政党社团之声
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    缅甸风云
[主页]->[政党社团之声]->[缅甸风云]->[An EU strategy for Burma ?]
BURMA-缅甸风云
·缅甸迪巴荫惨案二周年声明
·Statement on Second Anniversary of De-pe’-yin Massacre
·缅甸掸邦掸族的心声
·对“建设性接触政策”盖棺论定
·The Last Nail in the Coffin of Constructive Engagement
·赛万赛谈缅甸现状
·Interview with Sai Wansai, General Secretary of SDU
·被世界遗弃的缅甸克伦尼族
·Karennis, the Forgotten People of the World
·缅甸流亡政府总理Dr.SEIN WIN的卫视讲话
·缅甸军政府成惊弓之鸟
·The Burmese Generals Are Wild Beasts!
·与掸邦独立领袖一席谈
·Talks With Hso Khan Pha Who Declared Shan Independence
·缅甸的第二次反法西斯斗争
·Burma Needs 2nd Anti-Fascist Movement
·Dr.Sein Win's Discourse on TV Conference
·缅甸群英会:盛温博士、萨尼博士、温教授
·RIPPLES Made by Premier Sein Win, Dr. Zarni & Prof. Win
·非正式国家人民代表组织”UNPO
·Unrepresentative Nations and Peoples Organization UNPO
·缅甸众邦众族六月份动态
·Activities of Ethnic Parties and People of BURMA in June
·UNPO 第七届代表大会
·UNPO VII Condemns Burma's Fascist Junta
·缅甸军政府的累累法西斯罪行
·The Fascist Crimes of Burma's Junta
·UNPO Resolution on EU’s Arms Embargo against China
·UNPO要求欧盟对华禁售武器
·缅甸流亡政府NCGUB 7月26日声明
·NCGUB Press Release on July 26,2005
·第七次非缅族社区发展会议的声明
·Statement of the 7th Ethnic Community Development Seminar
·克伦族联盟KNU的各族平等斗争
·KNU's Struggle for Democracy & Equality of ALL Nationalities
·可敬的柏林日本妇女小组
·Respectable Japanese Women Initiative Berlin
·About KNU’s Aims, Policy and Programme
·克伦族联盟KNU的目标、政策与纲领
·Appeal to UN Security Council
·呼吁联合国安理会保护缅甸人民
·悼念恩师林丽华
·缅甸事件已呈请联合国安理会干涉
·A CALL FOR UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO ACT IN BURMA
·缅甸华族致函中国驻联合国安理会常任代表团
·Burma's Chinese Appeal to PR China's Permanent Mission to UN Security
·缅甸克钦邦停战组织之内讧
·No More Peace for Burma's Peace Groups
·缅甸华族致函英国:呼吁联合国安理会干预缅甸
·Burma's Chinese Call England for the UN Security Council to Act in Burma
·SDU敦促安理会干涉威胁和平的缅甸
·SDU’ s STATEMENT On “Threat To The Peace: A Call For The UN Security Council To Act in Burma”
·安理会、军政府、民主力量、众民族力量、缅甸华族
·Burmese case at the UNSC: A Silver Lining
·来世不要这地狱!
·NEVER SUCH HELL IN NEXT LIFE!
·缅甸政党纷纷声援"报告书" (续)
·Endorsements from Burma's Democracy & Ethnic Forces (continue)
·欧盟的缅甸战略
·An EU strategy for Burma ?
·Annihilate Burma’s Poverty & Inequality
·消灭缅甸的贫穷与不平等
·美国国防专家看中缅关系
·Beckoning Burma
·缅甸搬迁军政总部与核能基地
·Burma Nuke Plant: Plains to Hills
·貌强:缅甸民主社团上书荷兰外交部
·貌强 :BDC-NL Appeals Dutch Government for Burma Issue
·寻找中国的同情与支持
·貌强: Seek China's Support
·缅甸国内外情势的阴阳转化
·貌强: Burma's Situation and Taiji's Yin & Yang
·布什会见缅甸掸族巾帼英雄蔷冬
·貌强:Bush met Charm Tong, The Shan Heroine of Burma
·貌强:A Burmese Confesses to Oppressed Ethnic People & My Comment
·貌强:一缅族向众原住民忏悔与我的答评
·Win教授、洋学者、貌强座谈缅甸问题
·貌强:Prof. Win's An Attempt on Jigsaw Puzzle
·貌强:缅甸将军们为保权而一意孤行
·貌强: SDU & USA Condemn Burmese Junta’s Sentence on 8 Shan Leaders
·缅甸迁都:惧美?内战?风水?禳灾?
·貌强:Capital Moves to Pyinmana, WHY?
·世界对缅甸的看法
·貌强:How The World Views Burma’s Junta ?
·貌强:Master In Civil War & Disintegrating
·貌强:缅甸内战与分化高手
·貌强:Discussion on Contemporary Situation in Shan State with Sai Wansai of SDU
·貌强:与赛万赛谈掸邦现状
·貌强:Shan State Army Is Against Racial Hatred & Union Disintegration
·貌强: 众停战组织反对种族仇恨与联邦分裂
·貌强:Burmese Echos to UNSC Briefing On Burma
·貌强:安理会的缅甸简报与反响
·貌强:缅甸制宪国民大会又续开了!
·貌强:Burma Re-opens National Convention
·貌强:缅甸联邦宪法起草委员会FCGCC告人民书
·貌强:Press Release by Federal Constitution Drafting & Coordinating Committee-Union of Burma (FCDCC)
·貌强:缅甸新社会民主党DPNS与记者谈话
·貌强:Burmese DPNS ’s Press Conference
·Shan-EU: Time for ASEAN and UN to act in tandem
·赛万赛与貌强谈: 缅甸年终现状
·貌强:缅甸众土族委员会ENC欢迎东盟的呼吁
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
An EU strategy for Burma ?

