
calling on the executive branch to review assistance programs in Burma. The Reagan
Administration responded on September 23, 1988, by suspending all U.S. aid to Burma, including
counternarcotics programs, and stopping all arms sales—starting the gradual progress of
sanctions on Burma. On April 13, 1989, President George H. W. Bush issued Presidential
Proclamation 5955, amending the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program and
suspending preferential treatment.7
After assuming power, SLORC announced that it intended to expedite the return to civilian rule
by holding parliamentary elections to form a Pyithu Hluttaw (Union Assembly) on May 27, 1990.
On September 27, 1988, SLORC released a new law governing the registration of political
parties, and on May 31, 1989, it issued a new law governing the upcoming parliamentary
election.8 Although 235 political parties registered for the election, only 4 parties won more than
10 of the 485 contested seats.9 In a surprise to everyone, the National League for Democracy

7 George H..W. Bush, “Amending the Generalized System of Preferences,” Presidential Proclamation 5955, April 13,
1989.
8 There is some controversy over the intent of the election. According to Burma’s 1974 constitution, the Union
Assembly was the “highest organ of state power.” In addition, SLORC repeatedly stated that the May 1990 election
was to be a “multiparty democratic general election.” As a result, many observers assumed that the newly elected
Union Assembly would assume power. However, after the election, SLORC issued a statement on July 27, 1990,
indicating that the purpose of the May 1990 election was to create a constitutional convention, and not the transfer of
power to a civilian government.
9 These were the National League for Democracy with 392 seats, the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy with 23
seats, the Arakan League for Democracy with 11 seats, and the National Unity Party with 10 seats. Of the 235
registered political parties, only 93 fielded candidates.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

(NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi, received 59.9% of the valid votes and won 382 seats, while
SLORC’s political party, the National Unity Party, received 21.2% of the vote, but only 10 seats.
SLORC and Burma’s military were clearly shocked by the election results, and refused to allow
the Union Assembly to meet. Instead, the Burmese military arrested and detained many of the
opposition leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi. Protests, led by Buddhist monks and university
students, were brutally suppressed. SLORC declared martial law.
Congress responded to the post-election crackdown by including Burmese sanction language in
the Customs and Trade Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-382), which it passed on August 20, 1990. Section
138 of the law granted the President the authority to impose “such economic sanctions upon
Burma as the President determines to be appropriate, including any sanctions appropriate under
the Narcotics Control Trade Act of 1986.” A version of the act which passed the Senate by a vote
of 92-0 would have prohibited all imports from Burma.
Prior to the passage of Customs and Trade Act of 1990, the Bush Administration had suspended
Burma’s eligibility for the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program on April 13, 1989.10
President Bush also designated Burma as a drug-producing and/or drug-trafficking country under
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 on February 28, 1990, which required the United States to
oppose loans to Burma by international financial institutions.11 After the passage of Customs and
Trade Act of 1990, the Bush Administration invoked the law’s authority on August 5, 1991, and
refused to renew the Bilateral Textile Agreement with Burma, which had lapsed on December 31,
1990.12
During the 1990s, Congress considered a number of bills and resolutions calling for additional
sanctions on Burma. Most of those measures failed to emerge from committee, with a few notable
exceptions. On April 30, 1994, Congress passed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 1994 and 1995 (P.L. 103-236) which amended the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and
withheld a portion of U.S. contributions to international organizations with programs for Burma,
including the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), but excluding IAEA and UNICEF.
Language restricting U.S. funding for UNDP if it conducted programs in Burma was included in
legislation up to FY2008, but not since then.13
In July 1995, the Free Burma Act of 1995 (S. 1092) was introduced, which would have placed a
broad range of sanctions on Burma, including a ban on U.S. investment and assistance, the

10 “Memorandum on Amendments to the Generalized System of Preferences,” Office of the President, April 13, 1989.
11 “Presidential Determination No. 90–12—Memorandum on Narcotics Control Certification,” Office of the President,
February 28, 1990.
12 The United States and Burma had a bilateral textile agreement covering selected articles of apparel from January 1,
1987, to December 31, 1990.
13 Section 668(b) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) stipulated:
Twenty percent of the funds appropriated by this act under the heading `International Organizations and Programs’ for
a United States contribution to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) shall be withheld from disbursement
until the Secretary of State reports to the Committees on Appropriations that UNDP is—
(1) giving adequate access to information to the Department of State regarding UNDP’s programs and activities as
requested, including in North Korea and Burma;
(2) conducting oversight of UNDP programs and activities globally; and
(3) implementing a whistleblower protection policy equivalent to that recommended by the United Nations Secretary
General on December 3, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

suspension of GSP privileges and normal trade relations, the prohibition of all imports of
Burmese goods, travel restrictions to and from Burma, and U.S. opposition to all multilateral
assistance. According to some scholars, the severity of the sanctions in this bill was sufficient to
persuade SLORC to release Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest on July 10, 1995.
Even after the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, Congress approved new sanctions on Burma in
Section 570 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (P.L. 104-208), including a
cessation of all non-humanitarian assistance, a ban on the issuance of entry visas for Burmese
government officials, and instructions for U.S. representatives for international financial
institutions to vote against loans or funding to Burma. On October 3, 1996, President Clinton
issued Presidential Proclamation 6925, suspending visas for “persons who formulate, implement,
or benefit from policies that impede Burma’s transition to democracy, and the immediate family
members of such persons.”14 In addition, the law required the President to prohibit new
investments in Burma by U.S. persons. On May 20, 1997, President Clinton released E.O. 13047
banning all new investments in Burma.
Since 2000, additional bills and resolutions have been introduced in Congress seeking to apply
more sanctions on Burma. In October 2000, identical bills were introduced in the House and the
Senate (H.R. 5603 and S. 3246) that would have banned all textile and apparel imports from
Burma. In the spring of 2001, similar bills (H.R. 2211 and S. 926) were introduced that would
have “prohibited the importation of any article that is produced, manufactured, or grown in
Burma.” However, Congress did not pass any new sanction legislation until after the spring 2003
crackdown on opposition parties (which included the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and other
opposition leaders), when it approved the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 (P.L.
108-61). Similarly, Congress did not pass the 2008 JADE Act until the SPDC crushed a
nationwide protest initiated by Buddhist monks in the autumn of 2007—the so-called “Saffron
Revolution.” After the protests had been quashed, the SPDC arrested and imprisoned many of the
leaders, and defrocked and relocated a number of the Buddhist monks involved in the protests.
The Bush Administration did not take significant action on Burma until after the attacks on the
Burmese opposition in the spring of 2003 and the passage of the Burmese Freedom and
Democracy Act of 2003 (BFDA). Using authority granted by the BFDA and other laws (see
“Summary of Burma-Specific Sanctions”), President George W. Bush issued E.O. 13310, E.O.
13448, and E.O. 13464 on July 28, 2003, October 18, 2007, and April 30, 2008, respectively.
Since assuming office, President Barack Obama’s actions regarding Burmese sanctions have
included renewing the international emergency with respect to Burma (thereby extending the
sanctions under E.O. 13047, E.O. 13310, E.O. 13448, and E.O. 13464), and issuing a presidential
determination and a memorandum waiving some of the sanctions related to the Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000.
There are some distinct patterns in the history of U.S. relations with Burma. First, despite the
general decline in relations following World War II, the imposition of sanctions did not begin
until after the suppression of the 8888 Uprising in 1988. Second, subsequent U.S. sanctions have
generally been imposed after Burma’s military has severely violated the human rights and civil
liberties of its political opponents and/or the Burmese people. Third, Congress has been more

