Major changes in Burma's political situation since 2016 have raised questions among some Members of Congress concerning the appropriateness of U.S. policy toward Burma (Myanmar) in general, and the current restrictions on relations with Burma in particular. During the time Burma was under military rule (1962–2011), restrictions were placed on bilateral relations in an attempt to encourage the Burmese military, or Tatmadaw, to permit the restoration of democracy.
In November 2015, Burma held nationwide parliamentary elections from which Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) emerged as the party with an absolute majority in both chambers of Burma's parliament. The new government subsequently appointed Aung San Suu Kyi to the newly created position of State Counselor, as well as Foreign Minister. While the NLD controls the parliament and the executive branch, the Tatmadaw continues to exercise significant power under provisions of Burma's 2008 constitution, impeding potential progress towards the re-establishment of a democratically-elected civilian government in Burma.
On October 7, 2016, after consultation with Aung San Suu Kyi, former President Obama revoked several executive orders pertaining to sanctions on Burma, and waived restrictions required by Section 5(b) of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-286), removing most of the economic restrictions on relations with Burma. On December 2, 2016, he issued Presidential Determination 2017-04, ending some restrictions on U.S. assistance to Burma. Various noneconomic restrictions remain in effect, including bans on providing visas to certain Burmese nationals and other restrictions on U.S. assistance to Burma. Some of these restrictions have been authorized as provisions in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020. Burma is also subject to some restrictions because of its noncompliance on certain global issues, such the use of child soldiers and insufficient efforts to combat human trafficking.
Certain events since 2016 have led some Members of Congress to call for the reinstatement of some of the waived sanctions and/or the imposition of new restrictions on relations with Burma. One of the more prominent events was the "clearance operation" in northern Rakhine State in late 2017, during which Burma's security forces allegedly committed serious human rights abuses against the Rohingya, a predominately Sunni Muslim minority group. A U.N. fact-finding mission and other investigations say the security force's actions may constitute genocide, crimes against humanity, and/or war crimes. The Trump Administration has imposed visa and financial sanctions against nine Tatmadaw officers and two Burmese military units involved in the "clearance operation"; some Members of Congress seek additional restrictions on U.S. relations with Burma. Burma's security forces have also been accused of committing crimes against humanity and war crimes as part of its low-grade civil war with ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) in various parts of Burma.
Congress may have various opportunities to weigh in on U.S. policy toward Burma, including what restrictions, if any, to include in such a policy. During the 116th Congress, two bills have been introduced—the Burma Unified through Rigorous Military Accountability Act of 2018 (H.R. 3190; the BURMA Act of 2019) and the Burma Human Rights and Freedom Act of 2018 (S. 1186)—that would reformulate U.S. policy and the restrictions on bilateral relations. The Allowing for the Safe Return of Rohingyas to Burma Act of 2019 (H.R. 4392), if enacted, would withdraw Burma's eligibility under the Generalized Systems of Preferences (GSP) program. In addition, Congress could continue the past practice of including restrictions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) or appropriations legislation. Congress may also consider whether to reexamine existing sanctions laws on Burma in light of recent developments, to determine whether to amend, modify, replace, and/or repeal provisions in those laws.
Between 1989 and 2008, Congress passed several laws placing political and economic sanctions on Burma's military junta as part of a policy to identify individuals responsible for repression in Burma and hold them accountable for their actions, foster the reestablishment of a democratically elected civilian government, and promote the protection of human rights. Various developments in Burma between 2010 and 2016 led the Obama Administration and others to perceive positive developments toward the restoration of a democratically elected civilian government in that nation after nearly five decades of military rule. Based on that perception, the Obama Administration waived most of the sanctions on Burma, particularly after Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy won the 2015 parliamentary elections and a new NLD-controlled Union Parliament took office in April 2016.
The Trump Administration has largely continued the Obama Administration's policies with respect to Burma, continuing to lend its support to Aung San Suu Kyi and her government, leaving the restriction waivers in place, but imposing sanctions of some select individuals and entities responsible for gross human rights violations.
Certain events since 2016, however, have led some Members of Congress and others to call for the reinstatement of some of the waived sanctions and/or the imposition of new restrictions on relations with Burma. The most prominent was the "clearance operation" in northern Rakhine State in late 2017, during which Burma's security forces allegedly committed serious human rights abuses against the Rohingya including murder, torture, and rape. A U.N. fact-finding mission (and other investigations) have determined that these human rights abuses may constitute genocide, crimes against humanity, and/or war crimes.1 Burma's security forces have also been accused of committing crimes against humanity and war crimes against civilians in Kachin and Shan State between 2011 and 2018 as part of their ongoing conflict with various ethnic armed organizations (EAOs). Other events that have contributed to congressional reconsideration of U.S. policy in Burma are the lack of progress in peace talks between Aung San Suu Kyi's government, the Burmese military, and the EAOs; and the continuing arrest, detention, and conviction of political prisoners, including the conviction of two Burmese reporters for their coverage of the alleged atrocities in Rakhine State.2
The Trump Administration has implemented some restrictions on relations with Burma. It has utilized the Global Magnitsky Act to impose targeted sanctions on nine military officers and two military units it has determined were responsible for serious human rights abuses in Kachin, Rakhine, and Shan State. In addition, restrictions have been placed on security assistance to Burma pursuant to the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 (CSPA; Title IV of P.L. 110-457; 22 U.S.C. 2370c et seq.) and the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA; P.L. 105-292), and some forms of non-humanitarian, nontrade-related assistance pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, as amended (TVPA; P.L. 106-386; 22 U.S.C. 7017). On January 31, 2020, President Trump issued Proclamation 9983, suspending the entry of nationals of Burma (and six other nations) as immigrants to the United States until Burma's government has adequately addressed shortcomings in its identification documents.3
The 116th Congress has continued the practice of past Congresses by including certain restrictions on U.S. bilateral, multilateral, and national security assistance in appropriations legislation, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6) and the Further Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94). In addition, three bills have been introduced that, if enacted, would place additional restrictions on U.S. relations with Burma. The Burma Unified through Rigorous Military Accountability (BURMA) Act of 2019 (H.R. 3190) and the Burma Human Rights and Freedom Act of 2019 (S. 1186), would redefine U.S. policy in Burma and impose greater restrictions on bilateral relations. The Allowing for the Safe Return of Rohingyas to Burma Act of 2019 (H.R. 4392) would withdraw Burma's eligibility under the Generalized Systems of Preferences (GSP) program unless the President certified to Congress that certain conditions pertaining to the safe, voluntary, and dignified return of the Rohingya refugees to Rakhine State have been met, as well as the provision of their citizenship.