   ========================

   S.H.A.N. & Burma's News Published by Burma's Chinese

   

   Contact & UNsubscribe: [email protected]

   Website: http://www.boxun.com/hero/Burma'sChinese

   Oct. 18, 2005

   =======================

   The autor Ham Yawnghwe is the Director of the Euro-Burma Office in Brussels. Established in 1997 to help the Burmese democracy movement prepare for a peaceful transition to democracy after four decades of military rule, the Office was a joint project of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

   The Euro-Burma Office manages the National Reconciliation Programme forBurma and in 2005, received funding from the Peace building Fund of the Canadian International Development Agency, the Danish International Development Agency, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Irish Catholic development agency.

   -------

An EU strategy for Burma/Myanmar?

   by Ham Yawnghwe

   It is difficult to talk about a European Union strategy for Burma/Myanmar when everything about the country is so politicised and polarised - be it HIV / AIDS, humanitarian aid, or drug eradication, not to mention sanctions or political engagement. A simple well-meaning action or statement can take on unintended complex consequences and draw intense criticism from all quarters. The United Nations Global Fund to combat HIV-AIDS, Tuberculosis ,and Malaria in Myanmar has become the latest victim in this 'Burma war'. It is a battle where one is more likely to be killed by 'friendly' fire than by enemy fire. The issue of a European Union strategy for Burma/Myanmar is further complicated by the question of whether the strategy should be developed and implemented by the Commissioner for External Relations, or the EU High Commissioner for Foreign Policy, or the rotating EU Presidency, or the various EU Ministries of Foreign Affairs who more or less deal with Burma/Myanmar on a daily basis.

EU-Burma relations in review

   The European Union's policy towards Burma/Myanmar has unfortunately been a reactive one rather than a carefully thought through strategy. This is sadly true of the Burmese democracy movement as a whole, as well as of the international community at large. The process for the EU is perhaps complicated by the need to reach a consensus amongst the 25 member nations. When the Burmese military, then known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), seized power in 1988 killing thousands, the EU reacted by suspending all bilateral aid. When the SLORC in 1990 held general elections, lost by a landslide and decided to ignore the election results, the EU reacted by imposing an arms embargo and suspending defence co-operation in1991. With hindsight, the withdrawing of military attaches from the EU embassies in Yangon is proving to be a key weakness in EU strategy. But after the initial furore over the elections, Burma/Myanmar was again forgotten as EU companies joined others in the rush to invest in the new open 'frontier' economy. Then, in 1995, the spotlight was turned on the regime's forced labour practices by the democracy movement as a campaign against the SLORC's "Visit Myanmar Year" tourist campaign. This eventually led, in 1997, to the EU withdrawing General System of Preferences (GSP)trade privileges from Burma/Myanmar. This also led to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) taking action against the Burmese regime in November 2000. The heightened awareness created by the GSP and 'slave' labour campaigns allowed the EU to adopt its first Common Position on Burma/Myanmar in October 1996. But while the tougher EU stance was appreciated by democracy advocates everywhere, the policy was out of sync with what was actually happening politically on the ground in Yangon.