14 Executive Order 6925, “Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons who Formulate or
Implement Policies that are Impeding the Transition to Democracy in Burma or Who Benefit from Such Policies,” 61
Federal Register 52233-52234, October 7, 1996.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

proactive in pushing for sanctions on Burma than the White House. Fourth, it is unclear if the
imposition of sanctions has had a demonstrable effect on the SPDC or its predecessors. Fifth, it is
equally unclear if the absence of U.S. sanctions on Burma would have led to an improvement in
the political situation in Burma.
Summary of Burma-Specific Sanctions
The existing U.S. sanctions specifically targeted at Burma can be generally divided into several
broad categories. First, there are bans on issuing visas to certain Burmese government officials
(particularly the leadership of the State Peace and Development Council [SDPC] and the Union
Solidarity Development Association [USDA]), members of their families, and their business
associates. Second, there are restrictions on the provision of financial services to certain Burmese
government officials, members of their families, and their business associates. Third, certain
assets of selected individuals held by U.S. entities have been “frozen.” Fourth, there is a general
prohibition on the import of goods of Burmese origin. Fifth, there is a prohibition on the import
of certain types of goods and goods from certain companies. Sixth, there is a ban on new U.S.
investments in Burma, including investments in third country companies. Seventh, there are
restrictions on the provision of bilateral and multilateral assistance to Burma.
Some of the types of sanctions are included in more than one of the laws or E.O.s listed above,
with at times apparently overlapping provisions. In addition, depending on the specific provisions
of the laws or E.O.s, the sanctions may be subject to differing presidential waiver provisions,
renewal or extension conditions, reporting requirements, etc. A summary of the various
provisions in the laws or E.O.s for each type of sanction follows in tabular form.
Visa Bans
There are three laws that include restrictions on the issuance of visas to certain Burmese
nationals: Section 570 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 1997; the 2003 BFDA; and the 2008 JADE Act, plus Presidential
Proclamation 6925.15 The nature and scope of the visa restrictions differ in each case. In addition,
although there is no language in the 2008 JADE Act indicating that it supersedes the prior visa
restrictions, a representative of the State Department indicated that their current interpretation is
that 2003 BFDA provisions authorize a visa ban, but do not require their implementation, and that
so far no President has invoked the visa ban authority granted in the 2003 BFDA.



15 Presidential Proclamation 6925, "Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Person who Formulate
or Implement Policies that are Impeding the Transition to Democracy in Burma or Who Benefit from Such Policies,"
61 Federal Register 52233-52234, October 7, 1996.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

Table 1. Visa Bans
Presidential
Proclamation

6925
Section 570
2003 BFDA
2008 JADE Act
Main
Suspends the entry
No entry visas for
President is
Certain categories of
Provisions
into the United
“any Burmese
authorized to deny
people are ineligible for
States as immigrants
government official”
visas and entry to
U.S. visa: former and
or nonimmigrants
former and present
present leaders of the
“persons who
leadership of the
SPDC, USDA, or the
formulate,
SPDC and the
Burmese military; officials
implement, or
USDA
of the SPDC, USDA, or
benefit from policies
Burmese military that are
that impede Burma’s
“involved in the
transition to
repression of peaceful
democracy,” and the
political activity or in
immediate family
other gross violations of
members of such
human rights in Burma or
persons
in the commission of
other human rights
abuses ... ”; persons
providing substantial
economic and political
support for the SPDC,
the USDA, or the
Burmese military; and the
immediate family
members of any of the
preceding people
Conditions or
Does not apply to
As required by
Secretary of State
Shal not be construed to
Exceptions
officials assigned to
treaty obligations or
shall coordinate list
conflict with visa eligibility
Burmese missions in
to staff of Burmese
of banned individuals
provisions in P.L. 110-161
the United States,
mission in the
on a biannual basis
for ethnic groups in
and support staff and United States
with representative
Burma who were forced
visitors who support
of the European
to provide labor or
the work of
Union (EU)
support for Burmese
Burmese missions in
military; Secretary of
the United States
State may authorize
exceptions to permit the
Does not apply to
operation of diplomatic
persons whose entry
missions, to conduct
is required by
official government
international
business in Burma, to
agreements
permit U.S. citizens to
visit Burma, and permit
compliance with
international agreements
Waiver
Permits the
Temporary or
None specified
Presidential waiver
Provisions
Department of State
permanent
allowed only if he
to waive the entry
presidential waiver if
determines and certifies
ban if “the entry of
sanctions are
in writing to Congress
such person would
“contrary to the
that it is “in the national
not be contrary to
national security
interests of the United
the interests of the
interests of the
States”
United States
United States”
Congressional Research Service
8

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

Presidential
Proclamation

6925
Section 570
2003 BFDA
2008 JADE Act
Termination,
May be repealed, in
“Until such time as
The President may
Until the President
Duration, or
whole or in part, by
the President
terminate “upon
determines and certifies
Renewal
Secretary of State, if:
determines and
request of a
“to the appropriate
Conditions
“the Burmese
certifies to Congress democratically
congressional
regime has released
that Burma has
elected government
committees” that the
NLD members
made measurable
in Burma” and when
SPDC has released all
currently being held
and substantial
conditions in Section political prisoners;
for political offenses
progress in
(3)(a)(3)—progress
entered into “a
and other pro-
improving human
on human rights,
substantial dialogue with
democracy activists;
rights practices and
release of all political democratic forces led by
enters into dialogue
implementing
prisoners, freedom
the National League for
with the democratic
democratic
of speech and the
Democracy and the
opposition; or
government”
press, freedom of
ethnic minorities of
makes significant
association, peaceful
Burma on transitioning to
progress toward
exercise of religion,
democratic government
improving the
democratic
under the rule of law”;
human rights
governance, not
and allowed humanitarian
situation in the
designated as “a
access to people in areas
country
country of interest”
of armed conflict in
for narcotics
Burma
trafficking—have
been met
Report or
none
Every six months
List of banned
No later than 120 days
Publication
after the enactment
individuals to be
after enactment
Requirements
of the act, the
posted on
[November 26, 2008] the
President shall
Department of
President shall transmit
report to the
State’s web pagea
to the appropriate
chairmen of the
congressional committees
Committee on
a list of sanctioned
Foreign Relations,
officials; updated
the Committee on
sanctioned officials lists
International
shall be provided to the
Relations [Foreign
appropriate congressional
Affairs] and the
committees “as new
House and Senate
information becomes
Appropriations
available”
Committees on:
progress towards
democratization in
Burma; progress on
improving the quality
of life of the
Burmese people; and
progress made in
developing a
multilateral strategy
towards Burma
a. According to the State Department, this reporting requirement is no longer in effect. Also, the State
Department asserts that visa application information is strictly confidential, making it illegal to post the list
on its webpage.

