Scoop has an Ethical Paywall
License needed for work use Register



Cablegate: Visa Bans: A Comparison of U.S. And E.U. Policies

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.




E.O. 12958: N/A

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

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.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

Are you getting our free newsletter?

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.

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).

© Scoop Media

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
World Headlines

UN News: Aid Access Is Key Priority

Among the key issues facing diplomats is securing the release of a reported 199 Israeli hostages, seized during the Hamas raid. “History is watching,” says Emergency Relief Coordinator Martin Griffiths. “This war was started by taking those hostages. Of course, there's a history between Palestinian people and the Israeli people, and I'm not denying any of that. But that act alone lit a fire, which can only be put out with the release of those hostages.” More

Save The Children: Four Earthquakes In a Week Leave Thousands Homeless

Families in western Afghanistan are reeling after a fourth earthquake hit Herat Province, crumbling buildings and forcing people to flee once again, with thousands now living in tents exposed to fierce winds and dust storms. The latest 6.3 magnitude earthquake hit 30 km outside of Herat on Sunday, shattering communities still reeling from strong and shallow aftershocks. More

UN News: Nowhere To Go In Gaza

UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric said some 1.1M people would be expected to leave northern Gaza and that such a movement would be “impossible” without devastating humanitarian consequences and appeals for the order to be rescinded. The WHO joined the call for Israel to rescind the relocation order, which amounted to a “death sentence” for many. More

Access Now: Telecom Blackout In Gaza An Attack On Human Rights

By October 10, reports indicated that fixed-line internet, mobile data, SMS, telephone, and TV networks are all seriously compromised. With significant and increasing damage to the electrical grid, orders by the Israeli Ministry of Energy to stop supplying electricity and the last remaining power station now out of fuel, many are no longer able to charge devices that are essential to communicate and access information. More


Join Our Free Newsletter

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.