From 1948 to 1966, the Union of Burma was ruled by a democratically elected civilian government representing the goals and interests of the nation's Bamar majority and its various ethnic minorities. The fragile federated state was based on the provisions of the Panglong Agreement signed by Burma's revolutionary leader, General Aung San (father of Aung San Suu Kyi), and representatives of some of the nation's larger ethnic minorities—the Chin, the Kachin, and the Shan. The ethnic-based coalition proved to be unstable, as some of the ethnic minorities considered withdrawing from the federated state, and the Tatmadaw fought against a Karen separatist movement militia. On March 2, 1962, Burma's military, known as the Tatmadaw, staged a coup d'état, led by General Ne Win. Following the coup, several other ethnic minorities organized militias to protect themselves from Tatmadaw and Bamar domination.
From 1962 to 2011, Burma was ruled by a military junta that denied the people of Burma the right to select the government of their choice and many of their internationally recognized human rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association. Throughout this period, a low-grade civil war raged off and on between the Tatmadaw and over 20 different ethnic armed organizations. Despite the military coup, the political repression, and the ongoing civil war, the United States established and maintained normal diplomatic relations with the military junta, including relatively close military-to-military relations.4
Between 1989 and 2008, Congress passed a series of laws imposing diplomatic and economic sanctions on Burma's military junta, in response to its violent suppression of democratic protests in 1988, 1990, 2003, and 2007.5 Two of the sanctions laws were the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 (BFDA, P.L. 108-61) and the JADE Act, which imposed various political and economic restrictions on U.S. relations with Burma. In addition, during this time period, Congress passed legislation that potentially could place restrictions on relations with Burma, and other nations, for violating laws related to human rights, such as the CSPA, the IRFA, and the TVPA.
In 2008, Burma's military junta, then known as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), began a process to transform the nation's government into what it called a "disciplined democracy." On May 8, 2008, the SPDC held a national referendum on a new constitution that would establish a mixed civilian/military government. Many observers viewed the results of the referendum—in which over 90% of the voters supported the new constitution—as fraudulent.6 On November 7, 2010, the SPDC held parliamentary elections that were boycotted by many political parties, including Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD). The pro-military Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) won nearly 80% of the contested seats (25% of the seats in Burma's Union Parliament are not contested, but rather under the 2008 constitution are appointed by the Commander in Chief of Defence Services). The new Union Parliament appointed SPDC Prime Minister Lieutenant General Thein Sein as President. He was sworn in on March 30, 2011, after the SPDC officially transferred power to the new government.
Following the establishment of a new mixed civilian/military government in Burma under the provisions of the 2008 constitution, the Obama Administration adopted a new policy of greater engagement while maintaining existing sanctions.7 President Obama utilized the waiver provisions in sanctions laws to waive the enforcement of some of the sanctions, in part in response to President Thein Sein's undertaking some political reforms and releasing many political prisoners.8
On November 8, 2015, Burma held nationwide parliamentary elections, in which the NLD won nearly 80% of the contested seats.9 The Union Parliament chose Htin Kyaw, a long-standing NLD member and close friend of Aung San Suu Kyi, as President. Aung San Suu Kyi was subsequently appointed to the newly created position of State Counselor, as well as Foreign Minister. During Aung San Suu Kyi's September 2016 visit to Washington, DC, President Obama announced Burma's reinstatement in the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program and his intention to revoke several executive orders that enforced many of the sanctions on Burma.10 President Obama's pledge to revoke the executive orders was fulfilled by the release of E.O. 13472 on October 7, 2016. On December 2, 2016, he issued Presidential Determination 2017-04, ending restrictions on U.S. assistance to Burma as provided by Section 570(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997.11
Several noneconomic restrictions as detailed in the sections that follow, however, remain in effect, including
In addition, Congress has set limits on bilateral relations in appropriations legislation. Section 7043(a) of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94), for example, places a number of restrictions on bilateral, international security, and multilateral assistance to Burma. Similar restrictions were included in Appropriation Acts going back to FY2012, indicating that Congress may not have fully shared President Obama's view that circumstances in Burma warranted the waiving of sanctions.
Each time it passed legislation directly imposing sanctions on Burma, Congress articulated goals of U.S. policy toward Burma and, by extension, how the sanctions might facilitate the achievement of those goals. Among the goals stated in those laws were
Progress has been made on some of these goals, but arguably none have been fully achieved.
Circumstances in Burma have raised a number of questions for Congress regarding U.S. policy and the restrictions on relations, such as the following:
Following President Obama's release of E.O. 13472 on October 7, 2016, and Presidential Determination 2017-04 on December 2, 2016, the restrictions on relations with Burma that remain in place consist of restrictions on the issuance of visas to certain Burmese nationals, limits on U.S. assistance to Burma contained in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94), various restrictions on U.S. relations with Burma's military, and some restrictions imposed because of Burma's violations of the CSPA, IRFA, and the TVPA. In addition, the Trump Administration has utilized the Global Magnitsky Act (22 U.S.C. 2656) to apply visa and economic sanctions to nine Burmese military officers and two military units.12
Section 570(a)(3) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1997 (P.L. 104-208) states, "Except as required by treaty obligations or to staff the Burmese mission to the United States, the United States should not grant entry visas to any Burmese government official." Section 6 of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act (BFDA; P.L. 108-61) expanded the discretionary authority to deny entry visas to "the former and present leadership" of the SPDC and USDA. Neither the President nor the State Department has used the authority granted by these two laws.
Section 5(a)(1) of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008 (JADE Act; P.L. 110-286) states:
The following persons shall be ineligible for a visa to travel to the United States:
(A) Former and present leaders of the SPDC, the Burmese military, or the USDA.13
(B) Officials of the SPDC, the Burmese military, or the USDA involved in the repression of peaceful political activity or in other gross violations of human rights in Burma or in the commission of other human rights abuses, including any current or former officials of the security services and judicial institutions of the SPDC.
