Document Actions
International Response
Sections:
Introduction
US - Burma Relations
UK - Burma Relations
The EU Common Position
Regional Relations
Burma and International Organisations
Conclusion
Introduction
The military coup, brought about in 1962 by General Ne Win, virtually sealed Burma off from the outside world. For the duration of the Cold War, the foreign policy of the ruling military juntas (currently known as the State Peace and Development Council or SPDC) was based on an insularity bordering on xenophobia. For their part, the international community, and in particular the superpowers, regarded Burma as a backwater. Even in South Asia, Burma's role in international affairs paled to insignificance next to 'non-aligned' India, and the Asian brand of Marxism-Leninism expounded by Mao to the North and Ho Chi Minh to the East.
However, the country has come under increased international scrutiny following the popular uprisings against the military regime in the late 1980s, the subsequent refusal by the military to transfer power to the National League for Democracy (NLD), the winners of the 1990 elections, and the exposure of sustained human rights abuses perpetrated by the military junta against the Burmese people. In addition, the regime has found it necessary to engage with the international community at large, both in order to legitimise itself in the post-Cold War world, and as a means of obtaining hard currency following decades of economic mismanagement.
This engagement has met with limited success. Burma remains way down the foreign policy agenda of the USA and, virtually without exception, every other Western state. In regional terms, historic animosities between Burma and its neighbours are not helped by the refugee problems caused by the continued internal strife within Burma, and the continued large-scale trafficking of heroin and amphetamines, particularly into Thailand and China. Whilst Burma is represented in numerous international organisations, both regional and global, it is regarded by most Western countries as pariah state. Few countries deal with Burma through choice whilst many actually discourage engagement beyond basic diplomatic exchanges; those countries that do deal with the Burmese military do so through necessity. The following is a brief summary of the way in which certain States approach their relations with Burma.
US - Burma Relations
The US describes its relationship with Burma as 'strained', and regularly denounces abuses of human right which are brought to light. The continued refusal by the SPDC to recognise the democratic process in Burma also attracts criticism. In real terms, however, Burma has never been a priority in US foreign policy and, in the present international situation, is unlikely to become one. Government action against the SPDC has consisted of 'broad' sanctions against the regime, and the downgrading of their mission from Embassy to Charge d'Affaires. Since the Clinton administration in1997, the US government has prohibited new investment in Burma by US persons or entities, although much American investment exited the country prior to the prohibition. In 2003 the Bush administration imposed a broad range of financial, trade and investment sanctions, and these were renewed in 2006. There is strong bipartisan support in Congress for the administration’s policies.
The US has led efforts in the UN Security Council to secure the adoption of “The Situation in Myanmar” on the Council’s agenda, and this was achieved on 15 September 2006, despite the opposition of China and Russia. The US, with the support of the UK and other partners, would like to secure the adoption of a non-binding Resolution, but unless the situation in Burma is determined to be a threat to international peace, it is likely that China and Russia would veto any such proposal.
UK - Burma Relations
Despite the historical and imperial associations the UK government has with Burma, the country remains very much at the periphery of British foreign policy. Inevitably, relations with the SPDC are poor, although the standpoint of the UK Government is arguably as tough as that of the US on the issue of human rights abuses, though their policy on sanctions favours targeted measures against the SPDC and its cronies which so far as possible do not affect the Burmese population. UK policy is to discourage trade, investment and tourism. However, the UK does provide humanitarian assistance to Burma, and has joined with other countries to set up a Three Diseases Fund to tackle HIV/Aids, tuberculosis and malaria. It also provides funding for various NGO's engaged in providing relief for Burmese refugees.
The EU Common Position
Consistent with the standpoint of individual Western, liberal democracies, the relations of the EU with the SPDC are cool. Ever since 1996 the Council has adopted a Common Position which is the basis of the policy both of the European Commission and of individual EU members. The EU Council of Ministers has routinely expressed serious concern over continued violations of human rights, and disappointment at the continued failure of the SPDC to engage in dialogue with the Burmese Opposition in seeking to achieve a peaceful political transition. EU Common Policy includes an arms embargo, a ban on high-level bilateral government visits, an asset freeze, a visa ban on SPDC members and their families and some investment restrictions. However, beyond these measures and the provision of humanitarian assistance, the role of the EU in relation to Burma remains limited. There are differences of emphasis between, for example, the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands (who generally take a hawkish approach) and France, Germany and Spain (who favour a measure of engagement).
Regional relations
Burmese-Thai relations have a long history of antagonism bordering on open conflict. Burmese insurgents regularly operate along the borders between the two countries, and huge amounts of drugs are trafficked which have led to several shooting incidents in recent years, and the use of the Thai air force to dislodge Burmese insurgents from Thai territory. Despite this, both governments, driven perhaps by their proximity, have attempted to reach more co-operative bi-lateral relations and during the last three years there have been very few armed incidents along the border.