Congressional Research Service
9

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma


Restrictions on Financial Services
Restrictions on the provision of certain types of financial services to Burma from the United
States or by a “United States person”16 are in E.O. 13047, E.O. 13310, and the 2008 JADE Act.
The 2008 JADE Act also allows the Secretary of Treasury to place restrictions on the use of
correspondent or payable-through accounts in U.S. financial institutions, but the Secretary has not
exercised this option.
Table 2. Restrictions on Financial Services

E.O. 13047
E.O. 13310
2008 JADE Act
Main
Prohibits the “approval or
Prohibits the export or
No United States person may
Provisions
other facilitation by a United reexport, directly or
engage in a financial transaction
States person, wherever
indirectly, of financial
with the SPDC or with a person
located, of a transaction by a services to Burma either
ineligible for a U.S. visa under the
foreign person where the
from the United States or
provisions of this act (see Table
transaction would constitute by a “United States person,
1); prohibited financial
a new investment in Burma
wherever located”; and
transactions include payments or
prohibited by this order if
“approval, financing,
transfers of property, transactions
engaged in by a United
facilitation, or guarantee by
involving the transfer of anything
States person or within the
a United States person,
of economic value; Secretary of
United States”; and “any
wherever located, of a
the Treasury may prohibit or
transaction by a United
transaction by a foreign
impose conditions on the opening
States person or within the
person where the
or maintaining of a correspondent
United States that evades or transaction by that foreign
or payable-through account by any
avoids, or has the purpose
person would be prohibited
financial institution organized
of evading or avoiding, or
by this order if performed
under U.S. law if the Secretary
attempts to violate, any of
by a United States person or determines the account might be
the prohibitions set forth in
within the United States”
used by a foreign banking
this order”
institution holding property for
the SPDC or with a person
ineligible for a U.S. visa under the
provisions of this act or to
conduct a transaction on their
behalf

16 By the definitions included in both E.O.’s and the 2008 JADE Act, a “United States person” includes a U.S. citizen,
permanent resident alien, entity organized under U.S. law, or any person in the United States.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma


E.O. 13047
E.O. 13310
2008 JADE Act
Conditions or
Provisions do not prohibit
Exceptions as provided in
Exceptions for transactions
Exceptions
the entry into, performance
Section 203(b) of IEEPA (50
authorized under E.O. 13047 and
of, or financing of a contract
U.S.C. 1702(b)); revokes
E.O. 13310; restrictions do not
to sell or purchase goods,
provisions in E.O. 13047 “to apply to contracts or other
services, or technology,
the extent that they are
financial transactions for
except new contracts for
inconsistent with this order” nongovernmental humanitarian
the development of
organizations in Burma; Secretary
resources in Burma
of the Treasury may authorize
providing payment for the
exceptions to permit the
supervision or guarantee of
operation of diplomatic missions,
another person’s
to conduct official government
performance, payment for
business in Burma, to permit U.S.
shares, equity interest,
citizens to visit Burma, and permit
royalties, earnings, and
compliance with international
profits
agreements; Secretary of the
Treasury must consult with
Secretary of State, Attorney
General and the Chairman of the
Federal Reserve’s Board of
Governors prior to invoking
option to prohibit or impose
conditions on correspondent or
payable-through accounts
Waiver
None specified
None specified
Presidential waiver al owed only if
Provisions
he determines and certifies to the
appropriate congressional
committees that it is “in the
national interests of the United
States”
Termination,
None specified
None specified
Until the President determines
Duration, or
and certifies “to the appropriate
Renewal
congressional committees” that
Conditions
the SPDC has released all political
prisoners; entered into “a
substantial dialogue with
democratic forces led by the
National League for Democracy
and the ethnic minorities of Burma
on transitioning to democratic
government under the rule of
law”; and allowed humanitarian
access to people in areas of armed
conflict in Burma
Report or
None specified
None specified
No later than 120 days after
Publication
enactment [November 26, 2008]
Requirements
the President shall transmit to the
appropriate congressional
committees a list of sanctioned
officials; updated sanctioned
officials lists shall be provided to
the appropriate congressional
committees “as new information
becomes available”
Congressional Research Service
11

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

“Frozen Assets”
The “freezing” of assets of sanctioned Burmese officials is included in three executive orders—
E.O. 13310, E.O. 13448, and E.O. 13464—as well as the 2003 BFDA and the 2008 JADE Act.
Each of the successive executive orders broadened the list of Burmese persons and entities
subjected to the asset freeze. The 2008 JADE Act directly tied the list of sanctioned persons to the
visa ban list.

Congressional Research Service
12

---

Table 3. “Frozen Assets”

2003 BFDA
E.O. 13310
E.O. 13448
E.O. 13464
2008 JADE Act
Main Provisions Requires U.S. financial
Blocks the transfer,
Blocks the transfer,
Blocks the transfer,
No property or interest in
institutions to freeze the
payment, export, or
payment, export, or
payment, export, or
property of persons
funds and assets belonging
withdrawal of all property
withdrawal of all property
withdrawal of all property
ineligible for a U.S. visa
to the SPDC, the senior
and interests in property of
and interests in property of
and interests in property of
under the provisions of this
officials of the SPDC or the
sanctions persons if said
sanctioned persons if said
sanctioned persons if said
act (see Table 1) may be
USDA; requires the
property is in or comes into property is in or comes into property is in or comes into transferred, paid, exported,
President to promulgate
the United States, or the
the United States, or said
the United States, or said
or withdrawn if: the
regulations no later than 60
property is or comes within
property or interests in
property or interests in
property is located in the
days after enactment
the possession or control of property are or come
property are or come
United States; within the
[September 26, 2003] for
U.S. persons; sanctioned
within the possession or
within the possession or
possession or control of a
the enforcement of this act;
persons include persons
control of U.S. persons;
control of U.S. persons;
U.S. person (including
U.S. financial institutions
listed in Annex of the order, sanctioned persons include
sanctioned persons include
overseas branch of a U.S.
shall report frozen funds or
or “any person determined
persons listed in Annex of
persons listed in Annex of
person); or the property
assets to the Office of
by the Secretary of
the order, or “any person
the order, or “any person
comes into the possession
Foreign Assets Control
Treasury, in consultation
determined by the Secretary determined by the Secretary or control of a U.S. person
(OFAC)
with the Secretary of State,
of the Treasury, in
of the Treasury, in
after the date of enactment
to be: a senior official of the
consultation with the
consultation with the
of this act
SPDC, USDA, or a
Secretary of State,” to be a
Secretary of State,” to be
successor entity”; or
senior official of the SPDC,
owned or control ed by,
“owned or controlled by, or USDA, or a successor
directly or indirectly, the
acting or purporting to act
entity; “responsible for, or
Government of Burma, or
for on the behalf of, directly
to have participated in,
official(s) of the
or indirectly, any person
human rights abuses in
Government of Burma; to
whose property and
Burma; engaged in, or have
have provided financial,
interests are blocked
engaged in activities
material, logistical, or
pursuant to this order”
facilitating public corruption
technical support for the
by senior officials of the
Government of Burma, the
Government of Burma”;
SPDC, the USDA, or
providing financial, material,
successor entities, or senior
logistical, or technical
officials of the foregoing;
support for the
acting on behalf of a person
Government of Burma, the
whose property is blocked
SPDC, the USDA, or
by E.O. 13310, E.O. 13448,
successor entities, or senior
or E.O. 13464
officials of the foregoing;
acting on behalf of a
sanctioned person; or
spouse or dependent child
of sanctioned person
CRS-13

