U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th
Congress
Michael F. Martin
Specialist Asian Affairs
January 11, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42939
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Summary
Since December 2011, the Obama Administration has waived many of the existing sanctions
specifically imposed on Burma in an effort to promote greater political and economic reform in
the country. Having waived most of the sanctions for which he had the authority to do so,
President Obama may approach the 113th Congress about the selective repeal or removal of one or
more of the current sanctions on Burma. In addition, the 113th Congress may consider either the
imposition of additional sanctions or the removal of some of the existing sanctions on Burma,
depending on the conduct of the Burmese government and other developments in the country.
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 overview of actions taken to waive
or ease those sanctions by the Obama Administration. The report concludes with a discussion of
actions taken by the 112th Congress and options for 113th Congress.
Current U.S. sanctions on Burma 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.
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.
Burma-specific sanctions began following the Burmese military’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.
In addition to the targeted sanctions, Burma is currently subject to certain sanctions specified in
U.S. laws addressing 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, the SPDC formally dissolved itself and transferred power to a nominally
civilian government known as the Union Government, headed by President Thein Sein, ex-
general and former prime minister for the SPDC. President Thein Sein, with the support of
Burma’s Union Parliament, has implemented a number of political and economic reforms, to
which the Obama Administration has responded by waiving or easing sanctions. However, the
continuation of serious human rights abuses has raised questions about the extent to which there
has been significant political change in Burma, and if the easing of sanctions has been warranted.
This report will be updated as conditions warrant.

Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Contents
Overview of Sanctions ..................................................................................................................... 1
Recent U.S. Sanctions Policy .......................................................................................................... 3
Brief History of U.S. Sanctions on Burma ...................................................................................... 5
Summary of Burma-Specific Sanctions ........................................................................................... 9
Visa Bans ................................................................................................................................... 9
Restrictions on Financial Services ........................................................................................... 14
“Frozen Assets” ....................................................................................................................... 19
General Import Restrictions..................................................................................................... 23
Specific Import Restrictions ...................................................................................................... 1
Investment Ban .......................................................................................................................... 2
Bilateral and Multilateral Assistance Ban ................................................................................. 4
Additional Sanctions Based on Functional Issues ........................................................................... 8
Options for the 113th Congress ...................................................................................................... 11
Burma and the 112th Congress ................................................................................................. 12
Issues for the 113th Congress ................................................................................................... 13
Sanction Renewal .............................................................................................................. 13
Sanction Removal ............................................................................................................. 13
Appropriations ................................................................................................................... 14
General Policy Oversight .................................................................................................. 14

Tables
Table 1. Summary of Status of U.S. Sanctions on Burma ............................................................... 4
Table 2. Visa Bans.......................................................................................................................... 11
Table 3. Restrictions on Financial Services ................................................................................... 16
Table 4. “Frozen Assets” ................................................................................................................ 20
Table 5. General Import Restrictions ............................................................................................. 24
Table 6. Specific Import Restrictions ............................................................................................... 1
Table 7. Investment Ban .................................................................................................................. 3
Table 8. Bilateral and Multilateral Assistance Ban .......................................................................... 6

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 15
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 15

Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Overview of Sanctions
The United States imposes sanctions on Burma through 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
Defining “Sanction”
issued between 1990 and 2012, often
in response to actions on the part of
The term “sanction” has a number of different legal meanings,
depending on the context and/or circumstances in which it is being
Burma’s ruling military junta, the
used. “Sanction” can be used to describe tacit or explicit approval,
State Peace and Development Council
but can also be used to describe disapproval. For international
(SPDC), that were considered
matters, the word often refers to measures taken by a nation or a
sufficiently egregious to warrant the
group of nations to coerce another nation to comply with
imposition of sanctions. In addition,
expected conduct or behavior. These may include diplomatic
measures (e.g., severing diplomatic ties), economic measures (e.g.,
several presidential determinations,
restricting trade), or military measures (e.g., the imposition of a
memoranda, proclamations, and other
“no fly zone”).
documents have been issued that
For purposes of this report, “sanction” refers to any measure or
refine and/or alter the implementation
action of a diplomatic, economic, or military nature taken by a
of the sanctions. The result is a web
nation (usually, the United States) or a group of nations to coerce
of overlapping sanctions subject to
Burma to comply with expected conduct or behavior.
differing restrictions, waiver
provisions, expiration conditions, and reporting requirements.
U.S. sanctions targeted solely at Burma are specified in six federal laws, a series of presidential
executive orders, and other presidential documents. The six 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 Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (Section 570) (P.L. 104-208)1—imposes
various specific sanctions on Burma, unless the President certifies that certain
human rights and democracy standards have been met;
• The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 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 (IFIs); and ban visas for certain
Burmese officials;

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: Issues for the 113th Congress

• The Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta’s Anti-Democratic Efforts)
Act of 2008 (Tom Lantos Block Burmese 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; and
• P.L. 112-192—provides the President with the authority to waive U.S.
opposition to assistance to Burma from IFIs, subject to certain conditions.
Five presidential executive orders (E.O.) currently in force impose sanctions on Burma. The five
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;
• 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; and
• E.O. 13619 – Issued on July 11, 2012, by President Obama, it expanded the list
of Burmese nationals subject to visa bans, the freezing of assets, and other
targeted sanctions.
Beyond the laws and E.O.s, a number of presidential determinations, memoranda, proclamations
and other documents have been issued that either refine the specifics of the sanctions to be
imposed or alter the scope of the sanctions in effect. For example, President Clinton issued
Presidential Proclamation 6925 on October 3, 1996, 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 Similarly, President Bush
issued Presidential Determination No. 2009-11 on January 15, 2009, providing a limited waiver
of some of the sanctions in the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act, stating that doing so was
“in the national interest of the United States.”3 President Obama issued Presidential
Determination No. 2012-15 on September 14, 2012, waiving the restrictions on U.S. assistance
to Burma under Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (P.L. 107-226) by
determining that doing so was in the “national interests of the United States.” References to the
relevant presidential documents are discussed later in the report under the specific type of
sanction affected or altered by the documents.

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: Issues for the 113th Congress

The E.O.s sanctioning Burma rely on the authority vested in the President by the Constitution, the
five Burma sanctions laws, 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
(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 17, 2012, that he was continuing for
another year (May 21, 2012-May 20, 2013) 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
Recent U.S. Sanctions Policy
Current U.S. policy towards Burma can be characterized as the balancing of bilateral engagement
and the maintenance of an assortment of political and economic sanctions. The stated intent of
U.S. policy is to persuade and/or pressure Burma’s quasi-civilian Union Government to release
all political prisoners from detention and advance the nation’s transition to a representative,
democratically elected civilian government that will respect the human rights of the people of
Burma, including its ethnic minorities.6 Since Burma’s former ruling military junta, the State
Peace and Development Council (SPDC), formally transferred power to a quasi-civilian
government in April 2011, Burma’s Union Government and Union Parliament have implemented
a number of political reforms that the Obama Administration sees as progress towards the
fulfillment of U.S. objectives in Burma.

