The stated intent of U.S. policy is to persuade and/or pressure Burma's military junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), to release all political prisoners from detention and transfer power to a representative, democratically elected civilian government that will respect the human rights of the people of Burma, including its ethnic minorities. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China, by contrast, welcomed the election results and the installment of a new government, and subsequently called for the removal of all sanctions on Burma. A second major issue is whether or not U.S. policy can significantly impact political developments in Burma, and if so, what should be the main components of that policy. The 108 th Congress passed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 ( P.L. Why Burma? As a result, a broad and wide-ranging discussion on U.S. policy towards Burma has emerged, with possible implications for U.S. policies towards other nations. Some commentators see less grandiose lessons in the history of U.S. policy towards Burma, suggesting the problems lie in the conduct of the policy and not that the policy is fundamentally flawed. A final group of writers on U.S. policy focus more on analyzing how events of the past few years—particularly the establishment of a new parliament and the installation of a new president—may have changed the political dynamic inside Burma, and the implications for U.S. policy. Current U.S. Policy

In September 2009, the Obama Administration announced a change in U.S. policy towards Burma after seven months of review, discussion, and consultation. Fourth, there is a general prohibition on the import of goods of Burmese origin. No such waiver is currently in effect. Human rights abuse in Burma has been both political and economic in nature. An important source of tension between the Burmese military and some of the ethnic minorities of eastern and northern Burma is the continued presence of ethnic-based militias. Implications for U.S. Policy

Political events in Burma in 2010 and 2011 have renewed discussions about the nature and effectiveness of U.S. policy towards the country. Both the U.S. sanctions regime and U.S. engagement policy have been subjected to scrutiny and criticism by Congress, officials with the Obama Administration, and Burma experts. On October 24, 2007, Australia imposed targeted sanctions on Burma's military regime and its supporters. Japan's policy towards Burma has been a little more complex. Certain provisions are unfulfilled and others appear to be only partially implemented. These provisions include statements that
The United States is to "work with the international community, especially the People's Republic of China, India, Thailand, and ASEAN, to foster support for the legitimate democratic aspirations of the people of Burma and to coordinate efforts to impose sanctions on those directly responsible for human rights abuses in Burma;" "The President shall consider the data already obtained by other countries and entities that apply sanctions against Burma, such as the Australian Government and the European Union;" "The President should take the necessary steps to seek to negotiate an international arrangement—similar to the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for conflict diamonds —to prevent the trade in Burmese covered articles [jadeite and rubies];" "The Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma shall … consult broadly, including with the Governments of the People's Republic of China, India, Thailand, and Japan, and the member states of ASEAN and the European Union to coordinate policies toward Burma;" and "The Secretary of State shall coordinate on a biannual basis with representatives of the European Union … to ensure a high degree of coordination of lists of individuals banned from obtaining a visa by the European Union … and those banned from receiving a visa from the United States." Some observers question if the State Department and the Treasury Department have made adequate efforts to coordinate their policies towards Burma. Burmese officials generally perceive the major events of the past year – the parliamentary elections, the dissolution of the SPDC, the formation of the Union Government, and the end of Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest – as demonstrable progress toward "disciplined democracy" in Burma. The Role of Congress

Over the last 20 years, Congress has repeatedly taken the initiative in the formulation of U.S. policy towards Burma, usually after the SPDC and the Burmese military have violently suppressed the Burmese people. Fourth, individual Members of Congress may serve as a separate channel of communication with Burmese officials and interest groups. Res. 66 and S.J. Res. 17.
A robust discussion has arisen around U.S. policy towards Burma. Some Members of Congress, senior officials in the Obama Administration, noted Burma scholars, and representatives of various interest groups have weighed in on this discussion, offering their views on the merits of current U.S. policy towards Burma and what policy changes ought to be made.
Among the commentators, there is general agreement that more than 20 years of political and economic sanctions, and nearly two years of "pragmatic engagement," have not led to the achievement of the stated goals of U.S. policy towards Burma—the release of all political prisoners from detention and the transfer power to a representative, democratically elected civilian government that will respect the human rights of the people of Burma, including its ethnic minorities. However, there is little agreement as to why U.S. policy has been unsuccessful and what needs to be done to increase the likelihood of achieving the stated goals.
Some analysts see the holding of parliamentary elections, the release of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest in November 2010, the formal dissolution of Burma's military regime, and its replacement by a mostly civilian government as evidence of the advent of a new era in Burma. Others view these events as thinly veiled ruses designed to hide the continuation of repressive military rule behind the veneer of seemingly civilian institutions. Both groups of commentators point to various recent events to support for their recommendations for the conduct of U.S. policy towards Burma.
Other factors complicate the formulation of U.S. policy towards Burma. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, of which Burma is a member, has called for the end of all sanctions on Burma. The European Union recently lifted its visa ban for several senior officials in the new Burmese government. Neighboring China, India, and Thailand have recently increased their investments in Burma, particularly in its energy sector. Inside Burma, the outbreak of fighting between the Burmese military and several ethnic-based militias has reportedly led to serious human rights abuses and another wave of Burmese refugees in the region.
The current discussions have generally focused on three related issues: (1) the effectiveness of the U.S. sanctions regime; (2) the value of high-level meetings with Burmese officials; and (3) the ability to coordinate policies towards Burma with other nations. To some, the basic premise of U.S. policy is fundamentally flawed, and a completely new approach is needed. To others, the main problem with U.S. policy has been in its lack of focus and inadequate implementation. Some question whether or not any U.S. policy can have an appreciable impact on Burma's military leaders and foster progress towards U.S. objectives in Burma.
The installation of a new government in Burma and the appointment of Derek J. Mitchell to serve as the first Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma are viewed as creating a "honeymoon period" in which Congress and the Obama Administration can review and, if desired, adjust U.S. policy towards Burma. The genesis of U.S. policy towards Burma was largely driven by Congress passing legislation after particularly egregious actions by Burma's ruling military junta. The 112th Congress is currently considering legislation (H.J.Res. 66 and S.J.Res. 17) that would renew certain import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. If the history of the development of U.S. policy towards Burma is indicative, any dramatic new development in Burma—either good or bad—could prompt Congress into action.