---

2003 BFDA
E.O. 13310
E.O. 13448
E.O. 13464
2008 JADE Act
Conditions or
Provides “additional
Exceptions as provided
Government of Burma
Government of Burma
Restrictions do not apply to
Exceptions
authority” to the President
under Section 203(b)(1), (3), includes its agencies,
includes its agencies,
contracts or other financial
to take action “as may be
and (4) of IEEPA; using
instrumentalities, and
instrumentalities, and
transactions for
necessary to impose a
authority under IEEPA,
control ed entities, and the
control ed entities, and the
nongovernmental
sanctions regime to freeze
prohibits the donation of
Central Bank of Burma;
Central Bank of Burma;
humanitarian organizations
such funds and assets”;
blocked property “intended
using authority under IEEPA, using authority under IEEPA, in Burma; Secretary of the
allows the President to
to be used to relieve human
prohibits the donation of
prohibits the donation of
Treasury may authorize
delegate the duties and
suffering”
blocked property “intended
blocked property “intended
exceptions to permit the
authorities to Federal or
to be used to relieve human
to be used to relieve human
operation of diplomatic
other officials
suffering”
suffering”
missions, to conduct official
government business in
Burma, to permit U.S.
citizens to visit Burma, and
permit compliance with
international agreements
Waiver
None specified
None specified
None specified
None specified
Presidential waiver al owed
Provisions
only if he determines and
certifies to the appropriate
congressional committees
that it is “in the national
interests of the United
States”
Termination,
President may terminate
None specified
None specified
None specified
Until the President
Duration, or
“upon request of a
determines and certifies “to
Renewal
democratically elected
the appropriate
Conditions
government in Burma” and
congressional committees
when conditions in Section
that the SPDC has released
(3)(a)(3)—progress on
all political prisoners;
human rights, release of all
entered into “a substantial
political prisoners, freedom
dialogue with democratic
of speech and the press,
forces led by the National
freedom of association,
League for Democracy and
peaceful exercise of religion,
the ethnic minorities of
democratic governance, not
Burma on transitioning to
designated as “a country of
democratic government
interest” for narcotics
under the rule of law”; and
trafficking—have been met
allowed humanitarian access
to people in areas of armed
conflict in Burma
CRS-14

---

2003 BFDA
E.O. 13310
E.O. 13448
E.O. 13464
2008 JADE Act
Report or
None specified
None specified
None specified
None specified
No later than 120 days after
Publication
enactment [November 26,
Requirements
2008] the President shall
transmit to the appropriate
congressional committees a
list of sanctioned officials;
updated sanctioned officials
lists shall be provided to the
appropriate congressional
committees “as new
information becomes
available”
Source: CRS research

CRS-15

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

General Import Restrictions
Restrictions on the import of goods of Burmese origin in general are included in two laws—
Section 138 of the Customs and Trade Act of 1990 and the 2003 BFDA—and one executive
order, E.O. 13310. While the two laws ban the import of Burmese products, the executive order
provides a waiver to comply with existing international obligations of the United States. On
September 30, 2011, Congress passed the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2017,
P.L. 112-33), in which Section 140 extended the general import ban in the 2003 BFDA as of July
26, 2011, for an additional year.

Congressional Research Service
16

---

Table 4. General Import Restrictions

Section 138
2003 BFDA
E.O. 13310
Main Provisions “[T]he President shall impose such sanctions
“[U]ntil such time as the President determines
Waives the ban on the importation of products
upon Burma as the President determines to be
and certifies to Congress that Burma has met the
of Burma if the prohibition “would conflict with
appropriate, including any sanctions appropriate
conditions described in paragraph (3), beginning
the international obligations of the United States
under the Narcotics Control Act of 1986,”
30 days after the enactment of this Act, the
under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
unless he certifies to Congress prior to October
President shall ban the importation of any article
Relations, the Vienna Convention on Consular
1, 1990, that Burma has al the conditions listed
that is a product of Burma”
Relations, the United Nations Headquarters
in subsection (b) of the act; ”the President shall
Agreement, and other legal instruments providing
give primary consideration to the imposition of
equivalent privileges and immunities”
sanctions on those products which constitute
major imports from Burma, including fish,
tropical lumber, and aquatic animals”
Conditions or
The President may decide not to impose
Conditions of paragraph (3) are the SPDC has
None specified
Exceptions
sanctions if Burma has met the conditions in
made “substantial and measurable progress” to
subsection (b): Burma meets the certification
end human rights violations; the Secretary of
requirements of Section 802(b) of the Narcotics
State reports to the appropriate congressional
Control Act of 1986; national government legal
committees that “the SPDC no longer
authority in Burma has been transferred to a
systematically violates workers rights;” the SPDC
civilian government; martial law in Burma has
has made “substantial and measurable progress”
been lifted; and all political prisoners have been
to a democratic government, including the
released
release of all political prisoners, allowing freedom
of speech, the press, and association, permitting
the peaceful exercise of religion, and concluding
an agreement between the SPDC, the NLD, and
Burma’s ethnic minorities to transfer power to a
democratically elected civilian government; and
Burma has not been designated as a country that
“has failed demonstrably to make substantial
efforts to adhere to its obligations under
international counternarcotics agreements”
Waiver
None specified
The President may waive the import ban, in part
None specified
Provisions
or full, if he determines and notifies the
Committees on Appropriations, Finance, and
Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committees on Appropriations, International
Relations [Foreign Affairs], and Ways and Means
of the House of Representatives that to do so is
in the national interest of the United States
CRS-17

---

Section 138
2003 BFDA
E.O. 13310
Termination,
None specified
The President may terminate “upon request of a
None specified
Duration, or
democratically elected government in Burma”
Renewal
and when conditions in Section (3)(a)(3)—
Conditions
progress on human rights, release of all political
prisoners, freedom of speech and the press,
freedom of association, peaceful exercise of
religion, democratic governance, not designated
as “a country of interest” for narcotics
trafficking—have been met; import ban expires
one year from the date of enactment unless
Congress passes a resolution renewing the ban
for a one-year period before the expiration of
the ban; length of renewal limited to three years
Report or
If the President does not impose economic
No later than 90 days before the import
None specified
Publication
sanctions, he must report to Congress his
restrictions are to expire, the Secretary of State,
Requirements
reasons for not imposing sanctions, and the
in consultation with the U.S. Trade
actions he is taking to see that the conditions in
Representative and “the heads of appropriate
subsection (b) are being achieved; subsequent
agencies,” shall submit to the Committees on
semiannual reports to Congress are required for
Appropriations, Finance, and Foreign Relations of
two additional years, if no economic sanctions
the Senate and the Committees on
are imposed
Appropriations, International Relations [Foreign
Affairs], and Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives a report on bilateral and
multilateral efforts to promote human rights and
democracy in Burma, the effectiveness of the
trade sanctions on improving conditions in Burma
and furthering U.S. policy objections towards
Burma, and the impact of the trade sanctions on
national security, economic, and foreign policy
interests of the United States
Source: CRS research

