Current U.S. policy towards Burma (Myanmar) can be characterized as the balancing of bilateral engagement and an assortment of political and economic sanctions—an approach sometimes referred to as "pragmatic engagement." In addition, the Obama Administration is attempting to convince other nations to adopt a similar policy towards Burma. The stated intent of U.S. policy is to persuade and/or pressure Burma's military junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), to release all political prisoners from detention and transfer power to a representative, democratically elected civilian government that will respect the human rights of the people of Burma, including its ethnic minorities. Recent political developments in Burma may be harbingers of change with implications for U.S. policy. The SPDC held national parliamentary elections on November 7, 2010, after a relatively short and controversial campaign period in which opposition parties claimed they faced harassment, intimidations, and limited access to the media. On the day of the election, media outside of Burma reported allegations of vote-rigging and election fraud, including the last-minute appearance of large numbers of "advance votes." Six days after the election, Aung San Suu Kyi, the preeminent leader of Burma's democracy movement, was released from house arrest. Despite the controversies surrounding the campaign and the election, the official election results released on December 7, 2010, announced that the SPDC-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) had won over three-quarters of the parliamentary seats. The new bicameral parliament convened for the first time on January 31, 2011, in the new capital city of Nay Pyi Taw. Its main tasks were the selection of a new President and two Vice Presidents, and the confirmation of the new government ministers. Most of the new government appointments went to former SPDC members or military officers. On March 30, 2011, Senior General Than Shwe formally dissolved the SPDC and former General, Prime Minister, and SPDC First Secretary Thein Sein became Burma's new president. The initial responses of the 112 th Congress and the Obama Administration to the political developments in Burma have been generally critical. In a press release issued the day of Burma's parliamentary election, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the United States was "deeply disappointed" by the elections, noting that "[t]he electoral process was severely flawed, precluded an inclusive, level playing field, and repressed fundamental freedoms. As a result, the elections were neither free nor fair." On November 18, 2010, the House of Representatives passed H.Res. 1677 , denouncing "the one-sided, undemocratic, and illegitimate actions of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) that seek to legitimize military rule through a flawed election process." The international response to the political developments in Burma has been mixed. Australia, Canada, and the European Union were also critical of the conduct of the November election, and have kept their own sanctions on Burma largely intact. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China, by contrast, welcomed the election results and the installment of a new government, and subsequently called for the removal of all sanctions on Burma. The convening of Burma's new parliament and the official transfer of power to President Sein and his ministers has precipitated a debate over the effectiveness of the current U.S. policy and possible strategies to foster political change in Burma. One of the pivotal issues in this debate is the degree to which recent political events represent either a shift of power from the military to a largely civilian government, or an elaborate ruse by which the SPDC remains in control of the country. A second major issue is whether or not U.S. policy can significantly impact political developments in Burma, and if so, what should be the main components of that policy. A third issue is which of the various U.S. goals should be given priority in the short run, and which goals are better viewed as long-run objectives. For the last 20 years, Congress has played a major role in formulating U.S. policy towards Burma, particularly in the imposition of sanctions. The 112 th Congress may decide to take legislative action with respect to U.S policy towards Burma, as past Congresses did. The 110 th Congress, responding to the violent suppression of a popular protest in Burma in 2007, tightened sanctions on Burma by passing the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008 (2008 JADE Act) ( P.L. 110-286 ). The 108 th Congress passed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 ( P.L. 108-61 ) following a crackdown on opposition parties, which included the arrest and detention of Aung San Suu Kyi. The 101 st , 103 rd , and 104 th Congresses passed similar sanction-tightening measures, generally after anti-democratic and/or repressive actions by the SPDC. A number of scholars have questioned why the United States has had such a sustained interest in Burma. As described in another CRS report, U.S. relations with Burma remained comparatively normal following the military coup in 1962; punitive sanctions were first imposed following the brutal suppression of a peaceful and popular protest movement in 1988. Over the next 20 years, the United States gradually adopted more sanctions and increased the pressure on Burma's ruling military in an effort to end the repression and promote democracy. There is little question about the military junta's legacy of human rights violations and its violent suppression of the people of Burma. However, Burma is not the only nation in Asia where the government has been accused of serious human rights violations. Yet, as one noted Burma scholar recently pointed out, current U.S. sanctions on Burma are in some ways stricter than those imposed on the People's Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea). Burma also appears to be of little geopolitical or global economic importance for the United States. Its location between China and India may make Burma important to those two contending regional powers, but the United States has no apparent strategic interest in Burma. Burma's known natural gas and oil fields are attractive to energy companies around the world, but are neither sufficient or necessary for the United States to meet its foreseeable energy demand. Despite Burma's apparent lack of importance and uniqueness, the United States for over two decades has diligently pursued a policy designed to end military repression and promote democracy—with arguably little to show for the effort. As a result, a broad and wide-ranging discussion on U.S. policy towards Burma has emerged, with possible implications for U.S. policies towards other nations. Some observers have argued that the U.S. policy towards Burma has proven that sanctions never work and that sanctions on Burma—and by extension, any other nation—should be lifted. Other analysts maintain that the SPDC's behavior over the last 20 years demonstrates that Burma's military leaders are not open to reason and that engagement in any form is destined to fail. Some commentators also decry U.S. efforts to coordinate policies with other countries toward Burma, noting that other nations have other priorities and readily realize the limits on how far the United States is willing to press its case regarding Burma. Some commentators see less grandiose lessons in the history of U.S. policy towards Burma, suggesting the problems lie in the conduct of the policy and not that the policy is fundamentally flawed. To these observers, the problems with U.S. sanctions on Burma are that the sanctions are not strict enough, not properly targeted, and/or not adequately enforced. Similarly, these observers argue the lack of results from direct dialogue stems from insufficient time, unclear intent, and/or inappropriate priorities in the talks. Past efforts to coordinate Burma policies with other nations have fallen short of their desired goals, according to some analysts, because the United States was not flexible enough to allow other nations to adopt a different approach to achieve the same overall objectives. A final group of writers on U.S. policy focus more on analyzing how events of the past few years—particularly the establishment of a new parliament and the installation of a new president—may have changed the political dynamic inside Burma, and the implications for U.S. policy. To some, the changes inside Burma are purely cosmetic, with the military still firmly in control. According to these analysts, the United States should not reward the SPDC for its charade, and in the opinion of some, should increase the pressure on Burma's military leadership. To others, the changes inside Burma are flawed, but real, and with the proper support and encouragement, could gradually lead to an end of flagrant violations of human rights and the eventual restoration of democracy. These commentators suggest that the United States consider selectively removing sanctions and increasing channels of bilateral interaction in order to bolster the elements of change inside Burma that will promote democracy. To help understand the interplay of these distinct, but interrelated policy discussions, this report reviews current U.S. policy towards Burma, as well as recent developments in the country. The report then examines the implications for future U.S. policy and considers what actions, if any, the 112 th Congress may take with respect to U.S. policy towards Burma. In September 2009, the Obama Administration announced a change in U.S. policy towards Burma after seven months of review, discussion, and consultation. The existing sanctions regime remained in place, but new elements of U.S. policy were added—the willingness to engage in direct dialogue with the SPDC on how to promote democracy and human rights in Burma, and to cooperate to a greater extent with the SPDC on international security issues, such as nuclear nonproliferation and counternarcotics efforts.