4 The President, “Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Burma,” 77 Federal Register 29851, May
18, 2012.
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 The Burmese government recognizes 135 distinct ethnic groups in the country. In addition, there are several ethnic
groups, such as the Rohingyas, that are not recognized by the government. The ethnic groups are also referred to as
“ethnic minorities” or “nationalities.” This report will generally use the term, “ethnic groups.”
Congressional Research Service
3

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

The Obama Administration’s policy is frequently described as an “action for action” approach. In
an April 4, 2012, press briefing, two unnamed senior Administration officials gave some
indication of the current principles underlying current Burma policy. The first principle is “to
send a clear signal of support for the reform process and reformers.”7 The second principle is to
remove the “bluntness” of the existing sanctions and refocus them onto “the regressive elements,
the corrupt elements, the elements that are not looking forward and consistent with reform going
forward.”8
Table 1. Summary of Status of U.S. Sanctions on Burma
Date of Most
Type of
Recent Waiver
Sanction
Summary of Sanction
(if applicable)
Summary of Waiver
Visa Ban
Prohibition on issuing visas to
September 19,
Lifts visa ban for President Thein Sein
selected Burmese officials
2012
and Speaker Shwe Mann
Restrictions
Limitation on the export or
July 11, 2012
Allows the provision of financial
on Financial
reexport of financial services
services to Burma
Services
to Burma
“Frozen
Prohibition on the transfer or


Assets”
utilization of assets of selected
Burmese officials held by U.S.
financial institutions
General
Ban on the import of products
November 16,
Applies to all goods of Burmese origin
Import Ban
of Burmese origin
2012
except those prohibited by section
3(A) of the Burmese Freedom and
Democracy Act of 2003 and items
prohibited by E.O. 13448, E.O. 13464,
and E.O. 13619.
Specific
Ban on the import of selected


Import Ban
goods contain materials from
Burma, and products made by
certain Burmese companies
Investment
Ban on new U.S. investments
July 11, 2012
Allows new U.S. investments in Burma
Ban
in Burma
Bilateral and
Limitations of the provision of
September 14,
Allows certain U.S. assistance
Multilateral
certain types of assistance to
2012 and
previously prohibited due to Burma’s
Assistance
Burma by the U.S. government
October 12,
poor performance on illegal drug
Ban
and international financial
2012
trafficking and production; Allows the
institutions (IFIs)
United States to support IFI assistance
to Burma
Source: CRS analysis
Notes: For more details on each type of sanction, see relevant sections below.
Since the autumn of 2011, the Obama Administration has taken steps to ease or waive many of
the sanctions on Burma in an effort to foster further reforms in Burma and support individuals
identified as being generally supportive of political and economic reforms. Secretary Clinton
announced plans to ease certain sanctions during her historic trip to Burma in late 2011, the first

7 State Department, “Background Briefing on Burma,” press release, April 4, 2012.
8 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

made by a U.S. Secretary of State since 1955. Another easing of sanctions was announced
following Burma’s April 2012 parliamentary by-elections. More relaxations of sanctions were
announced to coincide with the visits of President Thein Sein and Aung San Suu Kyi to the
United States in September 2012. Subsequent changes in the sanctions regime were made in
October and November 2012.
A major element of the Obama’s Administration’s efforts to foster reforms in Burma has been the
utilization of presidential authority to waive or ease some of the existing political and economic
sanctions on Burma. Although the presidential waivers effectively lift the sanctions, they do not
revoke or remove the sanctions, which can be reimposed at any time. Table 1 summarizes the
sanction waivers authorized to date, as well as which sanctions remain in effect. Details of each
presidential waiver are discussed in the relevant sections below on each type of sanction.
Brief History of U.S. Sanctions on Burma
U.S. sanctions on Burma are the result of a general, but uneven decline in U.S. relations with
Burma and its military, the Tatmadaw, after World War II and continuing until the establishment
of the Union Government. For the most part, the decline was due to what the U.S. government
saw 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).9 In 1953, U.S. economic assistance to Burma temporarily
ceased in part because of the friction over these KMT soldiers. 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
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.

9 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 to 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
5

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Despite the cooling of relations, U.S. policy towards Burma remained relatively normal. The
United States 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 quashed 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.10
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.11 Although 235 political parties registered for the election, only 4 parties won more than
10 of the 485 contested seats.12 In a surprise to many, the National League for Democracy (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 shocked by the election results, and refused to allow the
Union Assembly to meet. Instead, the Burmese military arrested and detained many of the

10 George H.W. Bush, “Amending the Generalized System of Preferences,” Presidential Proclamation 5955, April 13,
1989.
11 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.
12 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
6

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

opposition leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi (who was under detention prior to the election).
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.
As previously noted, President Bush had already suspended Burma’s eligibility for the
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program on April 13, 1989. 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.13 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, 1990.14
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 the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (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.15
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
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.

13 “Presidential Determination No. 90–12—Memorandum on Narcotics Control Certification,” Office of the President,
February 28, 1990.
14 The United States and Burma had a bilateral textile agreement covering selected articles of apparel from January 1,
1987, to December 31, 1990.
15 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
7

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

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.”16 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; 106th Congress) that would have banned all textile and apparel
imports from Burma. In the spring of 2001, similar bills (H.R. 2211 and S. 926; 107th Congress)
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 Tom Lantos Block
Burmese 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 George W. 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.
From the preceding overview, some distinct patterns emerge 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 were generally imposed after Burma’s military had severely violated
the human rights and civil liberties of its political opponents and/or the Burmese people. Third,
Congress has been more proactive in pushing for the imposition of sanctions on Burma than the
White House. Fourth, it is unclear if the imposition of sanctions 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.

16 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
8

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Summary of Burma-Specific Sanctions
The existing U.S. sanctions specifically targeted at Burma can be generally divided into several
broad categories:
• 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.
• Restrictions on the provision of financial services to certain Burmese government
officials, members of their families, and their business associates.
• “Freezing” certain assets of selected individuals held by U.S. entities.
• A general prohibition on the import of goods of Burmese origin.
• A prohibition on the import of certain types of goods and goods from certain
companies.
• A ban on new U.S. investments in Burma, including investments in third country
companies.
• Restrictions on the provision of bilateral and multilateral assistance to Burma.
As previously mentioned, the enforcement of many of these sanctions have been waived, but the
legal authority to impose the sanctions remain in effect and their enforcement could be resumed
at any time.
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, or reporting requirements. A summary of the various provisions
in the laws or E.O.s for each type of sanction follows in tabular form. In cases where the Obama
Administration has waived or eased a sanction, a brief description of what steps were taken, as
well as possible ambiguities about the resulting situation, is provided.
Visa Bans
Three laws 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 Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act, plus Presidential Proclamation
692517 and E.O. 13619. The nature and scope of the visa restrictions differ in each case. In
addition, although there is no language in the Tom Lantos Block Burmese 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

17 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
9

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

require their implementation, and that so far no President has invoked the visa ban authority
granted in the 2003 BFDA.
On April 4, 2012, Secretary Clinton said that the Obama Administration was prepared to facilitate
“travel to the United States for selected government officials and parliamentarians.”18 In a
subsequent press briefing, unnamed Administration officials indicated that the intent is to allow
visits by “select reform-minded authorities.”19 Existing sanctions laws—most notably Section 570
of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 and
the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act—authorize the President to waive restrictions on the
issuance of visas to Burmese officials. In the case of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act,
the President is to determine and certify in writing to Congress that the waiver is in the national
interest of the United States. Presumably, such a written notification to Congress is required for
each case in which the President invokes the authority to waive the visa ban.
On July 11, 2012, President Obama released E.O. 13619, “Blocking Property of Persons
Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Burma.”20 Section 5 of E.O. 13619 prohibits the
entry into the United States as immigrants or nonimmigrants “aliens determined to meet one or
more of the criteria in subsection 1(a) of the document.”
The State Department presumably maintains a list of Burmese nationals that it has determined are
subject to the visa bans contained in the three laws and two presidential documents, but it has
chosen not to make this list public. As a result, it is not known how many—if any—Burmese
nationals have been added to the sanctions list under the provisions of E.O. 13619. Similarly, it is
difficult to determine if the Obama Administration has properly notified the designated
congressional committees on the occasions when visas have been granted to Burmese nationals
who should have been subject to the visa sanction under the current sanction laws.