CRS-18

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

Specific Import Restrictions
Both the 2003 BFDA and the 2008 JADE Act contain specific import restrictions in addition to
the general prohibition on the import of products described above. The 2003 BFDA bans import
of products and services from certain companies. The 2008 JADE Act prohibits the importation
of certain products.
Table 5. Specific Import Restrictions

2003 BFDA
2008 JADE Act
Main
Bans the import of products from the SPDC,
Amends the 2003 BDFA to prohibit the import
Provisions
any ministry of the SPDC, a member of the
of “Burmese covered articles,” which includes
SPDC, an immediate family member of the
jadeite mined or extracted in Burma; rubies
SPDC; known narcotics traffickers from Burma
mined or extracted in Burma; articles of
or their immediate families; the Union of
jewelry containing jadeite or rubies mined or
Myanmar Economics Holdings Incorporated
extracted in Burma starting 60 days after the
(UMEHI) or any company in which the UMEHI
enactment of the act [September 27, 2008];
has a fiduciary interest; the Myanmar Economic
establishes requirements for the import of
Corporation (MEC) or any company in which
“non-Burmese covered articles”
the MEC has a fiduciary interest, the USDA; or
any successor entity for the SPDC, UMEHI,
MEC, or USDA
Conditions or
None specified
Excludes articles that were previously exported
Exceptions
from the United States and then reimported
into the United States by the same person
without improvement in its value or condition
while outside the United States; allows the
import of non-Burmese covered articles for
personal use; also see column on 2003 BFDA
of Table 4
Waiver
None specified
See column on 2003 BFDA of Table 4
Provisions
Termination,
None specified
Amends duration conditions of 2003 BFDA to
Duration, or
include covered articles (see Table 4)
Renewal
Conditions
Congressional Research Service
19

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma


2003 BFDA
2008 JADE Act
Report or
None specified
Not later than 180 days after enactment
Publication
[January 25, 2009], the President shall transmit
Requirements
to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and
Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives, and the Committees on
Finance and Foreign Relations in the Senate,
actions taken during the 60 days after
enactment of the act to obtain draft waiver
decision from the World Trade Organization,
an adoption of a U.N. General Assembly
resolution, and the negotiation of an
international identification system for covered
articles like the Kimberley Process Certification
Scheme for diamonds; not later than 14 months
[September 29, 2009] after enactment, the U.S.
Comptroller General shall submit to the
Committees on Foreign Affairs and Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives, and
the Committees on Finance and Foreign
Relations in the Senate, a report on the
effectiveness of the implementation of these
sanctions
Source: CRS research
Investment Ban
The ban on new investments in Burma is in Section 570 of the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997, and E.O. 13047, with the law
providing the presidential authority and the E.O. exercising that authority. On May 16, 2011,
President Obama issued an official notice renewing the national emergency with respect to
Burma.17
Table 6. Investment Ban

Section 570
E.O. 13047
Main
Authorizes the President to prohibit new
Prohibits new investments in Burma
Provisions
investments in Burma
Conditions or
Requires the President prohibit new
“Except to the extent provided in regulations,
Exceptions
investments in Burma if he “determines and
orders, directives, or licenses that may be
certifies to Congress that, after the enactment
issued in conformity with section 570” of the
of the Act, the Government of Burma has
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and
physically harmed, rearrested for political acts,
Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1997
or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or has committed
(P.L. 104-208)
large-scale repression of or violence again the
Democratic opposition”

17 Executive Notice, “Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Burma,” 76 Federal Register 28883,
May 18, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma


Section 570
E.O. 13047
Waiver
Temporary or permanent presidential waiver if
None specified
Provisions
sanctions are “contrary to the national security
interests of the United States”
Termination,
None specified in law; declaration of national
None specified in law; declaration of national
Duration, or
emergency with respect to Burma subject to
emergency with respect to Burma subject to
Renewal
annual renewal by President
annual renewal by President
Conditions
Report or
Every six months after the enactment of the
None specified
Publication
act, the President shall report to the chairmen
Requirements of the Committee on Foreign Relations, the
Committee on International Relations [Foreign
Affairs], and the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees on progress
towards democratization in Burma; progress
on improving the quality of life of the Burmese
people; and progress made in developing a
multilateral strategy towards Burma
Source: CRS research
Bilateral and Multilateral Assistance Ban
Restrictions on bilateral assistance to Burma are in Section 570 of the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997. Section 307 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 withholds U.S. funding for international organizations with programs in
Burma, with some specific exceptions. Section 5 of the 2003 BFDA requires the U.S. executive
director of each international financial institution (IFI) in which the United States participates to
vote against the extension of any loan, financial or technical assistance to Burma. Although the
United States lacks enough votes to block an IFI from providing loans or assistance to Burma, in
practice, it is unlikely that any IFI will proceed if the United States opposes the aid.
Table 7. Bilateral and Multilateral Assistance Ban

Section 307
Section 570
2003 BFDA
Main
Withholds U.S. funding for
Ban on bilateral assistance to
Secretary of the Treasury shall
Provisions
international organizations
Burma other than
instruct the U.S. executive
with programs in Burma,
humanitarian assistance;
director to each appropriate
except for the International
counter-narcotics or crop
international financial
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
substitution assistance (if the
institution in which the United
or the United Nations
Secretary of State certifies to
States participates, to oppose,
Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
the appropriate congressional
and vote against the extension
committees that Burma is
by such institution of any loan
“ful y cooperating” with U.S.
or financial or technical
counter-narcotics efforts, and
assistance to Burma.
the programs are consistent
with U.S. human rights
concerns in Burma, and serve
U.S. national interest); and
assistance promoting human
rights and democratic values
Congressional Research Service
21

