Thayer Myammar/burma Issue: After Sanctions

Multilateral Cooperation and Building Trust: Ideas for EU-Asian Relations: Part 2 Myanmar/Burma Carlyle A. Thayer

Extracts from Paper to International Cultural Forum on Responses to Rapid Social Change in Southeast Asia, Bertelsmann Stiftung and the Asia Society, Sofitel Metropole Hotel, Hanoi, November 12-13, 2008.

2

Multilateral Co-operation and Building Trust: Ideas for EU-Asian Relations: Part 2 – Myanmar/Burma Carlyle A. Thayer Part II. Prioritizing Issues [Other issues omitted] Given the above discussion, it would be almost impossible to suggest practical new ideas for EU-ASEAN cooperation that have not already been discussed or which are not part of ongoing ARF or ASEM work programs. This section argues that in order to promote effective multilateral cooperation the EU and its Asian interlocutors need to prioritise immediate and long-term challenges to Asian regionalism and regional security. Six key issues are identified and discussed below: the ASEAN Charter and community building, Australia’s proposal for the creation of an Asia Pacific Community, Myanmar, conflict resolution, climate change and nuclear energy. [Issues A and B as well as D-F omitted] C. Myanmar/Burma The question of Myanmar, specifically the repression of the pro-democracy movement, oppression of ethnic minorities, and gross violations of human rights (not to mention the continued detention of Daw Aung San Kuu Kyi), has been a major continuing impediment in EU-ASEAN and EU-ASEM relations.1 Quite clearly the behaviour of the State Peace and Development Council carries the potential risk of undermining the ASEAN Charter in promoting democracy, human rights and compliance by ASEAN members. Oppressive conditions in Myanmar also carry the possibility of spilling over and affecting regional stability. In December 2008, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is scheduled to visit Yangon. His visit will likely coincide with the coming into force of the ASEAN Charter. For these reasons priority needs to be given to rethinking EU and ASEAN policy towards Myanmar. Present sanctions do not appear to be having any measurable affect. Recently the International Crisis Group noted that after the debacle following Cyclone Nargis, the situation in Myanmar has become “a normal international relief operation.” The ICG report observed that “it is possible to work with the military regime on humanitarian issues. Communication between the government and international agencies has much improved.” This time was right, the ICG argued for a volte face: The international community should seize this opportunity to reverse longstanding, counterproductive aid policies by providing substantial resources for recovery and rehabilitation of the affected areas and gradually, expanding the deepening its engagement in support of sustainable human development countrywide.

In addition, the Myanmar question should become a cluster issue within the ASEM. In accord with the principle that interested parties should assume leadership over specific issues, representatives from Europe and Asia should form a working group on Myanmar to continually monitor the situation there

1

Myanmar became a contentious issues in Europe’s relations with Asia in the 1990s until a compromise was reached in 2004 to seat Myanmar in ASEM. This compromise did not have any measurable effect on Myanmar’s behaviour.

3 and, as well, seek to engage the military regime and other stakeholders in discussions on sustainable development (to build trust) and Myanmar’s role in the future architecture of the region. The EU is already represented in the Group of Friends on Myanmar established by UN Secretary General in December 2007. France and the United Kingdom are represented by virtue of their status as permanent members of the Security Council. Asia is represented in the Group of Friends on Myanmar by ASEAN members Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam; and India, Japan and South Korea; and China as a permanent member of the Security Council. Other members include Russia and the United States (permanent members of the Security Council), and Australia and Norway.

Part III. Conclusion This paper has reviewed the relationship between the European Union and Asia with the purpose of developing new ideas for multilateral co-operation and building of trust. This paper has specifically focused on cooperation in multilateral security institutions that deal with issues related to comprehensive security. [material omitted] This paper has argued that the breadth of the EU’s relations with ASEAN, the ARF and ASEM is so great that it is virtually impossible to find any new issue area that has not been discussed and included in the plethora of non-binding joint statements and declarations produced by these institutions. Indeed, several reviews of EU relations with ASEAN, the ARF and ASEM have called for adding more depth to the relationship. These reviews have also called for the EU to get its own house in order by ensuring appropriate attendance by all its members at high-level meeting with Asian counterparts. In light of the above considerations, this paper argued for prioritising security issues. Six issues, some immediate and others of longer-term concern, were identified. These issues included: the ASEAN Charter and community building, Australia’s proposal for the creation of an Asia Pacific Community, Myanmar, conflict resolution, climate change and nuclear energy safety. This paper recommended that these issues be addressed by using the cluster approach to leadership, that is, leadership should be undertaken by a partnership of European and Asian states that have a direct interest in these issues. Making the ASEAN Charter an effective instrument for community building must have first priority because of the Charter’s commitment to democracy, human rights and compliance. But institutionalising the ASEAN Charter is not a stand-alone process. The Charter could be derailed or weakened by Myanmar’s recalcitrance. Therefore high priority is given to rethinking current EU-Asia strategies towards the military regime in order to engage it over the long term with the aim of drawing Myanmar back into the regional mainstream. ASEAN represents only ten states in the broader Asia region. Consideration should be given to what type of regional security architecture will be able to deal with region-wide and global security issues effectively. At the moment the main proposal on the table is for the creation of an Asia Pacific Community by 2020 by Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd [the author