18 Secretary of State, “Recognizing and Supporting Burma’s Democratic Reforms,” press release, April 4, 2012.
19 State Department, “Background Briefing on Burma,” press release, April 4, 2012.
20 Executive Order 13619, “Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Burma,” 77
Federal Register 41243-41245, July 13, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Table 2. Visa Bans
Presidential
Tom Lantos Block

Proclamation 6925
Section 570
2003 BFDA
Burmese JADE Act
E.O. 13619
Main Provisions
Suspends the entry into
No entry visas for “any
President is authorized to Certain categories of people
Suspends the entry into the
the United States as
Burmese government
deny visas and entry to
are ineligible for U.S. visa:
United States as immigrants or
immigrants or
official”
former and present
former and present leaders of
nonimmigrants aliens who:
nonimmigrants “persons
leadership of the SPDC
the SPDC, USDA, or the
have engaged in acts that
who formulate,
and the USDA
Burmese military; officials of
directly or indirectly threaten
implement, or benefit
the SPDC, USDA, or Burmese
the peace, security, or stability
from policies that impede
military that are “involved in
of Burma; are responsible for
Burma’s transition to
the repression of peaceful
or complicit in human rights
democracy,” and the
political activity or in other
abuses in Burma; have directly
immediate family
gross violations of human rights or indirectly been involved in
members of such persons
in Burma or in the commission
arms trade between Burma and
of other human rights abuses ... North Korea; are a senior
”; persons providing substantial
official in an entity that has
economic and political support
engaged in any of the preceding
for the SPDC, the USDA, or
activities; have materially
the Burmese military; and the
assisted the any of the
immediate family members of
preceding activities; or have
any of the preceding people
acted on behalf of any person
who has engaged in any of the
preceding activities
Conditions or
Does not apply to
As required by treaty
Secretary of State shall
Shal not be construed to
None specified
Exceptions
officials assigned to
obligations or to staff of
coordinate list of banned
conflict with visa eligibility
Burmese missions in the
Burmese mission in the
individuals on a biannual
provisions in P.L. 110-161 for
United States, and
United States
basis with representative
ethnic groups in Burma who
support staff and visitors
of the European Union
were forced to provide labor
who support the work of
(EU)
or support for Burmese
Burmese missions in the
military; Secretary of State may
United States
authorize exceptions to permit
the operation of diplomatic
Does not apply to
missions, to conduct official
persons whose entry is
government business in Burma,
required by international
to permit U.S. citizens to visit
agreements
Burma, and permit compliance
with international agreements
CRS-11

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Presidential
Tom Lantos Block

Proclamation 6925
Section 570
2003 BFDA
Burmese JADE Act
E.O. 13619
Waiver
Permits the Department
Temporary or permanent None specified
Presidential waiver al owed
None specified
Provisions
of State to waive the
presidential waiver if
only if he determines and
entry ban if “the entry of
sanctions are “contrary
certifies in writing to Congress
such person would not
to the national security
that it is “in the national
be contrary to the
interests of the United
interests of the United States”
interests of the United
States”
States”
Termination,
May be repealed, in
“Until such time as the
The President may
Until the President determines
The Secretary of the Treasury,
Duration, or
whole or in part, by
President determines and
terminate “upon request
and certifies “to the
in consultation with the
Renewal
Secretary of State, if “the
certifies to Congress that
of a democratically
appropriate congressional
Secretary of State, is
Conditions
Burmese regime has
Burma has made
elected government in
committees” that the SPDC
authorized to take such actions
released NLD members
measurable and
Burma” and when
has released all political
as may be necessary to carry
currently being held for
substantial progress in
conditions in Section
prisoners; entered into “a
out the purposes of the order
political offenses and
improving human rights
(3)(a)(3)—progress on
substantial dialogue with
other pro-democracy
practices and
human rights, release of
democratic forces led by the
activists; enters into
implementing democratic
all political prisoners,
National League for
dialogue with the
government”
freedom of speech and
Democracy and the ethnic
democratic opposition;
the press, freedom of
minorities of Burma on
or makes significant
association, peaceful
transitioning to democratic
progress toward
exercise of religion,
government under the rule of
improving the human
democratic governance,
law”; and allowed humanitarian
rights situation in the
not designated as “a
access to people in areas of
country”
country of interest” for
armed conflict in Burma
narcotics trafficking—
have been met
CRS-12

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Presidential
Tom Lantos Block

Proclamation 6925
Section 570
2003 BFDA
Burmese JADE Act
E.O. 13619
Report or
None
Every six months after
List of banned individuals
No later than 120 days after
None
Publication
the enactment of the act,
to be posted on
enactment [November 26,
Requirements
the President shall report
Department of State’s
2008] the President shall
to the chairmen of the
web pagea
transmit to the appropriate
Committee on Foreign
congressional committees a list
Relations, the Committee
of sanctioned officials; updated
on International Relations
sanctioned officials lists shall be
[Foreign Affairs] and the
provided to the appropriate
House and Senate
congressional committees “as
Appropriations
new information becomes
Committees on: progress
available”
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.

CRS-13

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

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”21 are in E.O. 13047, E.O. 13310, the Tom Lantos Block
Burmese JADE Act, and E.O. 13619. The Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act also allows the
Secretary of the 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.
On May 17, 2012, Secretary Clinton stated, “Today, I am announcing new steps to permit
American investment in the country and the export of U.S. financial services—the most
significant adjustments to our sanctions to date.”22 She also said that the United States will “allow
Burmese citizens access to international credit markets and dollar-based transactions.” On July
11, 2012, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the Department of the Treasury issued
General License No. 16, authorizing the exportation or reexportation of financial services to
Burma, except “to any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to 31
C.F.R. §537.201(a), Executive Order 13448 …, Executive Order 13464 …, or Executive Order
13619.…”
Section 5(b)(2) of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act prohibits engaging in financial
transactions with certain designated Burmese nationals. Section 2 of E.O. 13310 established the
general prohibition on the export or reexport of financial services to Burma, subject to the
restrictions on financial transaction sanctions contained in Section 203(b) of IEEPA.23 Section 13
allows the continuation of financial transactions related to U.S. investments or agreements in
Burma that pre-date the implementation of the new investment ban on May 21, 1997.
Given that these provisions of E.O. 13310 are based on IEEPA, the President has the authority to
waive, amend, or terminate the general prohibition of the export or reexport of financial services
to Burma. However, Section 1703 of IEEPA requires that the President report to Congress
anytime he exercises IEEPA authority. The report to Congress must contain:
• the circumstances which necessitate such exercise of authority;
• an explanation of why the President believes those circumstances constitute an
unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part
outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of
the United States;
• the authorities to be exercised and the actions to be taken in the exercise of those
authorities to deal with those circumstances;
• a statement as to why the President believes such actions are necessary to deal
with those circumstances; and

21 By the definitions included in both E.O.’s and the Tom Lantos Block Burmese 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.
22 Office of the Spokesperson, State Department, “Remarks of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Foreign
Minister of Burma U Wunna Maung Lwin after their Meeting,” press release, May 17, 2012.
23 Section 203(b) of IEEPA precludes the President using sanction authority to prohibit financial transactions
“ordinarily incident to travel to or from any country.”
Congressional Research Service
14

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

• identification of any foreign countries with respect to which such actions are to
be taken and why such actions are to be taken with respect to those countries.