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma


Section 307
Section 570
2003 BFDA
Conditions or
None specified
As required by treaty
None specified
Exceptions
obligations or to staff of
Burmese mission in the United
States
Waiver
None specified
Temporary or permanent
None specified
Provisions
presidential waiver if sanctions
are “contrary to the national
security interests of the
United States”
Termination,
None specified
“Until such time as the
The President may terminate
Duration, or
President determines and
“upon request of a
Renewal
certifies to Congress that
democratically elected
Conditions
Burma has made measurable
government in Burma” and
and substantial progress in
when conditions in Section
improving human rights
(3)(a)(3)—progress on human
practices and implementing
rights, release of all political
democratic government”
prisoners, freedom of speech
and the press, freedom of
association, peaceful exercise
of religion, democratic
governance, not designated as
“a country of interest” for
narcotics trafficking—have
been met
Report or
Annual review by the
Every six months after the
None specified
Publication
Secretary of State reported to
enactment of the act, the
Requirements the appropriate committees
President shall report to the
(House Committee on
chairmen of the Committee
Foreign Affairs and Senate
on Foreign Relations, the
Committee on Foreign
Committee on International
Relations) of the “budgets and
Relations [Foreign Affairs], and
accounts of all international
the House and Senate
organizations receiving
Appropriations Committees
payments of any funds
on progress towards
authorized to be appropriated
democratization in Burma;
by this chapter” [Chapter 3—
progress on improving the
International Organizations
quality of life of the Burmese
and Programs], including the
people; and progress made in
amounts expended for
developing a multilateral
programs in Burma and U.S.
strategy towards Burma
contributions to the
organizations
Source: CRS research
Additional Sanctions Based on Functional Issues18
In addition to the targeted sanctions, Burma is currently subject to certain sanctions specified in
U.S. laws based on various functional issues. In many cases, the type of assistance or relations

18 This section based on text provided by Liana Sun Wyler, Analyst in International Crime and Narcotics.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

restricted or prohibited by these provisions is also addressed under Burma-specific sanction laws.
The functional issues include
• Child Soldiers: Burma is prohibited from receiving certain types of foreign
assistance under the provisions of the Child Soldiers Preventions Act of 2008
(Title IV of P.L. 110-457) because of its designation as a foreign government that
hosts governmental armed forces or supports armed groups that recruit and use
child soldiers.19 As a result, Burma is ineligible to receive aid under International
Military Education and Training (IMET), the Foreign Military Financing (FMF),
and Section 1206 assistance, as well as excess defense articles and the issuance
of licenses for direct commercial sales of military equipment.20
• Drug Trafficking: Burma is prohibited from receiving certain types of foreign
assistance, as well as other types of foreign policy provisions, because of its
designation by the President as a major illicit drug producing and/or drug-transit
country under Section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA, 87-195,
as amended) and Section 706 of Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year
2003 (P.L. 107-228, as amended).21
• Human Trafficking: Burma is prohibited from receiving non-humanitarian and
non-trade-related foreign assistance because of its designation by the President as
a “Tier 3” country in the 2011 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report. Tier 3
countries are statutorily defined in the Victims of Trafficking and Violence
Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA, P.L. 106-386, as amended) as noncompliant with
the minimum standards for the elimination of TIP and not making significant
efforts to bring themselves into compliance with such standards. On September
30, 2011, President Obama issued Presidential Determination 2001-28, granting

19 Child soldiers are statutorily defined in Sec. 402 of the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 as “(i) any person
under 18 years of age who has taken direct part in hostilities as a member of governmental armed forces; (ii) any
person under 18 years of age who has been compulsorily recruited into governmental armed forces; (iii) any person
under 15 years of age who has been voluntarily recruited into governmental armed forces; and (iv) any person under 18
years of age who has been recruited or used in hostilities by armed forces distinct from the armed forces of a state.”
The definition includes any of the above serving in “any capacity, including in a support role as a cook, porter,
messenger, medic, guard, or sex slave.”
20 The list of countries subject to sanction under the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 is required to be published
in the State Department’s annual TIP report. The first list under this provision was published in the June 2010 edition
of the TIP report. On October 4, 2011, President Obama issued Presidential Determination No. 2012-1 granting a
waiver for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Yemen – but not for Burma.
21 Section 481 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 stipulates that U.S. assistance subject to sanction includes any
assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, including programs under Title IV of Chapter 2, relating to the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, other than: assistance provided under the International Narcotics Control
chapter (Chapter 8) of Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which includes all International Narcotics Control
and Law Enforcement (INCLE) aid account funds; any other narcotics-related assistance in Part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as well as in Chapter 4 of Part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which includes the
Economic Support Fund (ESF) aid account; disaster relief assistance, including any assistance under the International
Disaster Assistance chapter (Chapter 9) of Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; assistance that involves the
provision of food, including monetization of food, or medicine; and assistance for refugees. Additionally, U.S.
assistance subject to sanction under the same provision includes sales, or financing on any terms, under the Arms
Export Control Act; the provision of agricultural commodities, other than food, under the Food for Peace Act; and
financing under the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945. In certain cases, the performance determinations of drug majors
can affect other types of U.S. foreign policy provisions, including foreign country beneficiary status for trade
preferences, the transfer of forfeited property and assets to foreign countries, credit sales of defense articles and
services, and special debt relief to low income countries.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

Burma a partial waiver of the aid sanctions of the TVPA, to provide assistance
for controlling infectious diseases.22 On February 3, 2012, he issued a
presidential memorandum waiving section 110(d)(1)(B) of the TVPA with
respect to Burma.23 The memorandum specifically waives the requirement for
U.S. Executive Directors to vote against or otherwise deny non-trade, non-
humanitarian loans or other utilization of funds to Burma through multilateral
development banks and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).24 Despite the
presidential waiver, the requirement that the Executive Director of each
multilateral development bank oppose and vote against loans and other forms of
assistance to Burma remains in force because of other laws (see “Bilateral and
Multilateral Assistance Ban” above).
• Money Laundering and Organized Crime: Burma’s Mayflower Bank and Asia
Wealth Bank, and the jurisdiction of Burma as a whole, including its state-run
banks, are designated as “primary money laundering jurisdictions of concern”
under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56, as amended) for the
country’s absence of money laundering regulations, weak oversight of the
banking sector, and private bank connections to account holders involved in
organized crime, particularly drug trafficking. Under this provision, the Treasury
Department imposed a “special measure” to prohibit certain U.S. financial
institutions from establishing, maintaining, administering, or managing
correspondent or payable-through accounts for, or on behalf of, Myanmar
Mayflower Bank, Asia Wealth Bank, and any other Burmese banking institution.
This prohibition extends to correspondent or payable-through accounts
maintained for other foreign banks when such accounts are used to provide
banking services to Burmese banks indirectly.25