Burma and China, despite a chequered history, are rapidly drawing closer. China is in many respects Burma's most important partner in as far as it is Chinese debt relief, development grants and soft loans which are currently developing the Burmese infrastructure. In addition, the Chinese are the main supplier of arms to the SPDC. China is attracted by Burmese natural gas which is now flowing from two offshore fields into Thailand, as well as by Burma’s natural resources. Possibly as many as a million Chinese have moved into Burma for trading and other reasons, about as many as the number of Burmese, including Shans and Karens, who have sought refuge or employment opportunities in neighbouring Thailand.
Burmese relations with India have improved in recent years as India has felt the need to tone down its previously strong support for Aung San Suu Kyi and to engage Burma on issues like border security, energy needs and concerns about Chinese influence. Relations with Bangladesh remain somewhat cool as a result of the refugee problems caused by Burmese along the borders between the two.
Russia has shown increasing interest in Burma and is providing military training to members of the Burmese armed forces. Relations with Pakistan, South Korea, Israel and Japan remain tolerable, but several ASEAN countries like Malaysia and Indonesia have shown increasing exasperation with the SPDC’s recalcitrant and intransigent attitudes.
Burma and International Organisations
Burma, represented by the SPDC, is a member of a number of international and regional organisations. Most importantly, this includes the United Nations, although the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights (now the Human Rights Council) have routinely passed resolutions condemning human rights violations in Burma. “The Situation in Myanmar” is now on the Security Council’s agenda and will remain there until the Council decides otherwise.
The SPDC has also attempted to strengthen regional ties through membership of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand Economic Co-operation Council (BIMSTEC), the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) and the Asian Regional Forum (ARF).
In terms of membership of international financial institutions, Burma is engaged with, amongst others, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank and The International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, primarily because of US and EU opposition, these institutions have not extended loans to Burma since the late 1980s. Burma's total foreign debt now stands at over $6 billion.
Conclusions
It seems clear that Burma is, and will remain, very much on the periphery of the international community, despite its attempts top escape from its self-imposed isolation which existed from1962 to1988. It is just one of any number of states which perpetrates recognised human rights abuses against its citizens, and the activities of the Western democratic powers in the period preceding the end of the Cold War demonstrates that realism overrides moral concerns in international relations. Western governments feel unable to engage with a regime that abuses international standards of human rights and political liberties. The US and EU, however, have been making a determined effort during the last 12 months to resolve Burma’s intransigence, but the prospects of securing SPDC cooperation look poor. . Regional relations are governed by a realist approach to handling a difficult neighbour which nonetheless is a source of natural resources need to maintain their economic growth.. The Burmese people are caught between a distracted, and to some extent indifferent, international community, and a domestic regime which has driven down their standard of living over a number of decades and continues to exercise considerable repression.
Introduction
US - Burma Relations
UK - Burma Relations
The EU Common Position
Regional Relations
Burma and International Organisations
Conclusion
Introduction
The military coup, brought about in 1962 by General Ne Win, virtually sealed Burma off from the outside world. For the duration of the Cold War, the foreign policy of the ruling military juntas (currently known as the State Peace and Development Council or SPDC) was based on an insularity bordering on xenophobia. For their part, the international community, and in particular the superpowers, regarded Burma as a backwater. Even in South Asia, Burma's role in international affairs paled to insignificance next to 'non-aligned' India, and the Asian brand of Marxism-Leninism expounded by Mao to the North and Ho Chi Minh to the East.
However, the country has come under increased international scrutiny following the popular uprisings against the military regime in the late 1980s, the subsequent refusal by the military to transfer power to the National League for Democracy (NLD), the winners of the 1990 elections, and the exposure of sustained human rights abuses perpetrated by the military junta against the Burmese people. In addition, the regime has found it necessary to engage with the international community at large, both in order to legitimise itself in the post-Cold War world, and as a means of obtaining hard currency following decades of economic mismanagement.
This engagement has met with limited success. Burma remains way down the foreign policy agenda of the USA and, virtually without exception, every other Western state. In regional terms, historic animosities between Burma and its neighbours are not helped by the refugee problems caused by the continued internal strife within Burma, and the continued large-scale trafficking of heroin and amphetamines, particularly into Thailand and China. Whilst Burma is represented in numerous international organisations, both regional and global, it is regarded by most Western countries as pariah state. Few countries deal with Burma through choice whilst many actually discourage engagement beyond basic diplomatic exchanges; those countries that do deal with the Burmese military do so through necessity. The following is a brief summary of the way in which certain States approach their relations with Burma.
US - Burma Relations
The US describes its relationship with Burma as 'strained', and regularly denounces abuses of human right which are brought to light. The continued refusal by the SPDC to recognise the democratic process in Burma also attracts criticism. In real terms, however, Burma has never been a priority in US foreign policy and, in the present international situation, is unlikely to become one. Government action against the SPDC has consisted of 'broad' sanctions against the regime, and the downgrading of their mission from Embassy to Charge d'Affaires. Since the Clinton administration in1997, the US government has prohibited new investment in Burma by US persons or entities, although much American investment exited the country prior to the prohibition. In 2003 the Bush administration imposed a broad range of financial, trade and investment sanctions, and these were renewed in 2006. There is strong bipartisan support in Congress for the administration’s policies.
