US embassy cable - 03RANGOON318

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 RANGOON 000318 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR CA/VO/L/C 
 
E.O. 12958:    N/A 
TAGS: CVIS, CMGT, BM 
SUBJECT: VISA BANS: A COMPARISON OF U.S. AND E.U. POLICIES 
IN BURMA 
 
1. SUMMARY: An analysis of American and E.U. visa policies 
toward Burmese "who formulate, implement, or benefit from 
policies that impede Burma's transition to democracy" shows 
that American and E.U. consular officials refuse to issue 
visas to more or less the same people, but sometimes for 
different reasons.  Although the two approaches yield 
similar results, the American system is more flexible and 
easier to implement. END SUMMARY. 
 
The U.S. Visa Ban 
----------------- 
 
2.  A 1996 Presidential Proclamation bans entry into the 
United States, as immigrant or non-immigrants, of senior 
Burmese government officials and "other persons who 
formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that impede 
Burma's transition to democracy" and their immediate family 
members.   Such persons are ineligible to receive visas 
under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Section 
212(f). 
 
3. Individuals in the following categories (and their 
immediate families) are subject to INA Section 212(f): 
-- State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) members; 
-- Government ministers; 
-- Senior officials of the Union Solidarity and Development 
Association (USDA); 
-- Other senior government officials above the rank of 
colonel or director general. 
 
These categories overlap to a large extent.  For example, 
the Minister of Defense is an SPDC member and USDA senior 
officials are either SPDC members or cabinet ministers. 
Some ministers and all SPDC members are generals. 
 
4.  These categories are enumerated for ease in 
implementation; however, the ban is not limited to 
individuals who fall within these categories.  Any other 
person "who formulates, implements, or benefits from 
policies that impede Burma's transition to democracy" could 
be found ineligible to receive a visa under Section 212(f). 
 
5.  For practical reasons, the U.S. ban does not identify 
specific individuals, but rather, categories of applicants 
ineligible under 212(f).  U.S. embassies and consulates 
accept visa applications from any applicant physically 
present in their consular districts.  Consular sections 
around the world could not be expected to recognize specific 
individuals.  Any Burmese applicant who lists a rank above 
colonel or a title above director general on his/her visa 
application should be refused, regardless of where they 
apply.  Also, the Burmese government often makes dramatic 
personnel changes at the senior levels, which may or may not 
be widely or promptly reported.  Maintaining an up-to-date 
list of individuals ineligible under Section 212(f) would be 
time-consuming and difficult. 
 
The E.U. Visa Ban 
----------------- 
 
6.  The E.U. annually develops a list of specific Burmese 
officials who are ineligible to receive visas.  Their list 
could be divided into the following categories: 
-- SPDC members; 
-- Potential SPDC members: 
-- Regional commanders; 
-- Cabinet ministers (includes deputy ministers); 
 
7.  All of the individuals listed by the British Embassy in 
July 2002 fall into one or more of the categories used to 
implement the U.S. visa ban.  However, some Burmese 
officials that might fall into the U.S. catch-all category 
of "other senior government officials above the rank of 
colonel or director general" may not be specifically named 
on the E.U. list (e.g., not all generals are SPDC, regional 
commanders, or cabinet ministers). 
 
The E.U. Proposal 
----------------- 
 
8.  The E.U. proposes to expand their list to include senior 
members of the USDA and "certain other individuals who 
formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that impede 
Burma/Myanmar's transition to democracy, and their 
families."  This last category would include senior 
officials of the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings, Limited 
(UMEHL) and companies owned by UMEHL, prominent bankers and 
other "cronies." 
 
9.  Their proposed wording is virtually identical to the 
wording of the Presidential Proclamation.  Thus, individual 
businessmen specified on the E.U. list could also be found 
ineligible to receive a visa under INA Section 212(f). 
Although we might, in fact, refuse the same people, our 
justification would be slightly different.  For example, 
many UMEHL officials are retired generals and/or ministers 
who the government rewarded for their services to the 
regime.  Whereas the E.U. might refuse such UMEHL officials 
as "cronies," we might refuse them for having been career 
beneficiaries of regime policies. 
 
10.  On a practical level, identifying all persons who 
"benefit from policies that impede Burma/Myanmar's 
transition to democracy" is an impossible task.  Such a list 
could only include the most conspicuous beneficiaries of 
government policies.  "Behind-the-scene" beneficiaries could 
travel freely.  Even if Western diplomats were able to 
develop a comprehensive list of beneficiaries/cronies, it 
would need to be constantly updated.  For example, prominent 
private bankers who many would have considered "cronies" 
three months ago, might not be considered so today.  In 
fact, several of the bankers/businessmen on the E.U.'s 
proposed list might now be ineligible under INA Section 
214(b) (presumed immigrant intent), rather than under 
Section 212(f). 
MARTINEZ