22 Section 110 of the TVPA defines excluded assistance as: assistance under Chapter 4 of Part II of the FAA in support
of nongovernmental organization (NGO) programs that is made available for programs, projects, or activities eligible
for assistance under Chapter 1 of Part I of the FAA; assistance for international narcotics control under Chapter 8 of
Part I of the FAA; any other narcotics-related assistance under Part I of the FAA or under Chapter 4 or 5 Part II of the
FAA; disaster relief assistance, including any assistance under Chapter 9 of Part I of the FAA; antiterrorism assistance
under Chapter 8 of Part II of the FAA; assistance for refugees; humanitarian and other development assistance in
support of NGO programs under Chapters 1 and 10 of the FAA; programs under Title IV of Chapter 2 of Part I of the
FAA relating to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; other programs involving trade-related or humanitarian
assistance; and sales, or financing on any terms, under the Arms Export Control Act, other than sales or financing
provided for narcotics-related purposes.
23 Office of the Press Secretary, “Presidential Memorandum – Delegation of Authority Pursuant to Sections 110(d)4
and 110(f) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, as Amended,” February 3, 2012.
24 Section 110(d)(1)(B) of the TVPA had required the U.S. Executive Director of each multilateral development bank
(including the IMF) to vote against, “and use the Executive Director’s best efforts to deny,” any loan or other
utilization of the bank’s funds to Burma for the subsequent fiscal year if Burma is determined to have not complied
with minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking and is not making significant efforts to bring itself
into compliance.
25 In the Federal Register notice regarding the application of Section 311 Special Measures on Burma, the Treasury
Department provides the following explanation regarding how this sanction will differ from those already imposed on
Burma: “The imposition of Section 311 special measures reinforces the existing restrictions on transactions with Burma
that are outlined above. Although they are similar in their effect, the Section 311 special measures differ in certain
respects and serve distinct policy goals. First, the Section 311 special measures are potentially broader than the existing
sanctions in at least one respect—they apply to all foreign branches of Burmese banking institutions. Second, the
purposes served by the Section 311 action differ markedly from the purposes of the economic sanctions described
above. This action under Section 311 is premised on the Secretary’s determination that Burma poses an unacceptable
risk of money laundering and other financial crimes, due to its failure to implement an effective anti-money laundering
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
24

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

• Religious Freedom: The International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA, P.L. 105-
292, as amended) requires that the President conduct an annual review of the
status of religious freedom in other nations, and authorizes the imposition of
various types of sanctions on nations that seriously violate religious freedom.26
Burma has been designated a “country of particular concern for religious
freedom” pursuant to this act since 1999.27 Burma was most recently re-
designated in 2009.28 As the sanctioning action imposed on Burma pursuant to
IRFA and currently in effect, the Secretary of State has elected to continue the
existing arms embargo against Burma.29
• Workers Rights: The Trade Reform Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-618, as amended)
grants the President the authority to withdraw preferential trade treatment under
the U.S. generalized system of preferences (GSP) program if a country “has not
taken or is not taking steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights to
workers in the country.” On April 13, 1989, President George Bush issued
Presidential Proclamation 5955 suspending Burma’s preferential treatment under
the GSP program, invoking his authority under the Trade Reform Act of 1974.
• World Peace and the Security and Foreign Policy of the United States: The
President has the authority under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-
329) to prohibit all arms exports to a country “in furtherance of world peace and
the security and foreign policy of the United States.” On September 23, 1988,
President Reagan invoked his powers under this law to impose an arms embargo
on Burma. In addition, on June 9, 1993, the State Department issued a public
notice implementing an immediate ban on export of defense articles and services
to Burma.30 The U.S. arms embargo on Burma remains in effect.
Additional Sanctions Previously Proposed
Over the last 20 years, Members of Congress have proposed, and at times considered, additional
sanctions on Burma. Some of those proposed sanctions would go beyond the current sanctions
regime. Others would fall under broader sanctions already enacted.

(...continued)
regime. The goals of this action include protecting the U.S. financial system and encouraging Burma to make the
necessary changes to its anti-money laundering regime. The existing sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13310, on
the other hand, were imposed for different reasons, in particular to take additional steps with respect to the government
of Burma’s continued repression of the democratic opposition.” See U.S. Department of Treasury, “Imposition of
Special Measures Against Burma: Final Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 70, April 12, 2004, p. 19093.
26 These functions were delegated to the Secretary of State in “Delegation of Responsibilities Under the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998,” Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 168, August 31, 1999.
27 “Designation of Countries of Particular Concern Under The International Religious Freedom Act,” Federal Register,
Vol. 64, No. 212, November 3, 1999.
28 “Secretary of State’s Determination Under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998,” Federal Register, Vol.
74, No. 89, May 11, 2009.
29 The existing arms embargo is referenced in 22 CFR 126.1(a).
30 Department of State, “Suspension of Munitions Export Licenses to Burma,” 58 Federal Register 33293, June 16,
1993.
Congressional Research Service
25

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

The notion of a complete ban on the importation of products of Burmese origin first appeared in
legislation in the Senate version of the Customs and Trade Act of 1990 (see above). It reappeared
in proposed legislation in 1995, when S. 1092 was introduced during the 104th Congress. S. 1092
would have prohibited the importation of any article “produced, manufactured, grown, or
extracted in Burma.”
As early as June 1989, legislation was introduced in Congress to prohibit the import of selected
Burmese products. Initially, these proposed import bans were directed at products of Burmese
origin. For example, in the 101st Congress, H.R. 2578 would have blocked the importation of teak
and fish products from Burma. In the 106th Congress, H.R. 5603 and S. 3246 were introduced,
proposing a ban on the importation of all textile and apparel products from Burma.31 Later on, the
proposed import bans would have prohibited the importation of goods containing materials, parts,
or components originating in Burma, regardless of the country of origin of the imported good. For
example, S. 2172 and S. 2257 of the 110th Congress would have banned the importation of goods
containing “any gemstones or rough unfinished geological materials” and “any teak or other
hardwood timber” from Burma, regardless of the country of origin of the imported good.
Various bills and resolutions have also been proposed calling for a broader arms embargo on
Burma. In some cases, such as S.Res. 195 of the 102nd Congress, the President and the U.S.
Permanent Representative to the United Nations were to “take the strongest possible action” in
support of an global arms embargo on the country. In other cases, such as H.Con.Res. 308, H.Res.
473, and S.Con.Res. 107 of the 102nd Congress, the legislation would have required the President
and/or the Secretary of State to press China to end its military assistance to Burma. In the 104th
Congress, S. 1092 would have required the United States to vote against any loan or assistance to
China by a multilateral financial institution “until the President determines and certifies to the
appropriate congressional committee that the People’s Republic of China has terminated arms
sales and other arms transfers to Burma.”
China is not the only nation specifically identified in congressional legislation to be pressed to
support sanctions on Burma. The members of the European Union (EU) and the nine other
members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)32 have been mentioned in
several bills as countries that should be pushed to tighten their sanction regimes against Burma. In
the 110th Congress, H.Con.Res. 200 called upon ASEAN to suspend Burma’s membership in the
organization. In addition, S. 1092 of the 104th Congress would have denied certain trade benefits
to countries designed as “beneficiary developing countries” under Title V of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.), as a “beneficiary country” of the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), or as a “beneficiary country” of the Andean Trade
Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.) unless those nations entered into an agreement with the
United States to cease trade and investment in Burma.
There has also been congressional consideration of broader financial sanctions on Burma. The
House version of the 2008 JADE Act initially included provisions that would have prohibited
“United States persons” from entering into economic-financial transactions, paying taxes, or
performing “any contract” with Burmese government institutions or individuals. The prohibition

31 Textile and apparel products were defined as items classified under chapters 50 to 63 of Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States.
32 The 10 members of ASEAN are: Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand, and Vietnam.
Congressional Research Service
26