Congressional Research Service
15

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Table 3. Restrictions on Financial Services
Tom Lantos Block Burmese

E.O. 13047
E.O. 13310
JADE Act
E.O. 13619
Main Provisions
Prohibits the “approval or
Prohibits the export or
No United States person may engage
Prohibits the provision of funds,
other facilitation by a United
reexport, directly or indirectly, in a financial transaction with the
goods, or services by, to, or for the
States person, wherever
of financial services to Burma
SPDC or with a person ineligible for a benefit of persons whose property
located, of a transaction by a
either from the United States
U.S. visa under the provisions of this
and interest in property is blocked by
foreign person where the
or by a “United States person,
act (see Table 2); prohibited financial the order
transaction would constitute a
wherever located”; and
transactions include payments or
new investment in Burma
“approval, financing,
transfers of property, transactions
prohibited by this order if
facilitation, or guarantee by a
involving the transfer of anything of
engaged in by a United States
United States person,
economic value; Secretary of the
person or within the United
wherever located, of a
Treasury may prohibit or impose
States”; and “any transaction
transaction by a foreign person conditions on the opening or
by a United States person or
where the transaction by that
maintaining of a correspondent or
within the United States that
foreign person would be
payable-through account by any
evades or avoids, or has the
prohibited by this order if
financial institution organized under
purpose of evading or avoiding, performed by a United States
U.S. law if the Secretary determines
or attempts to violate, any of
person or within the United
the account might be used by a
the prohibitions set forth in
States” (see “waiver
foreign banking institution holding
this order”
provisions” below)
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
CRS-16

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Tom Lantos Block Burmese

E.O. 13047
E.O. 13310
JADE Act
E.O. 13619
Conditions or
Provisions do not prohibit the
Exceptions as provided in
Exceptions for transactions
None specified
Exceptions
entry into, performance of, or
Section 203(b) of IEEPA (50
authorized under E.O. 13047 and
financing of a contract to sel
U.S.C. 1702(b)); revokes
E.O. 13310; restrictions do not apply
or purchase goods, services,
provisions in E.O. 13047 “to
to contracts or other financial
or technology, except new
the extent that they are
transactions for nongovernmental
contracts for the development
inconsistent with this order”
humanitarian organizations in Burma;
of resources in Burma
Secretary of the Treasury may
providing payment for the
authorize exceptions to permit the
supervision or guarantee of
operation of diplomatic missions, to
another person’s performance,
conduct official government business
payment for shares, equity
in Burma, to permit U.S. citizens to
interest, royalties, earnings,
visit Burma, and permit compliance
and profits
with international 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 Provisions
None specified
None specified; Waived on July
Presidential waiver allowed only if he
None specified
11, 2012 by the Department of
determines and certifies to the
Treasury by the issuance of
appropriate congressional
General License No. 16.
committees that it is “in the national
interests of the United States”
Termination,
None specified
None specified
Until the President determines and
None specified
Duration, or Renewal
certifies “to the appropriate
Conditions
congressional committees” that 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
CRS-17

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Tom Lantos Block Burmese

E.O. 13047
E.O. 13310
JADE Act
E.O. 13619
Report or Publication
None specified
None specified
No later than 120 days after
None specified
Requirements
enactment [November 26, 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”

CRS-18

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

“Frozen Assets”
The “freezing” of assets of sanctioned Burmese officials is included in four executive orders—
E.O. 13310, E.O. 13448, E.O. 13464, and E.O. 13619—as well as the 2003 BFDA and the Tom
Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act. Each of the successive executive orders broadened the list of
Burmese persons and entities subjected to the asset freeze. The Tom Lantos Block Burmese
JADE Act directly tied the list of sanctioned persons to the visa ban list.

Congressional Research Service
19

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Table 4. “Frozen Assets”
Tom Lantos Block

2003 BFDA
E.O. 13310
E.O. 13448
E.O. 13464
Burmese JADE Act
E.O. 13619
Main
Requires U.S. financial
Blocks the transfer,
Blocks the transfer,
Blocks the transfer,
No property or interest
No property or
Provisions
institutions to freeze
payment, export, or
payment, export, or
payment, export, or
in property of persons
interest in property
the funds and assets
withdrawal of all
withdrawal of all
withdrawal of all
ineligible for a U.S. visa
may be transferred,
belonging to the SPDC, property and interests
property and interests
property and
under the provisions of
paid, exported, or
the senior officials of
in property of
in property of
interests in property
this act (see Table 2)
withdrawn if the
the SPDC or the
sanctions persons if
sanctioned persons if
of sanctioned persons may be transferred, paid, property is located in
USDA; requires the
said property is in or
said property is in or
if said property is in
exported, or withdrawn
the United States to
President to
comes into the United
comes into the United
or comes into the
if the property is located any person who, as
promulgate regulations
States, or the property
States, or said property United States, or said
in the United States;
determined by the
no later than 60 days
is or comes within the
or interests in property property or interests
within the possession or
Secretary of the
after enactment
possession or control
are or come within the
in property are or
control of a U.S. person
Treasury to: have
[September 26, 2003]
of U.S. persons;
possession or control
come within the
(including overseas
engaged in acts that
for the enforcement of
sanctioned persons
of U.S. persons;
possession or control
branch of a U.S. person); directly or indirectly
this act; U.S. financial
include persons listed
sanctioned persons
of U.S. persons;
or the property comes
threaten the peace,
institutions shall report in Annex of the order,
include persons listed
sanctioned persons
into the possession or
security, and stability of
frozen funds or assets
or “any person
in Annex of the order,
include persons listed
control of a U.S. person
Burma; be responsible
to the Office of
determined by the
or “any person
in Annex of the
after the date of
for or complicit in the
Foreign Assets Control Secretary of the
determined by the
order, or “any person enactment of this act
commission of human
(OFAC)
Treasury, in
Secretary of the
determined by the
rights abuses in Burma;
consultation with the
Treasury, in
Secretary of the
have directly or
Secretary of State, to
consultation with the
Treasury, in
indirectly been
be: a senior official of
Secretary of State,” to
consultation with the
involved in arms trade
the SPDC, USDA, or a
be a senior official of
Secretary of State,”
between Burma and
successor entity”; or
the SPDC, USDA, or a
to be owned or
North Korea; be a
“owned or controlled
successor entity;
controlled by, directly
senior official of an
by, or acting or
“responsible for, or to
or indirectly, the
entity that engaged in
purporting to act for
have participated in,
Government of
the preceding acts;
on the behalf of,
human rights abuses in
Burma, or official(s)
have materially
directly or indirectly,
Burma; engaged in, or
of the Government of
assisted, sponsored , or
any person whose
have engaged in
Burma; to have
provided financial,
property and interests
activities facilitating
provided financial,
material, or
are blocked pursuant
public corruption by
material, logistical, or
technological support
to this order”
senior officials of the
technical support for
of the preceding acts
Government of
the Government of
or persons whose
Burma”; providing
Burma, the SPDC, the
property is blocked by
financial, material,
USDA, or successor
this order; or be
logistical, or technical
entities, or senior
owned or controlled
support for the
officials of the
by, or have acted for
CRS-20

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Tom Lantos Block

2003 BFDA
E.O. 13310
E.O. 13448
E.O. 13464
Burmese JADE Act
E.O. 13619
Government of Burma,
foregoing; acting on
or behalf of any person
the SPDC, the USDA,
behalf of a person
whose property is
or successor entities,
whose property is
blocked by this order
or senior officials of
blocked by E.O.
the foregoing; acting on 13310, E.O. 13448, or
behalf of a sanctioned
E.O. 13464
person; or spouse or
dependent child of
sanctioned person
Conditions or
Provides “additional
Exceptions as provided
Government of Burma
Government of
Restrictions do not
None specified
Exceptions
authority” to the
under Section
includes its agencies,
Burma includes its
apply to contracts or
President to take
203(b)(1), (3), and (4)
instrumentalities, and
agencies,
other financial
action “as may be
of IEEPA; using
controlled entities, and
instrumentalities, and
transactions for
necessary to impose a
authority under IEEPA,
the Central Bank of
controlled entities,
nongovernmental
sanctions regime to
prohibits the donation
Burma; using authority
and the Central Bank
humanitarian
freeze such funds and
of blocked property
under IEEPA, prohibits
of Burma; using
organizations in Burma;
assets”; allows the
“intended to be used
the donation of
authority under
Secretary of the
President to delegate
to relieve human
blocked property
IEEPA, prohibits the
Treasury may authorize
the duties and
suffering”
“intended to be used
donation of blocked
exceptions to permit the
authorities to Federal
to relieve human
property “intended to operation of diplomatic
or other officials
suffering”
be used to relieve
missions, to conduct
human suffering”
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
None specified
Provisions
allowed 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
None specified
None specified
None specified
Until the President
None specified
Duration, or
terminate “upon
determines and certifies
Renewal
request of a
“to the appropriate
Conditions
democratically elected
congressional
government in Burma”
committees that the
CRS-21