(C) Any other Burmese persons who provide substantial economic and political support for the SPDC, the Burmese military, or the USDA.
(D) The immediate family members of any person described in subparagraphs (A) through (C).
The JADE Act authorizes the President to waive the visa ban if "the President determines and certifies in writing to Congress that travel by the person seeking such a waiver is in the national interest of the United States." The Obama Administration and the Trump Administration on many occasions have issued such presidential waivers.
On January 31, 2020, President Trump issued Proclamation 9983, suspending the entry of nationals of Burma (and six other nations) as immigrants to the United States until Burma's government has adequately addressed shortcomings in its identification documents.14 Exercising authority under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA; P.L. 89-236), the proclamation cites Burma for its failure to comply with "the established identity-management and information-sharing criteria assessed by the performance metrics," including the issuance of electronic passports and the sharing of "public-safety and terrorism-related information." As a result, the proclamation suspends the entry "into the United States of nationals of Burma as immigrants, except as Special Immigrants whose eligibility is based on having provided assistance to the United States Government."15
Various restrictions on U.S. assistance to Burma are included in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94). In addition, because Burma was classified as a Tier 3 country in the most recent Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report, certain restrictions on U.S. assistance to Burma are required by TVPA, unless waived by the President.
The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 contains several restrictions on U.S. programs and activities in Burma, or other provisions that may apply to Burma, depending on how the Administration decides to implement these provisions. Section 7035(c)(3) reads:
CROWD CONTROL ITEMS.—Funds appropriated by this Act should not be used for tear gas, small arms, light weapons, ammunition, or other items for crowd control purposes for foreign security forces that use excessive force to repress peaceful expression, association, or assembly in countries that the Secretary of State determines are undemocratic or are undergoing democratic transitions.
Burma's security forces, including the Tatmadaw, the Myanmar Police Force, the Border Guard Force, and Tatmadaw-affiliated militias, face many allegations consistent with provisions of this section. The Secretary of State has the authority to determine if Burma's security forces will be subject to this restriction.
Section 7043(a) explicitly places restrictions on assistance to Burma, including the following:
With regard to Multilateral Assistance (Title VI), Section 7029(b) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the U.S. executive director of each international financial institution (IFI) to vote against any loan or financing for any project unless the project
This restriction would apply to any IFI loan or financing for a project in Burma.
The TVPA prohibits the provision of nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961 and sales and financing authorized by the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) to the governments of nations designated as a Tier 3 country in the Department of State's annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report.16 The TVPA also authorizes the President to instruct the U.S. Executive Directors of each multilateral development bank and the International Monetary Fund to attempt to deny loans or other uses of funds to Tier 3 countries. The law authorizes the President to waive some or all of the restrictions if he determines it is in the national interest of the United States.
Burma was designated as a Tier 3 country in the 2019 TIP report for the second year in a row.17 On October 18, 2019, President Trump issued Presidential Determination 2020-2, granting Burma a partial waiver to allow the provision of Economic Support Fund (ESF) assistance, Democracy Fund (DF) assistance, and technical assistance under section 129 of the FAA, as amended (P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.). The President also waived the requirement to attempt to deny Burma multilateral funds.18 All other non-humanitarian, nontrade-related assistance to Burma's government that is authorized under the FAA is still prohibited.19 No waivers were granted to Burma in 2019, after it was downgraded from the Tier 2 Watch List to the Tier 3 list.
The United States has placed specific restrictions on relations with Burma's military, including:
In late 2017, the Tatmadaw conducted a "clearance operation" in northern Rakhine State in response to attacks on security outposts along the border with Bangladesh, during which Burma's security forces may have committed genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.24 The "clearance operation" resulted in the exodus of over 700,000 Rohingya from Burma into Bangladesh. Satellite imagery confirms that over 300 Rohingya villages were partially or totally destroyed during the Tatmadaw's operation. The United Nations and other organizations have interviewed Rohingya survivors, who recount stories of mass killings, torture, and rape perpetrated by Tatmadaw soldiers and other Burmese security officers.25
The Trump Administration has condemned the initial attacks on the Burmese security outposts, as well as the Tatmadaw's response to attacks, characterizing the "clearance operations" as "ethnic cleansing." On December 21, 2017, the Department of the Treasury placed Major General Maung Maung Soe, Burma's Western Commander during the "clearance operations," on its Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List under the Global Magnitsky Act "for his command of forces involved in serious human rights abuses in northern Rakhine State."26 As a result, General Maung Maung Soe will not be granted a visa to enter the United States, any assets he may have in U.S. financial institutions have been frozen, and he and any entity in which he is the majority owner are to be denied financial services by any U.S. entity or person.27
Table 1. Burmese Individuals and Entities Sanctioned for Human Rights Violations
in chronological order
Person |
Date of State Department Designation Under Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 |
Date of Treasury Department Designation Under Global Magnitksy |
Major General Maung Maung Soe |
2018; date not disclosed |
December 21, 2017 |
Lieutenant General Aung Kyaw Zaw |
2018; date not disclosed |
August 17, 2018 |
Major General Khin Hlaing |
August 17, 2018 |
|
Major General Khin Maung Soe |
August 17, 2018 |
|
Brigadier General Thura San Lwin |
August 17, 2018 |
|
The 33rd Light Infantry Division |
August 17, 2018 |
|
The 99th Light Infantry Division |
August 17, 2018 |
|
Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing |
July 16, 2019 |
December 10, 2019 |
Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice Senior General Soe Win |
July 16, 2019 |
December 10, 2019 |
Brigadier General Than Oo |
July 16, 2019 |
December 10, 2019 |
Brigadier General Aung Aung |
July 16, 2019 |
December 10, 2019 |
On August 17, 2018, the Department of the Treasury added four more senior Burmese military officers—Lieutenant General Aung Kyaw Zaw, Major General Khin Hlaing, Major General Khin Maung Soe, and Brigadier General Thura San Lwin—plus two military units—the 33rd Light Infantry Division and the 99th Light Infantry Division—to its SDN list under the Global Magnitsky Act.28 The five officers and two units are subject to the same sanctions as General Maung Maung Soe.