   In 1994, the SLORC had electrified the people of Burma by showing on state television, images without a sound track of democracy icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (ASSK) meeting with SLORC Chairman Sr. General Than Shwe and SLORCSecretary-1 Lieut-General Khin Nyunt. This was followed by her eventual release from house arrest in 1995. The situation was reversed towards the end of 1996 when ASSK's National League for Democracy (NLD) withdrew from the SLORC-sponsored National Convention. But in theory, the stronger EU position should have come when the SLORC-ASSK 'honeymoon' broke down. It, in fact, preceded it. From the SLORC point of view, it could perhaps be wrongly concluded that the military's 'weakness' during the 'honeymoon' period encouraged stronger measures against it. The EU Common Position was followed by an even stronger US position in 1997.

   1997 was also the year that Burma/Myanmar's became a member of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Prior to that, the EU could afford to have any policy it wanted without affecting any of its interests. But the issue of Burma/Myanmar became a bone of contention between the EU and ASEAN and it affected their long-tern relationship for many years. And when the EU Common Position was strengthened in October 1998, not much was added beyond widening the visa ban on Burmese officials.

   In early 2000, the now renamed State Peace and Development Council (SPDC)launched a campaign to 'annihilate' both ASSK and the NLD. But by then, the EU no longer had any means/1eft to influence the SPDC, and in April 2000,the Council had to take the mainly symbolic action of adding to the Common Position some restrictive measures against the regime. Realising its weakened position, the Council reiterated its desire to establish a meaningful political dialogue with the SPDC and indicated that the visa ban for the Burmese Foreign Minister might be waived where this would be in the interests of the EU. This in fact, contradicted the earlier position adopted nine years previously to downgrade official contacts. But the real difficulty was not having military attaches in situ since 1991. This meant that the EU had no real channels through which it could talk with the Burmese military.

   Fortunately for all concerned, the SPDC backed off its campaign to 'annihilate' ASSK and the NLD, and instead embarked in October 2000 on 'confidential talks' with ASSK. When the 'talks' with ASSK which were 'facilitated' by the UN Special Envoy for Burma, Ambassador Razali, began to break down in 2003, the EU Common Position was strengthened once again in April 2003. But as previously, it consisted only of an extension of the scope of existing sanctions. Some including the then British Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Mike O'Brien have speculated whether a relaxation of the EU position at that time might not have helped to soften the SPDC's position. But the die was probably already cast when the US refused to "certify" the SPDC's drug control efforts in February 2003.

   The EU position on Burma/Myanmar took a strange turn in 2004. Until ASEAN, Burma/Myanmar was a side issue and was becoming an irritant. But with the expansion of the EU, the expansion of the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) became a crucial issue and the inclusion of Burma/Myanmar became the centre of the dispute. In a bid to influence ASEAN, the EU threatened to boycott ASEM if Burma/Myanmar was included, and in April 2004, the EU Common Position on Burma/Myanmar was extended by the Council. But when ASEAN called their bluff, the EU had to agree to Burma/Myanmar participating in the ASEM Summit, though on a level below that of Head of State or Government. As a face-saving mechanism, the EU also decided that further sanctions against the military regime would be implemented if it failed to meet certain conditions including the release of ASSK. The Council in October 2004revised the Common Position and further tightened sanctions on the SPDC.

   While the EU Common Position was renewed in April 2005, no changes were introduced. With the ASEM debacle in 2004 and the recent tension with ASEAN over Burma/Myanmar's chairmanship in 2006, it is becoming increasingly clear that the EU can no longer take its Burma/Myanmar policy for granted or act in an ad hoc fashion every time anew issue arises. While EU exports to Burma/Myanmar are negligible, totalling 54 million in 2003, and imports from Burma/Myanmar totalled only 388 million, Burma/Myanmar is becoming a major obstacle in the EU's relationship with ASEAN and its east Asian partners -namely China, Japan and South Korea. The socio-economic conditions in Burma/Myanmar are also worrying. There is a high risk of instability. Former Commissioner Chris Patten has stated that we could be witnessing the development of a failed state in Burma/Myanmar.

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场