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Tom Lantos Block

2003 BFDA
E.O. 13310
E.O. 13448
E.O. 13464
Burmese JADE Act
E.O. 13619
and when conditions in
SPDC has released all
Section (3)(a)(3)—
political prisoners;
progress on human
entered into “a
rights, release of all
substantial dialogue with
political prisoners,
democratic forces led by
freedom of speech and
the National League for
the press, freedom of
Democracy and the
association, peaceful
ethnic minorities of
exercise of religion,
Burma on transitioning
democratic
to democratic
governance, not
government under the
designated as “a
rule of law”; and allowed
country of interest” for
humanitarian access to
narcotics trafficking—
people in areas of armed
have been met
conflict in Burma
Report or
None specified
None specified
None specified
None specified
No later than 120 days
None specified
Publication
after enactment
Requirements
[November 26, 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-22

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

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
August 2, 2012, Congress passed H.R. 5986 (P.L. 112-163), extending the general import ban to
July 25, 2013.
On November 15, 2012, Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns issued a determination that
“it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the prohibitions described in Section
3(a) of the BFDA.”24 Section 3(a) contains two distinct import bans—a general ban on “the
importation of any article that is a product of Burma” (discussed in this section), and a “ban on
imports from certain companies” (discussed in “Specific Import Restrictions” below). As
indicated in the determination, Deputy Secretary Burns had the authority to issue the
determination pursuant to Section 3(b) of the BFDA and Section 9 of E.O. 13310 (in which
President Bush authorized the Secretary of State to exercise the presidential authority granted in
Section 3(b) of the BFDA and redelegate that authority).25
Based on the State Department determination, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of
the Department of the Treasury issued General License No. 18 on November 16, 2013, indicating
the types of products on Burma that could be imported into the United States.26 According to
OFAC, any product of Burma may be imported into the United States except:
• Jadeite or rubies mined or extracted from Burma, or articles of jewelry
containing jadeite or rubies mined or extracted from Burma, or any other activity
prohibited by Section 3A of the BFDA, as amended by Section 6 of the Tom
Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act; and
• Transactions, directly or indirectly, with any person whose property or interest in
property are blocked by E.O. 13448, E.O. 13464, or E.O. 13619, as well as 31
C.F.R. §537.201(a).
The latter condition insures compliance with legal restrictions on payments to persons whose
assets have been frozen or have otherwise been identified as being subject to sanctions (see
“Frozen Assets” and “Restrictions on Financial Services”).


24 Department of State, “Determination under the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 concerning the
Importation of Articles that are Products of Burma,” press release, November 15, 2012.
25 Secretary Clinton issued Delegation of Authority 245-1 on February 13, 2009, delegating her authority as Secretary
of State to the Deputy Secretary and the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources (see Department of State,
“Delegation from the Secretary to the Deputy Secretary and the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources of
Authorities of the Secretary of State,” 74 Federal Register 8835-8836, February 26, 2009).
26 Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, “General License No. 18,” Burmese Sanctions
Regulations 31 C.F.R. Part 537, November 16, 2012).
Congressional Research Service
23

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Table 5. 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”
CRS-24

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress


Section 138
2003 BFDA
E.O. 13310
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;
Waived on the Department of State on November
15, 2012; the Department of the Treasury issued
General License No. 18 on November 16, 2012
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
CRS-25

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress


Section 138
2003 BFDA
E.O. 13310
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-26

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Specific Import Restrictions
Both the 2003 BFDA and the Tom Lantos Block Burmese 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 Tom Lantos Block
Burmese JADE Act prohibits the importation of certain products.
On November 15, 2012, Deputy Secretary Burns issued a determination waiving the import
restrictions in Section 3(a) of the BFDA, including Section 3(a)(2) that banned the import of
Burmese goods from select entities (see Table 6 below). General License No. 18, issued the
following day by OFAC, indicated that the prohibition on transactions, directly or indirectly, with
any person whose property or interest in property are blocked by E.O. 13448, E.O. 13464, or E.O.
13619, as well as 31 C.F.R. §537.201(a) remains in effect, thereby blocking the import of goods
from these entities.
The scope of the waiver of Section 3(a)(2) of the BFDA is uncertain. For example, the waiver of
Section 3(a)(2) includes the USDA and “any successor entity” for the USDA—presumably the
USDP—sbut E.O.s 13310, 13448, and 13464 identify the USDA and “any successor entity” as
being subject to financial restrictions that would seemingly prohibit the import of goods from
those entities. Both the Departments of State and the Treasury did not respond to requests for
clarification of the apparent ambiguity in the scope of the waiver in question.
Table 6. Specific Import Restrictions

2003 BFDA
Tom Lantos Block Burmese 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 5
Waiver
None specified; Waived on the Department of
See column on 2003 BFDA of Table 5
Provisions
State on November 15, 2012; the Department of
the Treasury issued General License No. 18 on
November 16, 2012
Congressional Research Service
1

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress


2003 BFDA
Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act
Termination,
None specified
Amends duration conditions of 2003 BFDA to
Duration, or
include covered articles (see Table 5)
Renewal
Conditions
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 17, 2012,
President Obama issued an official notice renewing the national emergency with respect to
Burma.27
On April 4, 2012, Secretary Clinton stated that the Obama Administration was considering easing
the ban on new investments in Burma.28 In a subsequent press briefing, two unnamed senior
Administration officials indicated that no final decision had been made on the nature of the easing
of the investment ban, but consideration was being given to select certain sectors such as
agriculture, tourism, and potentially telecommunications as they are more likely to provide “the
most benefit for the average Burmese.”29 Other sectors, associated with “regressive elements [of]
the Burmese economy and Burmese society” such as gems and timber, may not be opened to new
investments at this time.30 The financial services sector was also being considered.

27 Executive Notice, “Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Burma,” 77 Federal Register 29851,
May 18, 2012.
28 Secretary of State, “Recognizing and Supporting Burma’s Democratic Reforms,” press release, April 4, 2012
29 State Department, “Background Briefing on Burma,” press release, April 4, 2012.
30 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

On July 11, 2012, the Obama Administration issued several documents to waive the ban on new
U.S. investments in Burma, subject to certain conditions on with whom the investment can be
made.31 General License No. 17, issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the
Department of the Treasury, explicitly prohibits U.S. investments with:
• Burma’s Ministry of Defense (including its Office of Procurement);
• Any state or non-state armed group;
• Any entity in which the Ministry of Defense or an armed group own 50% or
more interest; or
• any person whose property is blocked pursuant to 31 C.F.R. §537.201(a); E.O.
13448, E.O. 13464, or E.O. 13619.
Among the people covered by 31 C.F.R. . §537.201(a); are persons determined by the U.S.
Treasury to be “a senior official of the Government of Burma, the State Peace and Development
Council of Burma, the Union Solidarity and Development Association of Burma, or any
successor entity to any of the foregoing.”
Table 7. Investment Ban