On July 16, 2019, the Department of State designated another four senior Burmese military officers under the authority of section 7031(c) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141), which renders "officials of foreign governments and their immediate family members about whom the Secretary of State has credible information have been involved in corruption related to the extraction of natural resources, or a gross violation of human rights" ineligible for entry into the United States.29 The four officers—Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice Senior General Soe Win, Brigadier General Than Oo, and Brigadier General Aung Aung—were designated for their responsibility for gross human rights violations, "including extrajudicial killings in northern Rakhine State, Burma, during the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya." In a press briefing concerning the designation, a State Department official indicated that Lieutenant General Aung Kyaw Zaw and General Maung Maung Soe had also been previously designated under this provision sometime in 2018.30
On December 10, 2019, the Department of the Treasury designated Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice Senior General Soe Win, Brigadier General Than Oo, and Brigadier General Aung Aung under the authority of the Global Magnitsky Act for serious human rights abuse under their commands across Burma, including northern Rakhine State, Kachin State, and Shan States. In announcing the designations of the three Burmese generals (as well as 12 other individuals from other nations), Secretary of the Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin stated, "The United States will not tolerate torture, kidnapping, sexual violence, murder, or brutality against innocent civilians."31
As noted above, some of the laws imposing sanctions on Burma also include provisions whereby the President could waive, temporarily or permanently, the sanctions under certain conditions. In addition, some of the laws also contain provisions by which the President can terminate the sanctions. President Obama waived several restrictions, but also stated that waivers could be reversed, and the restrictions reimposed, if conditions in Burma so warrant.32 On December 2, 2016, he issued Presidential Determination 2017-04, terminating the restrictions on bilateral assistance to Burma contained in Section 570(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (P.L. 104-208).33 In addition, Congress has permitted certain trade restrictions contained in Sections 3 and 3A of the BFDA (as amended) to lapse by not passing the necessary annual renewal resolution.
In the past, Congress and the executive branch placed several economic restrictions on relations with Burma that have been subsequently terminated, waived, or suspended, including
Section 3 and 3A of the BFDA (as amended) banned the importation of "any article that is a product of Burma," goods and services from certain Burmese companies, jadeite and rubies from Burma, and articles of jewelry containing jadeite or rubies from Burma. This ban, however, was subject to annual renewal by Congress passing a resolution as stipulated in Section 9(b) of the same act. From 2004 to 2012, Congress passed the annual renewal resolution, but has not done so since. As a consequence, these restrictions contained in Section 3 and 3A of the BFDA have lapsed, but could be reinstated by the passage of the required resolution.
On August 7, 2013, President Obama issued Executive Order 13651, reinstating the ban on the import of jadeite and rubies from Burma, and articles of jewelry containing jadeite or rubies from Burma. This Executive Order was revoked, however, on October 7, 2016, when President Obama issued Executive Order 13742, thereby terminating the ban on the import of jadeite and rubies from Burma.
Section 5(b)(1) of the JADE Act blocked the transferal, payment, export, withdrawal, or other handling of property or interest in property belonging to a person described in Section 5(a)(1) of the act that is "located in the United States or within the possession or control of a U.S. person"34 (including the overseas branch of a U.S. person); or "comes into the possession or control of a U.S. person after the date of the enactment of this Act" (July 29, 2008). In Executive Order 13742 on October 7, 2016, President Obama "determined and certified" to Congress that "it is in the national interest of the United States" to waive the sanctions in Section 5(b) of the JADE Act, pursuant to Section 5(i) of that act.
As described above, Section 5(b) of the JADE Act freezes the assets of persons described by Section 5(a)(1) of the act, and bars the payment or transfer of any property, or "any transactions involving the transfer of anything of economic value," as well as the "export or reexport directly or indirectly, of any goods, technology, or services" to persons described by Section 5(a)(1) of the act, or to "any entity, owned, controlled, or operated by the SPDC or by an individual described in such subsection." Pursuant to Section 5(i) of the same law, President Obama determined and certified to Congress on October 7, 2016, in Executive Order 13742 that it was in the national interest of the United States to waive these sanctions.
Section 570(b) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1997 (P.L. 104-208) states the following:
The President is hereby authorized to prohibit, and shall prohibit United States persons from new investment in Burma, if the President determines and certifies to Congress that, after the date of enactment of this Act, the Government of Burma has physically harmed, rearrested for political acts, or exiled Daw Aung San Suu Kyi or has committed large-scale repression of or violence against the Democratic opposition.
Pursuant to Section 570(e) of the same act, the Department of State (having been delegated authority by President Obama) waived the investment restrictions on Section 570(b) effective July 11, 2012, having determined that it would be contrary to the national security interests of the United States to continue the restrictions.35
Section 570(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1997 (P.L. 104-208) restricted bilateral assistance to Burma to the following:
(A) humanitarian assistance,
(B) subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, counter-narcotics assistance under chapter 8 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or crop substitution assistance, if the Secretary of State certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that—
(i) the Government of Burma is fully cooperating with United States counter-narcotics efforts, and
(ii) the programs are fully consistent with United States human rights concerns in Burma and serve the United States national interest, and
(C) assistance promoting human rights and democratic values.
The act also provided that these restrictions were to remain in effect "[u]ntil such time as the President determines and certifies to Congress that Burma has made measurable and substantial progress in improving human rights practices and implementing democratic government."
On December 2, 2016, President Obama issued Presidential Determination 2017-04, providing such a determination and certification to Congress, and thereby terminating the restrictions on bilateral assistance contained in Section 570(a).
Section 307(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195, as amended) withholds the "United States proportionate share" of the funding for certain international organizations' programs in Burma (as well as several other nations). Section 307(c) exempts the Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). Organizations subject to the restriction include the United Nations Development Program, the United Nations Environmental Program, the World Meteorological Organization, and a number of other U.N. programs. Section 7017 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113), however, included the statement that "the requirement to withhold funds for programs in Burma under section 307(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act." This exemption was extended into FY2020 by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94).
