An Inquiry Into The EU Policy Towards Myanmar(2012-2019):Acting As A “Civilian Power”

The European Union which is politically not a traditional polity and geographically not located in East Asia has been interested in involving in Myanmar’s domestic affairs.Over the past decades,the EU has consistently condemned the military regime of Myanmar but has preferred adopting a “civilian” approach to the Myanmar issues,such as providing aid and fund to civil society.That means Brussels has shunned using military means to change the current government which has been sanctioned severely by the international community including the EU.Given this,the EU has faced a dilemma in that it has to deal with the legitimate government of Myanmar to improve its image as a “peace broker” or a “civilian power” that champions the peaceful change of domestic misdeeds rather than leading to civil conflicts.This study will proceed with the following questions under further investigation.First,what is the EU’s objective in approaching Myanmar? Second,why does the EU want to adopt a policy different from the traditional powers such as the U.S.in dealing with foreign affairs? Third,how would the EU apply the statecraft to realize its designed objectives and the dimensions for the future?This study aims to explain foreign policy decisions,the processes,and the impacts on the relations between Myanmar and the EU and also the neighboring countries.In doing this,the analysis will be conducted by using a qualitative research methodology.According to Babbie and Mouton,qualitative research seeks to make the most of a myriad of specific information that can be derived from and about that context,by purposely selecting settings and informants that differ from one another.Due to this,the study relies on both primary and secondary sources for the research into the thematic issue presented in this study.In terms of the primary study,they rely on official government institutions that are involved indirectly in making and shaping foreign policy decisions on both sides of Myanmar and the European Union.These include memoires,memos briefings,communique,and reports from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Myanmar and the countries of the European Union as well as the Union as well.The secondary data are selected from refereed journal articles,books,electronic and print media,websites,conference papers,research by civil society organizations,and other news outlets whose reports are relevant to this study.The main argument for this study is that the European Unionopted to change Myanmar society instead of the political regime because of three fundamental reasons.First,Myanmar’s geopolitical location makes regime change and its consequent political instability an issue of grave concern for the countries in the region.Myanmar finds itself sandwiched between China and India on the hand and surrounded by other key actors such as Japan and South Korea and the ASEAN.Political instability in Myanmar would affect all these countries in addition to Myanmar’s direct neighbors.Second,the European Union chose to gradually transform Myanmar society instead of changing the regime by force because of the failures of such intervention postures over the past decades.The failures of intervention in Libya,Afghanistan,and Iraq are still fresh on the political consciousness of foreign policymakers across the various European capitals.In dealing with third nations and international issues,“civilian models” focus on persuasion and negotiation,whereas power blocs use coercion stressed by Christopher Hill.In addition,citizen powers rely on persuasion(carrots)and attractiveness rather than coercion(sticks).His concentrates on persuasion and attraction rather than force in the internal lack of unanimity on the question of the aggressive removal of the government in Myanmar.Finally,the internal lack of unanimity on the question of the aggressive removal of the government in Myanmar also contributed to the EU’s non-interventionist foreign policy decision regarding Myanmar.However,the study argues that EU approaches involve both soft powers such as dispute settlement and aid as well as coercive power containing imposed sanctions and military action.The EU foreign policy is shifting toward a pragmatic approach that seeks to balance external interests and norms in the Myanmar issue.The strict measures of the EU response to Myanmar issues have been slower than the response to Libya and South-Sudan.Since 1990,the EU imposed sanctions and the EU common position 1996/635/CFSP,was adopted on the issue of Myanmar.The restrictive measures were including such as the suspension of the arms embargo,defense cooperation,bilateral governmental visits,visa bans on military officers and their families,and higher-level government officers.In March 2011,U Thein Sein became the president and the turning point of the country’s transition was significantly achieved when the opposition leader democratic icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi took part in politics and the cease-fire agreements were signed with ethnic nationalities in the peace process.They also have launched several discussions on the clarification of federalism.During 2011 and 2012,the government designed to negotiate several numbers ceasefire agreements which are fundamental facts to transform the armed groups into a multiparty system and participate in parliamentary politics and 2015,the nationwide ceasefire agreement(NCA)was signed between the government and eight ethnic armed organizations(EAOs).In addition,U Thein Sein’s government received the international impression and opened up the external ties that would be contributed to the liberation of the country’s socio-economic and political changes.EU suspended its sanctions in April 2013,then the foreign affairs council approved the comprehensive framework that led to the EU’s Myanmar policy.Despite the EU did not succeed in its sanctions on the core resources of energy extraction sectors,it affected other items such as timber,garment,fishery,and agricultural sectors.Further impacts are Myanmar’s exports from its industries are comparatively low in the European market and economic sanctions have not benefited the country’s trade preference.Myanmar’s external relations were improved after five years of transition terms in the new NLD government era,especially rebuilding relations with China and the US.Besides,global contributors and financial organizations progressively participated in the domestic sphere,and also nearby countries were included in the peace process of the country.During 2014 and 2020,the EU was one of Myanmar’s donor countries.Its assistance focused mainly on the four priority sectors which were discussed extensively with the government and other stakeholders to progress in these projects.These are rural development,agricultural and education sector,governance,rule of law,state capacity building,and peace process or peacebuilding.EU has played an important role in granting