Section 570
E.O. 13047
Main
Authorizes and requires the President to
Prohibits new investments in Burma
Provisions
prohibit new 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”
Waiver
Temporary or permanent presidential waiver if
None specified
Provisions
sanctions are “contrary to the national security
interests of the United States;” waived on July
11, 2012, subject to certain conditions
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

31 Via a presidential memorandum, President Obama delegated authority to waive the investment ban as granted by
section 570(e) of P.L. 104-208 to Secretary Clinton. That authority was then exercised by Deputy Secretary of State
Thomas R. Nides, who reportedly notified Congress of the waiver decision. The waiver paved the way for OFAC to
release General License No. 17.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress


Section 570
E.O. 13047
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; and Section 307 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, which 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.
The 112th Congress passed H.R. 6431 in September 2012, granting the President the authority to
waive U.S. opposition to IFI assistance to Burma required under Section 5 of the 2003 BFDA if
the President determines to do so is in the national interest of the United States. It also states that
prior to the President making such a determination, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the
Treasury shall consult with “the appropriate congressional committees on assistance to be
provided to Burma by an international financial institution, and the national interest served by
such assistance.” The law defines the “appropriate congressional committees” to be “the
Committees on Foreign Relations, Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, and Appropriations of
the Senate, and the Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, and Appropriations of the
House of Representatives.” The term “assistance” includes loans, financial or technical
assistance, or “any other use of funds.” The bill became P.L. 112-192 on October 5, 2012.
President Obama issued a memorandum on October 10, 2012, delegating the authority granted by
P.L. 112-192 to Secretary Clinton, who then issued a determination stating that “it is in the
national interest of the United States to support assistance for Burma.”32 A memorandum of
justification provided to Congress on October 12, 2012, states that IFI assistance for Burma
“encourages Burma’s transition to democracy and economic reforms efforts,” and is thereby in
the national interest of the United States.33 The memorandum specifically mentions a World Bank
vote to be take on October 30, 2012, to provide a grant of $80 million for community-driven
development in Burma. The World Bank approved the grant on November 1, 2012.

32 Department of State, “Determination Related to United States Support for Assistance Provided by International
Financial Institutions for Burma,” October 12, 2012.
33 Department of State, “Memorandum of Justification,” October 12, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

It is not clear if Secretary Clinton’s determination was intended to permit U.S. support for any IFI
assistance for Burma in the future, or was meant to apply solely to the pending World Bank grant.
Section 2 of P.L. 112-192 requires that Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury
consult with “the appropriate congressional committees” prior to the making of the determination
required by Section 1 on the nature of the assistance and “the national interests served by such
assistance,” which can be read as restricting the determination to specific assistance about which
the congressional committees were consulted. The Departments of State and the Treasury did not
respond to requests for a clarification of their understanding of the their interpretation of the
determination of October 12, 2012, in time for the release of this report.
With regard to Secretary Clinton’s announcement that the United States would support the UNDP
establishing a “normal country program” in Burma, current sanction laws may preclude the
United States contributing funds to the program. Section 307 of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2227),
“Withholding of United States proportionate share for certain programs of international
organizations,” states:
Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, none of the funds authorized to be appropriated
by this part shall be available for the United States proportionate share for programs for
Burma [emphasis added], North Korea, Syria, Iran, Cuba, or the Palestine Liberation
Organization or for projects whose purpose is to provide benefits to the Palestine Liberation
Organization or entities associated with it, or at the discretion of the President, Communist
countries listed in section 2370(f) of this title.
In other words, Section 307 prohibits the use of U.S. funds contributed to the UNDP and other
international organizations for programs for Burma. In practice, according to the State
Department, for the past decade it has sent a letter to UNDP indicating that the United States may
withhold a portion of its contributions if the UNDP funded new programs and activities in Burma.
Subsection (c) provides an exemption for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and
the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). The FAA does not grant the President the
authority to waive the funding restrictions in Section 307. As a result, the United States cannot
financially support a “normal country program” of the UNDP in Burma without Congress passing
legislation to permit such funding.
In addition, several past laws—including some appropriation laws—included language that either
prohibited the use of U.S. contributions to UNDP for programs and activities in Burma or
withheld a portion of U.S. contributions to UNDP until the President or the Secretary of State
certified to Congress that the UNDP was in compliance with specific conditions on its programs
and activities in Burma. Among the past laws that contained language tying U.S. contributions to
UNDP to its programs and activities in Burma were:
• Section 431 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1994 and
1995 (P.L. 103-236);
• Section 108(c) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-113);
and
• Section 6689b) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
However, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74) does not contain language
regarding the use of U.S. contributions to UNDP in Burma. It does, however, state in Section
7044(b)(1) that “The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States executive directors
Congressional Research Service
5

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

of the appropriate international financial institutions to vote against any loan, agreement, or other
financial support to Burma.”
Table 8. Bilateral and Multilateral Assistance Ban

Section 307
Section 570
2003 BFDA
P.L. 112-192
Main
Withholds U.S.
Ban on bilateral
Secretary of the
Grants the President
Provisions
funding for
assistance to Burma
Treasury shall instruct the authority to waive
international
other than
the U.S. executive
the requirement that
organizations with
humanitarian
director to each
U.S. executive
programs in Burma,
assistance; counter-
appropriate
director to each
except for the
narcotics or crop
international financial
appropriate
International Atomic
substitution assistance institution in which
international financial
Energy Agency (IAEA) (if the Secretary of
the United States
institution in which
or the United Nations State certifies to the
participates, to
the United States
Children’s Fund
appropriate
oppose, and vote
participates, to
(UNICEF).
congressional
against the extension
oppose, and vote
committees that
by such institution of
against the extension
Burma is “fully
any loan or financial
by such institution of
cooperating” with
or technical assistance any loan or financial
U.S. counter-
to Burma.
or technical assistance
narcotics efforts, and
to Burma, if the
the programs are
President determines
consistent with U.S.
it is in the national
human rights
interest of the United
concerns in Burma,
States
and serve U.S.
national interest); and
assistance promoting
human rights and
democratic values;
Secretary of the
Treasury shall instruct
the U.S. executive
director to each
appropriate
international financial
institution “to vote
against any loan or
other utilization of
funds of the
respective bank to or
for Burma”
Conditions or
None specified
As required by treaty
None specified
Prior consultation by
Exceptions
obligations or to staff
Secretaries of State
of Burmese mission in
and Treasury conduct
the United States
with “appropriate
congressional
committees” on the
nature of the
assistance and the
national interest
served
Congressional Research Service
6

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress


Section 307
Section 570
2003 BFDA
P.L. 112-192
Waiver
None specified
Temporary or
None specified (see
None specified
Provisions
permanent
P.L. 112-192); Waived
presidential waiver if
by determination of
sanctions are
Secretary Clinton on
“contrary to the
October 12, 2012
national security
interests of the
United States”
Termination,
None specified
“Until such time as
The President may

Duration, or
the President
terminate “upon
Renewal
determines and
request of a
Conditions
certifies to Congress
democratically
that Burma has made
elected government
measurable and
in Burma” and when
substantial progress in conditions in Section
improving human
(3)(a)(3)—progress
rights practices and
on human rights,
implementing
release of all political
democratic
prisoners, freedom of
government”
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
None specified

Publication
Secretary of State
after the enactment
Requirements reported to the
of the act, the
appropriate
President shall report
committees (House
to the chairmen of
Committee on
the Committee on
Foreign Affairs and
Foreign Relations, the
Senate Committee on Committee on
Foreign Relations) of
International
the “budgets and
Relations [Foreign
accounts of all
Affairs], and the
international
House and Senate
organizations
Appropriations
receiving payments of
Committees on
any funds authorized
progress towards
to be appropriated by
democratization in
this chapter”
Burma; progress on
[Chapter 3—
improving the quality
International
of life of the Burmese
Organizations and
people; and progress
Programs], including
made in developing a
the amounts
multilateral strategy
expended for
towards Burma
programs in Burma
and U.S. contributions
to the organizations
Congressional Research Service
7