Section 5 of the 2003 BFDA required 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. In September 2012, Congress passed P.L. 112-192, 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 that doing so is in the national interest of the United States. President Obama issued a memorandum on October 10, 2012, delegating the authority granted by P.L. 112-192 to Secretary of State Clinton, who then issued a determination stating that "it is in the national interest of the United States to support assistance for Burma."36
Congress may examine a number of different factors, should it consider whether to alter U.S. restrictions on relations with Burma. One question is whether to reassess the goals of U.S. policy toward Burma, the prospects for achieving them, and whether there are contradictions among them. Another factor is how to evaluate the current political situation in Burma, and whether further political and economic reforms are likely. Congress may also examine to what extent restrictions on relations enhance or harm developments in Burma in order to determine which restrictions to maintain, impose, or remove.
For many years, Congress and the executive branch have, in general, shared a common view on the broader goals of U.S. policy in Burma—the establishment of a democratically elected civilian government that respects the human rights of its people and promotes the peace and prosperity of the nation. The current U.S. ambassador to Burma, Scot Marciel, reiterated this policy in a press interview on May 10, 2016, stating, "But our goal, the United States' goal, remains the same: We want to see a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Myanmar. One whose people live in harmony and enjoy full rights."37
What Congress chooses to do with respect to U.S. restrictions on relations with Burma will likely depend on what it determines the objectives of U.S. policy toward Burma should be, and in what order of priority. Among the specific objectives for U.S. policy in Burma that have been proposed that Congress may choose to consider are
Moving beyond these general goals, however, may reveal underlying contradictions between the different goals. Efforts to promote economic prosperity in Burma, for example, may run counter to establishing a democratically elected civilian government. The Burmese military, via such entities as the Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC) and the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited (UMEHL), controls many sectors of the Burmese economy, including most of the nation's natural resources. Efforts to promote economic prosperity by permitting U.S. trade and investment in portions of the economy controlled by the Burmese military may bolster their economic and political power, and as such, lead Burma's military leaders to resist further political and economic reforms. Further political and economic reform could depend on the Burmese military's willingness to relinquish some or all of its seats in the Union Parliament, as well as its control over the appointment of the Ministers of Border Affairs, Defence, and Home Affairs. At the same time, however, it is also possible that permitting U.S. economic relations with MEC, UMEHL, and other companies owned by the Burmese military, its leaders, and/or relatives and close friends of the military leaders, could prompt Burma's military leaders to be more willing to relinquish some of their political power.
Aung San Suu Kyi has emerged as the dominant political figure in the NLD-led government, and is using her authority as State Counselor and Foreign Minister to set priorities and oversee implementation of government policy. Depending on how the dynamics between Aung San Suu Kyi and other influential figures and forces (such as Commander in Chief Min Aung Hlaing and the ethnic armed organizations) proceed, Congress may choose to assess if her views on specific issues are consistent with U.S. policy, and how best to work with her to advance those efforts, particularly as the nation prepares for nationwide parliamentary elections to be held in late 2020.
Understanding the views of Burma's military leaders has always been crucial in forming a framework to understand Burmese political conditions. It was Burma's military leaders who effectively wrote the 2008 constitution, held the parliamentary elections in 2010, and formed the core of the Thein Sein government that ran the country from 2011 to 2015. The political and economic reforms that have occurred in Burma since 2008 are either the direct results of the actions of Burma's military leaders or were undertaken with the support of the military leaders. Those reforms have been generally consistent with the "seven step roadmap to a disciplined democracy" announced by General Khin Nyunt, the military junta's Prime Minister, on August 30, 2003. In the various meetings and conferences held to discuss a path to ending Burma's civil war, Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing and other Tatmadaw representatives have demonstrated little willingness to negotiate. As a result, it appears unlikely that Burma's military leaders will be supportive of or willing to allow the political and economic reforms proposed by the NLD-led government; they are seen as likely to resist efforts to fundamentally alter the current governance system.
Similarly, the opinions of the various ethnic armed organizations may play a vital role in affecting the achievement of U.S. goals in Burma. Ending the civil war will require the EAOs to either agree to a cease-fire and the terms for a new governance system, and/or be defeated militarily. Achieving the former may require major changes in the 2008 constitution (including its possible replacement with a new constitution) and Burma's economy, particularly control over the nation's natural resources. Such changes may be unacceptable to Burma's military or the NLD-led government. Defeating the EAOs in the battlefield, however, may be beyond the capabilities of the Burmese military without substantial international assistance, as well as the support of the NLD-led government. At this time, neither Aung San Suu Kyi nor the NLD-led government appear to support a military solution to Burma's civil war, but prospects for Aung San Suu Kyi's proposed peace process also are unclear.40
Another potentially important force in Burma's current political dynamic is the community of emerging civil society organizations (CSOs). During the decades of military rule, Burma's military leaders actively suppressed the establishment of CSOs in order to maintain control over the Burmese people. The Thein Sein government allowed the emergence of issue-driven CSOs in Burma, and some of them have undertaken causes generally consistent with U.S. policy. Relations between some CSOs and the NLD-led government, however, are reportedly strained; for example, 40 CSOs wrote an open letter to Aung San Suu Kyi in July 2016 asking that they be allowed to play a more active role in the peace process.41
Besides their potential support for U.S. goals in Burma, CSOs may play a vital role in the discussion of political reform and the peace process, according to some observers. One such observer expressed concern that national reconciliation, if left to the NLD-led government, the Burmese military, and the EAOs, could result in the establishment of a federation of "crony states," in which the current military leaders and their supporters in each region of Burma control both the political and economic systems, and prevent the establishment of a democratic civilian government based on the rule of law and the will of the Burmese people.42
The NLD-led government has been in office for more than four years, and questions are being raised in Burma about its commitment and ability to secure an end to the nation's civil war, promote political reform, and protect the human rights of the Burmese people. Aung San Suu Kyi has identified the end of the civil war as a top priority for the new government, but the three "21st Century Panglong Conferences" have demonstrated that the various groups in attendance have different visions for a democratic federated state of Burma and the path to achieving that goal.43 Fighting between the Tatmadaw and at least four of the EAOs (the Kachin Independence Army, the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army, the Ta'ang National Liberation Army, and the Arakan Army) has escalated, raising doubts about the prospects for peace and the Tatmadaw's support for a nationwide cease-fire agreement.