funding for the country.It can be concluded that EU aid for development programs is partly effective for Myanmar because it has implemented the direct and indirect management types when supporting funds to several sectors.In brief,the EU has contributed 63% of the fund indirectly way through the UN agency in 2016.The concept of the civilian power of the EU is distinct in accordance with several scholars.During the 1970 s,through European political cooperation(EPC),Fran?ois Duchêne introduced the EU as a civilian power in global politics.The features of the EU’s civilian power are “long on economic power and relatively short on armed force”and it spread democratic and civilian benchmarks all over the globe defined by Duchene.Ian Manners likewise stated the EU as the major normative power which differentiates from its traditional military culture.The meaning of civilian power can be seen in that it relies on civilian rather than military means,applies persuasive ways of power and attraction power,based on the principles of humanitarian and also has coercion as the need for sanctions to push for law enforcement.Similarly,Harnisch and Maull stated that the EU idea of civilian power that the EU has tended to overcome power politics through multilateral cooperation in international affairs.For Maull and Harnisch,civilian power focused on administrative and territorial integration,sovereignty,and multilateral cooperation by attempting to force the principles and endorse the features of civilian power such as a peaceable way of conflict resolution and conflict management.Through cooperation,actors could overtake the power politics in international arenas.The treaty on European Union or the Maastricht treaty created the three-pillar system in 1993 in which the Common Foreign and Security Policy(CFSP)is the second pillar.The main objectives of CFSP are to preserve the peace,consolidate security in the international arena,advance cooperation,to reinforce democracy,human rights,rules,law,and freedoms.In 2003,the treaty of nine modified the more efficient decision-making process.As soon as the Lisbon treaty came into force in December 2009.The intentions of EU external action were legalized and its external actions include foreign trade policy,economic and financial cooperation with third countries,development cooperation and humanitarian aid,sanctions,and international agreements.Recently,EU humanitarian aid concentrated on the Bengali-Rohingya issues,and it gave a promise to grand € 51 million to Bengali-Rohingya refugees from both Bangladesh and Europe refugee camps and to revitalize Myanmar by 2017.In addition,the EU has intended a widespread program to affect Bengali-Rohingya in the coming times.With regard to Myanmar,the approaches of the EU and its members have not appeared back forward and it fundamentally depends on the country’s political and economic transformation.As Anais Tamen’s argument,EU policy towards Myanmar is less precise and clear,as well as democracy and human rights enhancing in Myanmar are still far for the EU.Even though the EU could not change the military dictatorship behaviors in domestic politics,its aim of human rights and democracy movements are awaked in Myanmar that issue is an achievement for the EU.Moreover,due to the EU’s incoherent policy towards Myanmar,economic cooperation becomes the main factor that creates soft sanctions upon Myanmar.However,due to the influx of refugees and migrants into the EU in 2015,EU member states have diverged on the best way to handle the issues.The EU is unable to demonstrate cohesion in the domestic and international arenas in responding to the refugee crisis.Member states also do not have the resilience to defend their liberal democracy from the risk of populism.The efforts of the EU and its member states to protect their security from the contexts of insecurity have been obstacles to human rights and blocks to open society.As a result,the EU is less capacity to be a pillar of the liberal order.As fragile EU soft power,it will become difficult for the EU to promote the principles of human rights and democracy across the world or act as a trustworthy role of regional cooperation.For the EU to use its soft power efficiently,it might take time to reform its domestic and mend international reliability.European countries might be able to remember human rights and their responsibilities when they cover the borders and mend the asylum policy.In sum,this doctoral dissertation concludes that with regards EU policy towards Myanmar,it is still less concrete and progressing towards democracy and human rights in the country,so it is still a long way forward.Furthermore,economic cooperation has become the primary element in imposing soft sanctions on Myanmar.Regional organization as ASEAN’s way of constructive engagement could not be reforming the government system but it opened up access to economic progress and investment opportunities when the country was facing the restriction and condemning of the EU and US.The lack of EU clear strategy of European security strategy in way of prevention of the act of brutality was criticized by the watchers.On the Rakhine issue,international actors have concentrated on democratic reform rather than brutal prevention which can cause the failure of the prevention of the atrocities.In reality,the divergences among EU norms,political self-interest,as well as member states’ interests,lead to barriers to the EU soft power.To make a sound and systematic treatment of the issues discussed above,this dissertation is organized into six chapters as follows.Chapter one discusses the background of the study in detail.It also explicates the research design,questions,and methodology used in the study as well as the review of the literature to provide the proper context of the study.It comes to end with the significance of this study in relation to policy relevance and the theoretical contribution to the study of Myanmar’s foreign policy.Chapter two discusses the theoretical foundation of the dissertation.In this part,Constructivism was used as the framework to explain EU foreign policy engagement with Myanmar.Chapter three further examines the vexing issues of the study from a historical perspective,Myanmar’s engagement with international actors within its neighborhood with other global centers of power.In this chapter,Myanmar’s relations with China,Japan,and the United States of America.Chapter four highlights the factors and principles that underline the European Union and Myanmar’s foreign policy relations as well as the intricacies of such a relationship.The chapter highlights rational choice motivations for foreign policy decisions and choices.Chapter five also zeroes in on the impact of EU-Myanmar relations as well as the shortcomings or challenges of EU-Myanmar relations.Finally,chapter six looks at the summary of research findings,recommendations,and conclusion.For sure,all the discussions are open to taking further exploration both theoretically and politically.