4 has posted three article on Rudd’s proposal on Scribd.com]. This paper does not take a position on the merits of this proposal but argues that the EU should determine what role it would like to assume in future and join in the discussion and debate over Asia’s new security architecture. [material omitted] In conclusion, the underlying premise of this paper is that if the EU engages Asia in depth and on a sustained basis on the six key issues that have been identified, this will result in the building of increased trust between Europe and Asia. [A complete version of this paper may be found on Scribd.com]

Radio Singapore International, Eye on Asia Programme Myanmar's Roadmap to Democracy, Written Radio Commentary by Carlyle A. Thayer, broadcast March 31, 2008 On February 9th the state-run media in Myanmar announced that it was time to change the military administration to a democratic, civil administrative system by conducting a referendum in May on the long-awaited draft constitution followed by a multi-party election in 2010. Myanmar has been under military rule since 1962. In August 1988, the military regime brutally put down a pro-democracy movement. Two years later the military permitted multi-party elections but refused to honor the results when the National League for Democracy or NLD won a resounding victory. The military has remained in power ever since. In 1997, Myanmar was admitted into the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Myanmar's internal problems have now become ASEAN's problem in its dealings with outside powers. ASEAN has suffered by its association with the Myanmar regime and its poor record of human rights. Last September the situation in Myanmar came back into focus when prodemocracy activists and Buddhist monks briefly resumed public protests. They were suppressed when the military intervened in force. The response by the international community predictably was divided. The United States led the charge seeking a U.N. Security Council resolution declaring that the situation in Myanmar was a threat to international peace and security. This was rebuffed by China and Russia. Next the U.S. and the European Union imposed further sanctions on members of the military regime. ASEAN is split between states those who insist on upholding the principle of non intervention in the internal affairs of another member, and those states that seek to apply pressure on Myanmar to open a political dialogue with the democratic opposition. The United Nations Secretary General, in an effort to overcome this impasse, appointed a Special Envoy to promote national reconciliation.

5 Myanmar's announcement that it has resumed its 'road map to democracy raises the question: will Myanmar's 2010 elections be a re-run of 1990? Few foreign commentators realize that Myanmar's 1990 elections were problematic from the start. After announcing the elections, the military junta began to back track almost immediately. The junta declared that the elections were only the first step. In their view the 1990 elections were never intended to lead to an immediate turnover of power to the victor. Rather, the elections were to select a constituent assembly whose task it was to prepare a draft constitution to be approved by a national referendum. Then and only then could democratic elections be held to select a national legislature. The NLD's leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters acknowledged as much during the campaign. Yet when the NLD won an overwhelming electoral victory they demanded an immediate hand over of power. The military junta refused to yield and a seventeen-year political stalemate ensued. Both ASEAN and the international community have some hard thinking to do about how to respond to Myanmar's latest "road map to democracy". Neither sanctions nor constructive engagement have worked. Myanmar's opposition also has some hard choices: should they boycott the referendum or launch another round of physical confrontation? Between now and the May referendum the international community must get behind the U.N. Secretary General' special Representative to promote national reconciliation in Myanmar. It must be made clear to Myanmar's military regime that their present road map to democracy is unacceptable to the regional and international community until the NLD and ethnic minorities are consulted. Provisions in the electoral law and draft constitution that bar Aung San Suu Kyi from participating must be amended. Those advocating democratic change must also take into account two considerations - domestic stability and the future role of the military. Both are inter-related. The NLD does not represent Myanmar's ethnic minorities. Democracy will not end armed insurgency and separatism by these disaffected groups. The current draft constitution reportedly contains provisions that entrenches military rule through special powers for the army commander and the allocation of a bloc of seats in the legislature. National reconciliation in Myanmar must also take into account the future role of the armed forces. It is clear that some compromise involving a transition to civil control must be worked out. This is Carlyle Thayer, Fuller Distinguished Visiting Professor of Southeast Asian Studies, at Ohio University in the United States. http://www.rsi.sg/english/eyeonasia/view/20080331220755/1/.html