Current sanctions imposed by the United States, in addition to an arms embargo, include blocking the assets of the junta and its political allies, a ban on imports from Burma, a prohibition on new investment in Burma, and rules prohibiting the provision of financial services to Burma, including wire transfers to Burma. Some have argued that some of these sanctions, particularly the import and investment bans, have had little impact on the military junta running the country and that the major impact of these sanctions is on ordinary citizens of Burma. Others have argued that if the sanctions were lifted most of the revenue would go into the junta’s pockets and little would trickle down to ordinary Burmese citizens.

Suu Kyi’s statement in interviews after her release did not come down clearly on one side of this debate or the other

In her first interviews and meetings with diplomats since her release on Saturday, Ms. Suu Kyi said she was willing to consider some revision of sanctions, though she stopped short of committing herself to either side. “If people really want sanctions to be lifted, I will consider this,” she told reporters on Sunday. “This is the time Burma needs help.”

Progressively stricter sanctions imposed on Burma by the United States and Western Governments have been in response to the treatment of Suu Kyi by the junta. Until this weekend she had been under house arrest continuously for the past seven years (and had been under house arrest for 15 out of the past 21 years.) If Suu Kyi revises her support for sanctions, this could well prompt the United States to modify its sanctions on Burma, although the arms embargo under section 126.1 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations and the blocking of the assets of the Burmese junta and its supporters would almost certainly remain in place.

Because of sanctions there is a lot of suffering, and we see that particularly in the humanitarian-aid field. There’s definitely hope in the aid community that the policy will be reconsidered. The Myanmar people are victims of a humanitarian boycott. There is enormous pressure on politicians in the West to look politically correct, and they get human rights brownie points by being very strict on aid.

In the same article, Bloomberg provides a chart showing that Burma ranked dead last in foreign aid per capita in 2007, receiving $4.07 per capita, which compares to the $52.32 per capita aid received by Sudan. Indeed, in February, Secretary Clinton stated that the Obama administration’s policy toward Burma’s military junta was undergoing a “major review.”

The EU at the end of April renewed its sanctions against Burma for another year. The EU foreign ministers voting to extend the sanctions indicated that they were nonetheless willing to hold consultations with the junta during the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Hanoi, Vietnam, in May.

The current EU sanctions involve visa restrictions, asset blocking and an arms embargo. U.S. sanctions are broader and include, in addition to asset blocking and an arms embargo, a ban on imports, a ban on new investment, and a ban on exports of “financial services” which are broadly defined to include funds transfers, insurance services and investment and brokerage services. The U.S. regulations provide for a general license permitting exports of financial services in support of NGO activity in Burma.

Current OFAC regulations forbid the import into the United States of Burmese-origin goods. OFAC, however, refers to U.S. Customs rules for determining whether a good is of Burmese-origin, as can be seen from this OFAC guidance letter on Burmese teak sawn into planks in third countries. Most Burmese rubies are exported in uncut form to Thailand where they are processed and cut for sale to jewelers. In December 2004, Customs ruled that rough rubies mined in Burma that were processed and cut into gemstone rubies in another country underwent a “substantial transformation” and were no longer considered to be of Burmese origin. Notwithstanding this ruling, the 11,000 member association Jewelers of America urges its members not to traffic in blood rubies.

It is not clear that the designation of the Myanmar Gem Enterprise will have any substantial effect. Because the Burmese rubies must be processed in Thailand or elsewhere in order to be imported into the United States, no U.S. persons have any dealings with Myanmar Gem Enterprise but, rather, deal exclusively with companies in Thailand that process and cut the rough stones.

OFAC also designated the Myanmar Pearl Enterprise, hence the opportunity to swipe a line from an A.E. Housman poem as the title of this post.