More than two years have passed since the Tatmadaw launched their "clearance operations" in northern Rakhine State, and virtually all of the more than 700,000 Rohingya who fled to Bangladesh remain in refugee camps. The Rohingya who remain in Burma face harsh conditions, including a curfew, restrictions on movement, lack of employment, limited access to their farms, and harassment from local police and others. Provision of humanitarian assistance in Bangladesh appears adequate, but funding is a growing concern. Access to northern Rakhine State remains strictly controlled by the Tatmadaw, despite an agreement with the United Nations, resulting in a shortage of food, water, and medical care for the Rohingya community. In 2019, the Arakan Army moved most of its troops into northern Rakhine State; fighting between the Arakan Army and the Tatmadaw has spread throughout most of Rakhine State.
Prospects for the dignified, safe, voluntary, and sustainable return of Rohingya displaced into Bangladesh are presently poor, in part because of the fighting between the Arakan Army and Tatmadaw. While the governments in Dhaka and Naypyitaw have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding the return of the Rohingya, no Rohingya have returned in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the MOU. The United Nations has stated conditions in northern Rakhine State are neither sufficiently safe nor sustainable for the return of the Rohingya.44
Two other issues pose major barriers to the voluntary return of the Rohingya. Many of the Rohingya insist that their Burmese citizenship must be reinstated before they will return to Rakhine State. In 1982, Burma's military junta promulgated a new citizenship law, the implementation of which effectively stripped most of the Rohingya of their citizenship. Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD have chosen to leave that law in place despite a supermajority in Burma's Union Parliament, but have offered to consider applications for citizenship from the Rohingya according to the provisions of the 1982 law. This appears to be unacceptable to many of the Rohingya.
The other issue that could preclude the return of the Rohingya is their desire for some form of accountability for the crimes committed against them during the "clearance operations."45 A United Nations fact-finding mission has recommended that the U.N. Security Council refer the case to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or an "ad hoc international criminal tribunal."46 The ICC determined in September 2018 that it has jurisdiction over the displacement of Rohingya into Bangladesh.47 In addition, the Gambia filed a case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in November 2019, accusing Burma and its military of genocide.48 On January 23, 2020, the ICJ ordered Burma to undertake four "provisional measures" to prevent genocidal acts against the Rohingya and "prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of [genocidal] acts."49 Various organizations have called for the passage of U.N. sanctions against Burma and the Tatmadaw, as well as the imposition of bilateral restrictions on relations with Burma. To date, the international response to calls for accountability in Burma has been limited, and unlikely to be considered sufficient by the displaced Rohingya.
Progress on other human rights issues has also been relatively slow, according to some observers. In her first official act as State Counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi ordered the release of 113 political detainees on April 7, 2016, and indicated that freeing all political prisoners would be a priority for the new government.50 Former President Htin Kyaw granted amnesty to 70 political prisoners on April 17, 2016. By mid-August, the NLD-led government reportedly had released 457 people facing trial for political activities.51 Since then, the number of political prisoners in Burma has risen again. According to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), a nonprofit human rights organization formed in 2000 by former political prisoners, there were 647 political prisoners as of the end of January 2020, including 73 serving sentences, 141 detained while awaiting trial, and 433 released while awaiting trial.52
The government of Burma's ability to imprison these individuals is in part facilitated by the existence of a number of laws, some dating back to British colonial rule, that restrict freedom of speech, freedom of association, and other internationally recognized human rights. In June 2016, Human Rights Watch released a report, They Can Arrest You at Any Time, detailing how various repressive laws criminalize peaceful expression in Burma.53
Depending on what goals it sets for U.S. policy in Burma and its perspective on the current political situation in the country, Congress may decide to address the existing restrictions on U.S. relations. In the past, this has been done by passing specific legislation to impose or recommend restrictions on bilateral or multilateral relations, or by including provisions in appropriations legislation setting limits on bilateral or multilateral assistance to Burma. Congress has also passed legislation that places conditions on certain forms of bilateral relations contingent on acceptable behavior with regard to specific issues, such as the recruitment and induction of children into the military. In addition, Congress may actively or passively permit the President and the executive branch to determine what restrictions, if any, should be placed on relations with Burma, and provide the necessary authority and appropriations to implement U.S. policy toward Burma.
Congress may have the opportunity to take action with respect to U.S. policy in Burma on certain dates or at particular junctures. For example, congressional consideration of appropriations legislation—or continuing resolutions—provides a legislative juncture when restrictions on relations with Burma may be considered and altered, if Congress so chooses.
In addition, Congress may consider revisiting the body of legislation imposing restrictions on relations with Burma to determine if the time has come to repeal or amend those laws in light of the changes that have occurred in the country, and the extent to which the restrictions imposed in those laws are no longer in effect due to presidential waivers. To lift the economic restrictions on Burma, President Obama had to terminate and revoke five separate Executive Orders, and invoke authority in the JADE Act. Some observers suggest Congress should pass new legislation stating the goals of U.S. policy, accounting for the current situation in Burma, indicating the restrictions in relations with Burma that are to remain in place, and providing clear and concise conditions or guidelines for the removal of those restrictions. During the 116th Congress, two bills of this type—the Burma Unified through Rigorous Military Accountability Act of 2019 (H.R. 3190) and the Burma Human Rights and Freedom Act of 2019 (S. 1186)—have been introduced.
Starting in 1989 and continuing through 2008, Congress and the executive branch imposed a series of political and economic sanctions on Burma's ruling military junta. Since 2008, most of the congressional or executive actions have been to waive or eliminate some of those sanctions. The following table provides a list of such congressional or presidential actions in chronological order.