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Source: CRS research.
Additional Sanctions Based on Functional Issues
In addition to the targeted sanctions, Burma is currently subject to a number of 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:
• 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.34 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.35
• 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 2012 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 2011-18, granting
Burma a partial waiver for FY2012 of the aid sanctions of the TVPA, to provide
assistance for controlling infectious diseases.36 On February 3, 2012, he issued a
presidential memorandum waiving Section 110(d)(1)(B) of the TVPA for

34 Child soldiers are statutorily defined in Section 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.”
35 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.
36 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.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

FY2012 with respect to Burma.37 The memorandum specifically waived the
requirement for U.S. Executive Directors to vote against “and use the Executive
Director’s best efforts to deny” non-trade, non-humanitarian loans or other
utilization of funds to Burma through multilateral development banks and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF).38 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 remained
in force because of Section 5 of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act (see
“Bilateral and Multilateral Assistance Ban” above). On September 14, 2012,
President Obama issued Presidential Determination 2012-16, authorizing and
directing Secretary Clinton to extend Burma’s partial waiver of the aid sanctions
in the TVPA for FY2013.39
• Illicit Drug Transit or Drug Production: Section 706 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (FRAA)(P.L. 107-228) requires the President
provide to designated congressional committees a report by September 15 each
year listing countries that the President has determined to be major drug transit
and/or major illicit drug producing countries as defined in section 481(e) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195). On September 14, 2012, President
Obama issued Presidential Determination 2012-15, identifying Burma as a major
drug transit and/or major illicit drug producing country.40 Designation as a major
drug transit and/or major illicit drug producing country may result in a reduction
in bilateral assistance and U.S. opposition to IFI assistance. However, in the same
document, President Obama determines that providing assistance to Burma “is
vital to the national interest of the United States,” thereby waiving the restriction
on assistance to Burma. An accompanying memorandum of justification states
that a waiver was warranted because of the Burmese government’s
“demonstrated commitment to reform, and promising sign on future poppy
eradication.”41
• Money Laundering and Organized Crime: In 2004, Burma’s Mayflower Bank
and Asia Wealth Bank, and the jurisdiction of Burma as a whole, including its
state-run banks, were 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

37 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.
38 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.
39 The White House, “Presidential Determination with Respect to Foreign Governments’ Efforts Regarding Trafficking
in Persons,” Presidential Determination 2012-16, Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 185, September 24, 2012, pp. 58921-
58923.
40 The White House, “Presidential Determination on Major Illicit Drug Transit or Major Illicit Drug Producing
Countries for Fiscal Year 2013,” Presidential Determination No. 2012-15, Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 185,
September 24, 2012, pp. 58917-58919.
41 The White House, “Memorandum of Justification for Major Drug Transit or Illicit Drug Producing Countries for FY
2013,” September 14, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

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.42 The Department of the Treasury
repealed the special measures against Myanmar Mayflower Bank and Asia
Wealth Bank effective October 1, 2012.43
• 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.44
Burma has been designated a “country of particular concern for religious
freedom” pursuant to this act since 1999.45 Burma was most recently re-
designated in 2009.46 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.47
• 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 H. W. Bush issued

42 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
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.
43 Department of the Treasury, “Repeal of the Final Rule Imposing Special Measures and Withdrawal of the Findings
of Primary Money Laundering Concern Against Myanmar Mayflower Bank and Asia Wealth Bank,” Federal Register,
Vo. 77, No. 190, October 1, 2012, pp. 59747-59478.
44 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.
45 “Designation of Countries of Particular Concern Under The International Religious Freedom Act,” Federal Register,
Vol. 64, No. 212, November 3, 1999.
46 “Secretary of State’s Determination Under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998,” Federal Register, Vol.
74, No. 89, May 11, 2009.
47 The existing arms embargo is referenced in 22 CFR 126.1(a).
Congressional Research Service
10

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

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.48 The U.S. arms embargo on Burma remains in effect.
Options for the 113th Congress
Various recent developments in Burma have sparked a general reexamination of U.S. policy
towards Burma, and a discussion of whether U.S. sanctions continue to be an effective means of
achieving policy goals or effecting change in Burma. After Senior General Than Shwe formally
dissolved the SPDC on March 30, 2011, and officially transferred power to the new Union
Government, an era of political reforms and improved communications with the United States has
ensued. Since taking office, President Thein Sein has issued prisoner amnesties on eight
occasions, resulting in the release of 29,356 prisoners, including 800 political prisoners.49 The
Union Parliament has enacted laws that allowed the NLD and other opposition parties to
participate in parliamentary by-elections in April 2012,50 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.
Over the last two years, the Obama Administration has fostered closer ties with the Burmese
government and eased restrictions on political and economic relations in the hopes that such
actions will foster changes in Burma consistent with U.S. policy towards that nation. In most
cases, these actions have been taken using existing presidential authority provided by the
Constitution and existing laws, including Burmese sanctions laws—an approach that was
generally acceptable to both the White House and Congress.
The Obama Administration, however, is nearing the limits of steps it can take without Congress
passing new legislation. The White House has waived existing sanctions for most of the situations
in which current law provides for such presidential authority, so additional easing of restrictions
on political and economic relations with Burma would likely require Congress to pass new laws.
In addition, maintaining the current status in bilateral relations would also take congressional
action as certain provisions in the sanctions laws are subject to annual renewal by Congress and
the appointment of a Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma is subject to
Senate approval. It is unknown if and when the White House may approach Congress about the
possible removal or amending of existing sanctions on Burma.

48 Department of State, “Suspension of Munitions Export Licenses to Burma,” 58 Federal Register 33293, June 16,
1993.
49 For more about the release of political prisoners in Burma, see CRS Report R42363, Burma’s Political Prisoners and
U.S. Sanctions, by Michael F. Martin.
50 For more information on the by-elections, see CRS Report R42438, Burma’s April Parliamentary By-Elections, by
Michael F. Martin.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Serious human rights violations continue to occur in Burma. According to Assistance Association
for Political Prisoners (Burma), over 200 political prisoners remain in detention. The government-
backed Union Election Commission refuses to register several ethnic-based political parties.
Some labor unions have been unable to register and union organizers have been subjected to
harassment and arbitrary dismissal, despite the passage of the new law. Although President Thein
Sein issued instructions to stop all attacks on ethnic-based militias, the Tatmadaw continues its
assaults and commits severe human rights abuses against civilians in conflict areas.
Burma and the 112th Congress
The 112th Congress acted several times to retain or reaffirm the existing sanctions on Burma. In
its first session, it passed H.R. 2017 (P.L. 112-33) on September 30, 2011, extending the import
restrictions in Section 3 of the 2003 BDFA through July 2012. It subsequently renewed the
general import restrictions for a second time on October 5, 2011, when it passed H.R. 2608 (P.L.
112-36). The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74), passed on December 15,
2011, 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;51 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.” In its second
session, the 112th Congress passed P.L. 112-163 extending the import restrictions in Section 3 of
the 2003 BDFA through July 2013, and P.L. 112-192, described previously in the report. In
general, the 112th Congress allowed the Obama Administration to take the lead on deciding when
to selectively ease or waive some of the existing sanctions (see “Recent U.S. Sanctions Policy”).
The relative dearth of legislative action does not imply that the 112th Congress has not
demonstrated an interest in U.S. policy in Burma. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific held oversight hearings in June 2011 and April 2012 on
U.S. policy in Burma.52 The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held nomination hearings
for Ambassador Mitchell in June 2011 for the position as Special Representative and Policy
Coordinator for Burma and in June 2012 for the position of ambassador to Burma, plus a policy
oversight hearing in April 2012.53 Several congressional delegations from both the House of
Representatives and the Senate traveled to Burma to assess the extent of the political reforms and
discuss U.S. policy with various political leaders. During the 112th Congress, the Obama
Administration frequently consulted with key Members of Congress regarding possible policy
options, as well as to inform Congress of the Administration’s interpretation of the situation in
Burma. Several Members of Congress also released statements on Burma, ranging from support
for the removal of all sanctions to disapproval of “pragmatic engagement” and the endorsement
of the maintenance of all sanctions.

