In his address to the United Nations today, President Bush announced the administration’s intentions to impose new sanctions on Burma and its military regime:

The United States will tighten economic sanctions on the leaders of the regime and their financial backers. We will impose an expanded visa ban on those responsible for the most egregious violations of human rights, as well as their family members.

Aside from telling additional and as yet unnamed Burmese officials and their families that a trip to Disneyland won’t be in the picture for them any time soon, the President’s statement was not altogether clear about the precise sanctions that would be imposed.

Tom Casey, a State Department spokesperson, seemed to be caught up short in today’s daily press briefing by the State Department when reporters pressed for more details on the proposed new sanctions:

To the extent that we have specific names to add or new measures to announce, we’ll let you know.

Translation: “I have no earthly idea.” Elsewhere, Casey seemed to suggest that the list of individuals that would be subject to blocking orders might be expanded.

So what are the possibilities here for tightening the current economic sanctions on Burma. To be sure, as noted, the list of government officials subject to travel bans and subject to blocking orders could be expanded and that seems to be likely to be at least the minimum that will occur. But since the current sanctions aren’t comprehensive, there are other possibilities.

One possibility would be expanding export sanctions. The current sanctions only forbid exports of financial services to Burma. Accordingly, that export ban could be expanded to cover all goods and service subject only to the limits of the Berman amendment, 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)(3), and the Trade Sanctions Reform Act of 2000 (TSRA). The Berman Amendment prohibits export controls on “informational materials” and TSRA forbids a unilateral sanction against a foreign country covering agricultural products, medicine or medical devices without express Congressional approval.

Another possibility includes prohibition in dealing in Burmese-origin goods and services. That would prohibit dealing in such goods and services even though they had not been imported into, or exported from, the United States. A similar provision is included in the Iranian Transaction Regulations.

If I look into my somewhat cloudy crystal ball, my guess is that the White House will simply expand the lists of Burmese officials subject to blocking and visa bans. But if the White House gets serious about the matter, we could well see an expansion of export bans and a prohibition in dealings in Burmese-origin goods and services.

During a briefing held today Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jindayi Frazer announced that the United States is preparing to designate Eritrea as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” Such a designation would be made under the provisions of 50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j), which requires a finding that a country “has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.”

The U.S. intends to base its argument for designation of Eritrea as a state sponsor of terrorism on a July 18 report of the United Nations that found that “huge quantities of arms” have been provided Al-Qaeda linked groups in Somalia “by and through Eritrea.” These arms “include an unknown number of surface-to-air missiles, suicide belts, and explosives with timers and detonators.”

If designated, Eritrea would join the list of state sponsors of terrorism that currently is comprised by Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. Designation would automatically result in an arms embargo against Eritrea pursuant to section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2780. It could also serve as a justification of a ban on imports from, and exports to, Eritrea.

Imposition of an arms embargo and/or comprehensive sanctions, including bans on imports and exports, would probably have minimal effect on U.S. exporters — or on Eritrea, for that matter. The Section 655 report for 2006 shows no licenses granted for shipments of arms to Eritrea. Other trade between Eritrea and the United States is small, which is not surprising given that Eritrea’s economy is overwhelmingly based on subsistence agriculture. Exports from the United States to Eritrea in 2006 were valued at $8,848,000. Imports from Eritrea to the United States in 2006 were even less and were valued at $858,000.

One area in which sanctions might be effective would be in cash remittances. The State Department estimates that currently 32% of the GDP of Eritrea is provided by overseas workers remitting cash back to their families and relatives in Eritrea. And a large number of Eritreans live in the United States. So, if Eritrea is designated and sanctions are imposed, my guess is that we will see prohibitions on cash remittances to Eritrea.