Chronology
Date |
Document |
Description |
April 13, 1989 |
Presidential Proclamation 5955 |
|
August 20, 1990 |
Section 138 of the Customs and Trade Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-382) |
|
June 9, 1993 |
Public Notice 1820 |
|
April 30, 1994 |
Section 431 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (P.L. 103-236) |
|
September 30, 1996 |
Section 570(a) of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (P.L. 104-208) |
|
October 3, 1996 |
Presidential Proclamation 6925 |
|
May 20, 1997 |
Executive Order 13047 |
|
July 28, 2003 |
Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act (BFDA; P.L. 108-61) |
|
July 28, 2003 |
Executive Order 13310 |
|
October 23, 2007 |
Executive Order 13448 |
|
April 30, 2008 |
Executive Order 13464 |
|
July 29, 2008 |
The Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008 (JADE Act; P.L. 110-286) |
|
September 26, 2008 |
Presidential Proclamation 8294 |
|
January 15, 2009 |
Presidential Determination 2009-11 |
|
July 11, 2012 |
Executive Order 13619 |
|
September 20, 2012 |
|
|
August 6, 2013 |
Executive Order 13651 |
|
September 14, 2016 |
Presidential Proclamation 9492 |
|
September 28, 2016 |
Presidential Memorandum |
|
October 7, 2016 |
Executive Order 13742 |
|
December 2, 2016 |
Presidential Determination 2017-04 |
|
May 8, 2017 |
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31) |
|
March 23, 2018 |
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 |
|
December 31, 2018 |
Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018 |
|
February 15, 2019 |
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 |
|
December 20, 2019 |
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 |
|
Author Contact Information
1. |
The events in Rakhine State are the subject of a case brought by the Gambia against Myanmar in the U.N. International Court of Justice (ICJ) and an investigation by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). For more about these court cases, see CRS Insight IN11215, Burma Ordered to Prevent Genocide Against Rohingya, by Michael F. Martin and Kirt Smith. For more about the alleged human rights violations in Kachin, Rakhine, and Shan State, see CRS In Focus IF10970, U.N. Report Recommends Burmese Military Leaders Be Investigated and Prosecuted for Possible Genocide, by Michael F. Martin, Matthew C. Weed, and Colin Willett, and CRS Report R45388, Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses and Accountability Options, by Michael F. Martin. |
2. |
For more about the stalled peace talks, see CRS In Focus IF11081, Burma's Prospects for Peace in 2019, by Michael F. Martin and Kirt Smith. For more about "political prisoners" in Burma, see CRS Report R44804, Burma's Political Prisoners and U.S. Policy, by Michael F. Martin. |
3. |
For details, see Executive Office of the President, "Improving Enhanced Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats," 85 Federal Register 6699-6707, February 5, 2020. |
4. |
Various factors point to continuity of diplomatic relations with Burma following the 1962 coup. The United States continued to appoint ambassadors to Burma until 1990. In the 1970s, the United States provided aid to Burma's military junta as part of its anti-opium efforts. In the 1980s, Burma was the largest beneficiary in Southeast Asia of the U.S. International Military Education and Training (IMET) program. |
5. |
See Appendix. For more about the history of the imposition of sanctions, see CRS Report R41336, U.S. Sanctions on Burma, by Michael F. Martin. |
6. |
For example, the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG) published a report of Burma's constitutional referendum on May 26, 2008, sharply criticizing the conduct of the plebiscite, calling the results, "Neither Free nor Fair." (The Public International Law & Policy Group, Burmese Constitutional Referendum: Neither Free Nor Fair, May 2008). For more about the circumstances under which the constitutional referendum was held, see CRS Report RL34481, Cyclone Nargis and Burma's Constitutional Referendum, by Michael F. Martin and Rhoda Margesson. |
7. |
For more information, see CRS Report R43035, U.S. Policy Towards Burma: Issues for the 113th Congress, by Michael F. Martin. |
8. |
For more information about political prisoners in Burma, See CRS Report R42363, Burma's Political Prisoners and U.S. Sanctions, by Michael F. Martin. |
9. |
For more information about the election, see CRS Report R44436, Burma's 2015 Parliamentary Elections: Issues for Congress, by Michael F. Martin. |
10. |
White House, "Joint Statement between the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and the United States of America," press release, September 14, 2016. The revoked Executive Orders were E.O. 13047, E.O. 13310, E.O. 13448, E.O. 13464, E.O. 13619, and E.O. 13651. |
11. |
Executive Office of the President, "Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 570(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997," Presidential Determination 2017-04, December 2, 2016. |
12. |
Some of these military officers were also publicly designated for visa sanctions pursuant to Section 7031(c) of State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Programs (SFOPs) appropriations (a recurring annual provision in SFOPs). |
13. |
The Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) was formed in 1992 by Burma's military junta to operate as the eyes and ears of the military junta at the local level. In 2010, the USDA was transformed into a political party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP). |
14. |
For details, see Executive Office of the President, "Improving Enhanced Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats," 85 Federal Register 6699-6707, February 5, 2020. |
15. |
The proclamation defines "Special Immigrants whose eligibility is based on having provided assistance to the United States Government" to mean those aliens described in section 101(a)(27)(D) through (G) and (K) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(D) through (G) and (K), any alien seeking to enter the United States pursuant to a Special Immigrant Visa in the SI or SQ classification, and any spouse and children of any such individual. |
16. |
For more about the TVPA and the annual TIP report, see CRS Report R44953, The State Department's Trafficking in Persons Report: Scope, Aid Restrictions, and Methodology, by Michael A. Weber, Katarina C. O'Regan, and Liana W. Rosen. |
17. |
Department of State, 2019 Trafficking in Persons Report, June 20, 2019. |
18. |
Office of the President, "Presidential Determination with Respect to the Efforts of Foreign Governments regarding the Trafficking in Persons," 84 Federal Register 59522, November 4, 2019. |
19. |
The TVPA defines nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance as all assistance authorized pursuant to the FAA, except: Assistance authorized under Chapter 4 of part II of the FAA (Economic Support Fund) in support of programs, projects, or activities conducted by nongovernmental organizations and eligible for Development Assistance under Chapter 1 of part I of the FAA. International Narcotics Control assistance authorized under chapter 8 of part I of the FAA. Any other counternarcotics assistance authorized under Chapters 4 or 5 of part II of the FAA (Economic Support Fund and International Military Education and Training), subject to certain congressional notification procedures. Disaster relief assistance, including any assistance under Chapter 9 of part I of the FAA (International Disaster Assistance). Antiterrorism assistance authorized under Chapter 8 of part II of the FAA. Refugee assistance. Humanitarian and other development assistance in support of programs conducted by nongovernmental organizations under Chapters 1 and 10 of the FAA. Overseas Private Investment Corporation programs authorized under Title IV of Chapter 2 of part I of the FAA. Other trade-related or humanitarian assistance programs. |
