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 pro-
democracy 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