Yesterday, in remarks made by Secretary of State Clinton With Foreign Minister of Burma U Wunna Maung Lwin after the two met, Secretary Clinton announced that the United States was suspending its sanctions against Burma.

Sort of.

Here’s what she said, which is the only official announcement so far of the new policy

Today, I am also announcing new steps to permit American investment in the country and export of U.S. financial services. These are the most significant adjustments to our previous policy that have been taken to date. The United States will issue a general license that will enable American businesses to invest across the economy, allow citizens access to international credit markets and dollar-based transactions.

Late in her remarks the Secretary indicated that the United States would maintain the arms embargo against Burma, which would prohibit sales of any item on the United States Munitions List to Burma.

But then came this curious exchange which suggested that the “general license” might not be so “general.”

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, regarding the easing of economic restrictions, will the – will U.S. companies be able to invest and trade with Myanmar state-owned companies, including in the oil and gas sector? And also, you talk about the corporate responsibilities of U.S. companies. Will these expectations be binding under U.S. law?

…

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you. First, let me say our presumption is that our companies will be able to deal in every sector of the economy with any business. That is a rebuttable presumption in the event that there is a company whose reputation, whose practices, are not in keeping with our stated policies of corporate responsibility or other matters that rise to our attention. But the presumption is that our oil and gas companies, our mining companies, our financial services companies are all now free to look for investments that can be mutually beneficial to Burma and to them.

Huh? Presumption? What part of “general license” do we not understand here? Perhaps Secretary Clinton means that if the U.S. doesn’t like a particular investment made pursuant to the general license it can revoke this “presumption” and revoke the general license as to that transaction. That, of course, would mean that making a new investment in Burma would be more risky than most companies could tolerate. We will have to wait and see exactly what the general license says when it is issued.

According to this article (subscription required) in today’s Wall Street Journal, recently released Burmese human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi may reconsider her position that the international community should continue to impose sanctions on Burma and its current military regime.

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.

With all the talk of relaxing Cuba sanctions and possible talks with Iran, it’s not surprising that Burma is showing up at the “me too” table asking for service. Today at Bloomberg, Frank Smithius, Burma country director for Médecins Sans Frontières, is quoted saying this:

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.