20. |
Department of State, "Suspension of Munitions Export Licenses to Burma," 58 Federal Register 33293, June 16, 1993. |
21. |
The State Department did not designate Burma in 2017. |
22. |
On September 28, 2016, President Obama issued such a waiver for Burma. For more about the CSPA, see CRS In Focus IF10901, Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008: Security Assistance Restrictions, by Michael A. Weber. |
23. |
Department of State, "Secretary of State's Determination under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1988 and the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act of 2016," 84 Federal Register 71064-71065, December 26, 2019. For more about the IRFA, see CRS In Focus IF10803, Global Human Rights: International Religious Freedom Policy, by Michael A. Weber |
24. |
For more about events of late 2017, see CRS Report R45016, The Rohingya Crises in Bangladesh and Burma, coordinated by Michael F. Martin. |
25. |
For more about the alleged human rights abuses, see CRS In Focus IF10970, U.N. Report Recommends Burmese Military Leaders Be Investigated and Prosecuted for Possible Genocide, by Michael F. Martin, Matthew C. Weed, and Colin Willett, and CRS Report R45388, Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses and Accountability Options, by Michael F. Martin. |
26. |
Department of the Treasury, "United States Sanctions Human Rights Abusers and Corrupt Actors Across the Globe," press release, December 21, 2017. |
27. |
For more about the sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act, see CRS In Focus IF10576, The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, by Dianne E. Rennack. As of March 11, 2020, there were 45 Burmese persons or entities on Treasury's SDN list, of which 31 were designated under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (21 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), 11 under Global Magnitsky, 2 under Executive Order 13687, "Imposing Additional Sanctions With Respect To," 80 Federal Register 819-821, January 6, 2015, and 1 under Executive Order 13581, "Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations," 76 Federal Register 44575-44759, July 24, 2011. |
28. |
Department of the Treasury, "Global Magnitsky Designations," press release, August 17, 2018. |
29. |
Department of State, "Public Designation, Due to Gross Violations of Human Rights, of Burmese Military Officers," press release, July 16, 2019. For more information about the recurring Section 7031(c) provision see CRS In Focus IF10905, Targeting Foreign Corruption and Human Rights Violators in FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations, by Liana W. Rosen and Michael A. Weber. |
30. |
U.S. State Department, "On Public Designation, Due to Gross Violations of Human Rights, of Burmese Military Officials," July 16, 2019. |
31. |
Department of the Treasury, "Treasury Sanctions Individuals for Roles in Atrocities and Other Abuses," press release, December 10, 2019. |
32. |
For example, in his statement of May 17, 2012, President Obama said, "We are also maintaining our current authorities to help ensure further reform and to retain the ability to reinstate selected sanctions if there is backsliding." The White House, "Statement by the President on Burma," press release, May 17, 2012, https://www.obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/17/statement-president-burma. |
33. |
White House, "Presidential Determination—Pursuant to Section 570(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997," press release, December 2, 2016. |
34. |
For purposes of this act, a U.S. person is defined, by Section 3(6) as "any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, juridical person organized under the laws of the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States." |
35. |
Department of State, "Allowing New Investment in Burma," 77 Federal Register 62596, October 15, 2012. |
36. |
Department of State, "Determination Related to United States Support for Assistance Provided by International Financial Institutions for Burma," October 12, 2012. |
37. |
Andrew D. Kaspar, "New US Ambassador Flags Many Old Problems for Burma," Irrawaddy, May 10, 2016. |
38. |
For more about the peace process, see CRS In Focus IF11081, Burma's Prospects for Peace in 2019, by Michael F. Martin and Kirt Smith. |
39. |
For an overview of the current situation in Burma, see CRS In Focus IF11068, U.S. Relations with Burma: Key Issues in 2020, by Michael F. Martin and Kirt Smith. |
40. |
For more about Burma's peace process, see CRS In Focus IF11081, Burma's Prospects for Peace in 2019, by Michael F. Martin and Kirt Smith. |
41. |
Burma Border-based CSOs, "Burma Border-based Civil Society Organizations Send an Open Letter to State Counselor, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi," press release, July 26, 2016. |
42. |
CRS communication with former State Department official. |
43. |
Aung San Suu Kyi has organized three "21st Century Panglong Conferences" at which representatives of her government, the Tatmadaw, some of the EAOs, and representatives of some CSOs met to discuss terms for a nationwide ceasefire and to negotiation an end to the nation's civil war. Those conferences, held in August 2016, May 2017 and July 2018, respectively, made little progress. Efforts to organize a 4th conference have stalled. For more about Burma's peace efforts, see CRS In Focus IF11081, Burma's Prospects for Peace in 2019, by Michael F. Martin and Kirt Smith. |
44. |
"Too Soon to Send Rohingya Back to Myanmar—U.N. Rights Envoy," Reuters, November 6, 2018. |
45. |
For more about the accountability issue, see CRS Report R45388, Burmese Security Forces and Personnel Implicated in Serious Human Rights Abuses and Accountability Options, by Michael F. Martin. |
46. |
CRS In Focus IF10970, U.N. Report Recommends Burmese Military Leaders Be Investigated and Prosecuted for Possible Genocide. |
47. |
International Criminal Court, "ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rules that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over the alleged deportation of the Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh," press release, September 6, 2018. |
48. |
Owen Bowcott, "Gambia Files Rohingya Genocide Case Against Myanmar at UN Court," Guardian, November 11, 2019. |
49. |
CRS Insight IN11215, Burma Ordered to Prevent Genocide Against Rohingya. |
50. |
Sai Wansai, "Burma's Political Tug of War," Shan Herald Agency for News, April 18, 2016. |
51. |
"NLD Govt Has Released 457 Political Prisoners," Democratic Voice of Burma, August 18, 2016. |
52. |
AAPP(B), Monthly Chronology of January 2020 and Current Political Prisoners list, February 10, 2020. |
53. |
Human Rights Watch, They Can Arrest You at Any Time, The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in Burma, June 2016. |
54. |
"A United States person" is defined as "any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, juridical person organized under the laws of the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States." |