51 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.
52 Details of the House hearings are available online at http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearings/.
53 Details of the Senate hearings are available online at http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Issues for the 113th Congress
The 113th Congress may be asked by the Administration either to waive or extend waivers for
existing sanctions, or to take legislative action to fully remove sanctions. It will also play a role in
U.S. policy towards Burma when it considers appropriating funds for various assistance programs
in the country. Possibly the largest and most noteworthy will be consideration of funds for the
newly established U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) mission located in the
U.S. embassy in Rangoon, Burma. However, funding for other forms of assistance programs—
including some previously prohibited by sanction laws, but not possible due to presidential
waivers—would also face congressional consideration.
The 113th Congress has the option of continuing to monitor and oversee the administration of
existing laws establishing U.S. policy towards Burma, as well as the general conduct of U.S.
policy. Certain aspects of current enforcement may not be fully within the spirit or the letter of the
existing laws, particularly with respect to visa bans, assets freezes, and restrictions on the
provision of financial services. In addition, recent discussions about closer military-to-military
relations have raised concerns about the limits on such interactions. While the 112th Congress
held hearings on U.S. policy towards Burma in general, the 113th Congress may consider hearings
targeted at specific aspects of U.S. policy and/or critical issues in the dynamic situation in Burma.
Sanction Renewal
Section 9(b) of the BFDA requires Congress annually to renew the general import ban contained
in Section 3(a)(1). Congress has done so regularly since the BFDA went into effect on July 28,
2003. The most recent renewal occurred on August 2, 2012, when Congress passed H.R. 5986
(P.L. 112-163), extending the general import ban to July 25, 2013. The 113th Congress is likely to
face consideration of the renewal of Section 3(a)(1) sometime before its expiration.
Although the Obama Administration waived the general import ban contained in Section 3(a)(1)
of the BFDA on November 15, 2012 (see “General Import Restrictions” above), previous actions
by the White House would indicate that it wishes the underlying sanction to remain in place. Prior
to the most recent congressional renewal, the State Department indicated its support for the
extension of the general import ban for another year. In addition, on multiple occasions, senior
administration officials have stated that the Obama Administration prefers to keep the sanctions
on Burma in effect in case there is reversal of Burma’s reforms and the White House decides to
terminate one or more of the existing sanction waivers.
Sanction Removal
Although presidential waivers permit the temporary suspension of sanctions, the actual removal
of existing sanctions may be a more complex proposition because of the overlapping provisions
of the laws governing the current sanction regime. In addition, because Burma is subject to
sanctions based on assessments related to certain functional issues (e.g., human trafficking,
religious freedoms), the repeal of Burma-specific sanction laws or E.O.s may not eliminate
certain types of restrictions on 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.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

Congress can select among several alternative approaches to remove sanctions on Burma, if it
decides such actions are warranted. One approach would be to pass legislation superseding the
existing laws. Such legislation would require cautious wording to avoid unintentionally revoking
sanctions other than those targeted in the bill. An alternative would be to amend or repeal relative
sections of the existing laws to remove the corresponding sanctions. Bills of this sort would also
require special attention to insure that all relevant provisions are included without unintentional
consequences. Congress could also provide the President with the authority to remove or revoke
the sanction, possibly subject to certain conditions being met in Burma. Existing sanction laws
already grant the President such authority for certain sanctions.
Appropriations
As part of the easing of sanctions on Burma, the Obama Administration has periodically
announced its intention to provide various forms of assistance to Burma, including the reopening
of a USAID mission there.54 While the various presidential waivers described above have
provided the legal basis for the provision of such assistance, it remains for Congress to consider
the appropriation of funds to finance the specific forms of assistance the White House would like
to provide to Burma.
Congressional appropriations for assistance programs for Burma have been around $38 million
per year since FY2010, with most of the amount allocated through the State Department’s
Economic Support Fund (ESF). Under the President’s proposed budget for FY2013, the overall
amount is to remain relatively unchanged, but about $6 million is to be shifted from humanitarian
assistance to health programs. Support for civil society and education projects—which have
traditionally gone to programs outside Burma, mostly in Thailand—are to be reduced by about $1
million each, according to the President’s proposal.
The 113th Congress could decide to exert its appropriations authority in two distinct ways. First, it
may refuse to fund or bar the usage of funds for certain types of assistance in Burma that
Congress considers inappropriate at this time. Second, Congress could effectively set assistance
priorities by its allocation of funds to differing projects to be conducted in Burma.
General Policy Oversight
The various presidential waivers have significantly altered the scope of sanctions that remain in
force in Burma. The general pattern has been to lift the enforcement of global restrictions on
political and economic relations, but to keep in effect sanctions on designated individuals or
entities deemed to be counter-productive to U.S. policy goals in Burma. This selective process of
sanction waivers has in some cases made the enforcement of the sanction laws more complex. For
certain sanctions – particularly the visa ban, the freezing of assets, and restrictions on the
provision of financial services – questions have been raised on whether the Department of State
and the Department of the Treasury have acted in full compliance with the law and have taken
sufficient steps to fully implement the sanctions laws.

54 USAID closed its office in the U.S. embassy in Rangoon, Burma in 1988, following the violent suppression of a
popular uprising against the nation’s ruling military junta (known as the “8888 Rebellion”). On April 5, 2012, USAID
notified Congress that it intended to reopen an office in the U.S. embassy in Rangoon in FY2012, and that the new
office would resume the administration of U.S. assistance programs to Burma (U.S. Agency for International
Development, Congressional Notification, CN #38, April 5, 2012).
Congressional Research Service
14

---

U.S. Sanctions on Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress

As described above, three laws and two presidential documents contain provisions specifying
which Burmese nationals are to be denied a visa to enter the United States, as well as possible
conditions for a waiver. Over the last two years, a number of Burmese government officials have
been issued visas to visit the United States, but it is unclear if in each case the required waiver
process was adequately followed, including the requirement that Congress be notified in writing
that a waiver is to be provided.
A similar issue of compliance arises with respect to the requirement that the assets of certain
Burmese persons be frozen and the restriction of financial services to certain Burmese entities.
The BFDA and the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act specify two similar but distinct
categories of persons subject to the freezing of assets. The Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act
designates a number of different people who cannot be provided financial services by U.S.
financial institutions. In practice, the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list maintained by
OFAC has served as the mechanism for enforcing the provisions of these two laws. Several
organizations have indicated to the State Department and OFAC that there are dozens of Burmese
nationals that appear to meet the criteria set in the two laws that are not included on the SDN list.
Secretary Clinton and other U.S. officials have stated that a more detailed review of the existing
SDN list with respect to the Burmese sanctions should be conducted. Since the start of 2012, 15
names have been added to the SDN list for Burma and two names (President Thein Sein and
Speaker of Burma’s Parliament’s lower house Shwe Mann) have been removed from the list.
As previously stated, the 112th Congress held hearings that examined the general conduct of U.S.
policy in Burma. Given the questions that have arisen over the implementation of existing
sanctions that remain in effect, the 113th Congress may consider holding hearings to examine the
effectiveness of current enforcement of U.S. sanctions on Burma.


Author Contact Information

Michael F. Martin

Specialist 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).
Congressional Research Service
15

---