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

of the payment of taxes specifically included the payments of taxes to the Burmese government
by the Yadana natural gas project, in which the U.S. corporation Chevron is a major partner.
These stricken provisions were replaced in the final bill by a “sense of Congress” statement that
Chevron and the other foreign investors should consider voluntary disinvestment from the
project.
Another area targeted by congressional legislation for additional sanctions has been investment in
Burma. S. 1092 of the 104th Congress would have banned all existing and new investments by
U.S. nationals in Burma. Similarly, S. 2172 of the 110th Congress would have banned investments
in Burma by U.S. persons, including those made prior to May 20, 1997, as well as payments to
the SPDC related to the divestment of assets in Burma.
Options for Congress
Various recent developments in Burma sparked a general reexamination of U.S. policy towards
Burma, and a discussion of whether U.S. sanctions have been effective in achieving policy goals
or affecting change in Burma.33 In early 2010, the SPDC began pressuring various ethnic-based
militias with whom it had a ceasefire agreement to agree to be transformed into “border guard
forces” under the command of the Tatmadaw. Several of the militias refused the SPDC’s offer,
and episodic fighting broke out between the Tatmadaw and the militias. Periodic skirmishes
continued throughout 2010 and 2011, with numerous allegations that the Tatmadaw are purposely
engaging in various forms of human rights abuses, including rape, forced labor, and the use of
child soldiers. On November 7, 2010, the SPDC held controversial parliamentary elections and
the newly elected Union Parliament met for the first time on January 31, 2011. On November 13,
2010, Aung San Suu Kyi was released, ending seven years of house arrest. The Union Parliament
selected former general, prime minister, and SPDC member Thein Sein as president. On March
30, 2011, Senior General Than Shwe formally dissolved the SPDC, officially transferred power to
the new Union Government, and appointed General Min Aung Hlaing as his successor as
commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw.34
The installation of the new Union Government issued in an era of political reforms and improved
communications with the United States. Since taking office, President Thein Sein has issued
prisoner amnesties on four occasions, resulting in the release of 28,244 prisoners, including 625
political prisoners.35 The Union Parliament has enacted laws to allow the NLD and other
opposition parties to participate in future parliamentary elections, and permit the formation of
labor unions. In addition, the Union Government has begun ceasefire talks with several of the
nation’s ethnic-based militias, concluding preliminary agreements in some cases.
However, the human rights situation in Burma still has serious problems. According to one
source, over 1,200 political prisoners remain in detention. The government-backed Union

33 For a more detailed description of the major events in Burma in 2010 and 2011 and their implications for U.S. policy,
see CRS Report R41971, U.S. Policy Towards Burma: Issues for the 112th Congress, by Michael F. Martin and Derek
E. Mix.
34 Wai Moe, “Than Shwe Officially Dissolves Junta,” Irrawaddy, March 30, 2011.
35 Figures based on the assessment by the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), or AAPP(B), an
independent organization founded in 2000 by ex-political prisoners. For more information about the AAPP(B), see its
webpage: http://www.aappb.org/.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

Election Commission refuses to register several ethnic-based political parties. Labor unions have
been unable to register, as required by the new law. Despite instructions from President Thein
Sein, the Burmese military continues to attack ethnic-based militias (in particular, the Kachin
Independence Army) and commit severe human rights abuses against civilians in conflict areas.
Part of the U.S. policy debate has been a discussion of whether the United States should add or
remove some or all of the sanctions on Burma, with views generally being contingent on the
actions of the new government and the outcome of the military-on-militia fighting. The 112th
Congress has so far acted to retain the existing sanctions. It passed H.R. 2017 (P.L. 112-33) on
September 30, 2011, extending the general imports restriction in the 2003 BDFA through July
2012. H.Rept. 112-331 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74) reaffirmed
other existing sanctions by barring the use of funds for international military education and
training, foreign military financing, excess defense articles, or Section 1206 assistance;36
restricting the use of the State Department’s Economic Support Fund to humanitarian assistance
in Burma; and restating the requirement that the U.S. executive directors to IFIs vote against “any
loan, agreement, or other financial support to Burma.” The preceding section provides a sense of
the type of additional sanctions Congress has proposed in the past. The current Congress would
not be constrained by these alternatives, if it were to consider adding new sanctions on Burma.
The removal of existing sanctions, by contrast, may be a more complex proposition because of
the overlapping provisions of the laws and E.O.s of the current sanction regime. In addition,
because Burma is subject to sanctions based on assessments related to certain functional issues
(drug trafficking, human trafficking, religious freedoms, etc.), the repeal of Burma-specific
sanction laws or E.O.s may not eliminate certain types of restrictions on Burma. For example,
removing prohibitions on certain types of assistance may be more difficult than eliminating bans
on the importation of selected goods with materials, parts, or components from Burma. In
addition, Congress would likely give consideration to matching the importance or weight of the
sanction to the intended message it would be trying to convey to the Burmese government and the
people of Burma. Such a balance would also heavily depend on the course of events in Burma in
the months ahead.
The Obama Administration has already taken steps designed to encourage the continuation of
desired reforms in Burma. During her trip to Burma, Secretary Clinton announced an increase in
humanitarian assistance to Burma ($1 million for a microfinance program and $200,000 for
landmine removal), as well as other initiatives (such as a $5 million education program being
funded by Brunei). She also indicated additional steps that the Burmese government would have
to take to further improve relations, including
• The release of all political prisoners and the establishment of rule of law in
Burma;
• The cessation of hostilities in ethnic areas, and allowing international
humanitarian groups, human rights monitors, and journalists access to conflict
areas;

36 Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2006, as amended and regularly
extended, provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to train and equip foreign military forces for two specified
purposes—counterterrorism and stability operations—and foreign maritime security forces for counterterrorism
operations.
Congressional Research Service
28

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma

• Efforts to seek a “true political settlement” with Burma’s opposition and ethnic
groups;
• The continuation of the democratization process and the holding of free and fair
parliamentary by-elections “in a timely manner;”
• The creation of a broader space for political and civic activities;
• The implementation of legislation protecting the “universal freedoms of
assembly, speech, and association;” and
• Compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874 (which
impose sanctions on North Korea) and the severance of military ties with North
Korea.
Following the January 13 release of prisoners, Secretary Clinton announced plans to nominate an
ambassador to Burma for the first time in 21 years, and a willingness to accept a Burmese
ambassador to the United States.37 If the Obama Administration should decide it wishes to take
additional measures to support reforms in Burma, it may ask Congress to pass legislation to
revoke or amend provisions in the existing sanctions regime.

Author Contact Information

Michael F. Martin

Specialist in Asian Affairs
mfmartin@crs.loc.gov, 7-2199


Acknowledgments
Portions of this report are based on text provided by Liana Sun Wyler, Analyst in International Crime and
Narcotics (lwyler@crs.loc.gov, 7-6177).


37 The last person nominated to serve as U.S. ambassador to Burma was Parker W. Borg, who was nominated by
President George H.W. Bush on July 19, 1991. The Senate did not confirm the nomination before the end of the Bush
Administration.
Congressional Research Service
29

---