The US has led efforts in the UN Security Council to secure the adoption of “The Situation in Myanmar” on the Council’s agenda, and this was achieved on 15 September 2006, despite the opposition of China and Russia. The US, with the support of the UK and other partners, would like to secure the adoption of a non-binding Resolution, but unless the situation in Burma is determined to be a threat to international peace, it is likely that China and Russia would veto any such proposal.
UK - Burma Relations
Despite the historical and imperial associations the UK government has with Burma, the country remains very much at the periphery of British foreign policy. Inevitably, relations with the SPDC are poor, although the standpoint of the UK Government is arguably as tough as that of the US on the issue of human rights abuses, though their policy on sanctions favours targeted measures against the SPDC and its cronies which so far as possible do not affect the Burmese population. UK policy is to discourage trade, investment and tourism. However, the UK does provide humanitarian assistance to Burma, and has joined with other countries to set up a Three Diseases Fund to tackle HIV/Aids, tuberculosis and malaria. It also provides funding for various NGO's engaged in providing relief for Burmese refugees.
The EU Common Position
Consistent with the standpoint of individual Western, liberal democracies, the relations of the EU with the SPDC are cool. Ever since 1996 the Council has adopted a Common Position which is the basis of the policy both of the European Commission and of individual EU members. The EU Council of Ministers has routinely expressed serious concern over continued violations of human rights, and disappointment at the continued failure of the SPDC to engage in dialogue with the Burmese Opposition in seeking to achieve a peaceful political transition. EU Common Policy includes an arms embargo, a ban on high-level bilateral government visits, an asset freeze, a visa ban on SPDC members and their families and some investment restrictions. However, beyond these measures and the provision of humanitarian assistance, the role of the EU in relation to Burma remains limited. There are differences of emphasis between, for example, the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands (who generally take a hawkish approach) and France, Germany and Spain (who favour a measure of engagement).
Regional relations
Burmese-Thai relations have a long history of antagonism bordering on open conflict. Burmese insurgents regularly operate along the borders between the two countries, and huge amounts of drugs are trafficked which have led to several shooting incidents in recent years, and the use of the Thai air force to dislodge Burmese insurgents from Thai territory. Despite this, both governments, driven perhaps by their proximity, have attempted to reach more co-operative bi-lateral relations and during the last three years there have been very few armed incidents along the border.
Burma and China, despite a chequered history, are rapidly drawing closer. China is in many respects Burma's most important partner in as far as it is Chinese debt relief, development grants and soft loans which are currently developing the Burmese infrastructure. In addition, the Chinese are the main supplier of arms to the SPDC. China is attracted by Burmese natural gas which is now flowing from two offshore fields into Thailand, as well as by Burma’s natural resources. Possibly as many as a million Chinese have moved into Burma for trading and other reasons, about as many as the number of Burmese, including Shans and Karens, who have sought refuge or employment opportunities in neighbouring Thailand.
Burmese relations with India have improved in recent years as India has felt the need to tone down its previously strong support for Aung San Suu Kyi and to engage Burma on issues like border security, energy needs and concerns about Chinese influence. Relations with Bangladesh remain somewhat cool as a result of the refugee problems caused by Burmese along the borders between the two.
Russia has shown increasing interest in Burma and is providing military training to members of the Burmese armed forces. Relations with Pakistan, South Korea, Israel and Japan remain tolerable, but several ASEAN countries like Malaysia and Indonesia have shown increasing exasperation with the SPDC’s recalcitrant and intransigent attitudes.
Burma and International Organisations
Burma, represented by the SPDC, is a member of a number of international and regional organisations. Most importantly, this includes the United Nations, although the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights (now the Human Rights Council) have routinely passed resolutions condemning human rights violations in Burma. “The Situation in Myanmar” is now on the Security Council’s agenda and will remain there until the Council decides otherwise.
The SPDC has also attempted to strengthen regional ties through membership of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand Economic Co-operation Council (BIMSTEC), the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) and the Asian Regional Forum (ARF).
In terms of membership of international financial institutions, Burma is engaged with, amongst others, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank and The International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, primarily because of US and EU opposition, these institutions have not extended loans to Burma since the late 1980s. Burma's total foreign debt now stands at over $6 billion.
Conclusions
It seems clear that Burma is, and will remain, very much on the periphery of the international community, despite its attempts top escape from its self-imposed isolation which existed from1962 to1988. It is just one of any number of states which perpetrates recognised human rights abuses against its citizens, and the activities of the Western democratic powers in the period preceding the end of the Cold War demonstrates that realism overrides moral concerns in international relations. Western governments feel unable to engage with a regime that abuses international standards of human rights and political liberties. The US and EU, however, have been making a determined effort during the last 12 months to resolve Burma’s intransigence, but the prospects of securing SPDC cooperation look poor. . Regional relations are governed by a realist approach to handling a difficult neighbour which nonetheless is a source of natural resources need to maintain their economic growth.. The Burmese people are caught between a distracted, and to some extent indifferent, international community, and a domestic regime which has driven down their standard of living over a number of decades and continues to exercise considerable repression.