LegiStorm

Summary:

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.