Abstract
Recent challenges have tested the approaches of both the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union (EU) to adequately respond to forced migration in Myanmar. This article provides a comparison between the European sanctions regime and ASEAN's ‘constructive engagement’ with Myanmar. In the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, it is ASEAN, along with the United Nations (UN), that has offered an effective mechanism to access populations of concern in Myanmar. This article draws on the experience of the UN High Commission for Refugees on the western border and argues that while the new ASEAN-UN-led mechanism offers a new way to assist people in the delta region, this access is contingent on three constraints: maintenance of personal relations with military decision-makers, continuation of an ASEAN-UN-led mechanism and ongoing funding from donor nations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The 2007 United States Congressional Resolution 56 on Myanmar encourages ASEAN to take action to ensure a democratic transition and respect for human rights takes place in Myanmar. The resolution would also welcome ASEAN to entertain disciplinary measures against Myanmar, including suspension from the organization. The resolution recognizes the statements by foreign ministers of ASEAN member states that the Myanmar issue has ‘had a serious impact on the reputation and credibility of the organisation’.
An example of a more critical ASEAN member state, in 2006 the Malaysian foreign minister accused the Myanmar military junta of holding ASEAN hostage and damaging its relations with the rest of the world by refusing to reform in a speech to the Inter-ASEAN parliamentary Myanmar caucus (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5201918.stm). A less critical stance has been held by the four newest members Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam which see the situation as reflective of themselves (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/25/news/asean.php). In other words, the newest members are reluctant to single out Myanmar for fear that their domestic affairs will also become the subject of regional scrutiny.
‘Soft power’ as a concept was coined by Joseph Nye in the 1980s. ‘Soft power’ is the ability to attract and persuade. It arises out of the attractiveness of a country's, or in this case, a regional organization's culture, political ideals and policies (Nye, 2005).
The ‘frontier lands’ refer to the border states of modern Myanmar and include the Chin, Kachin, Karenni and Shan ethnic nationalities.
The ‘8/8/88 Uprising’, was a national pro-democracy march in Burma. This revolution saw the emergence of Aung San Suu Kyi as the pro-democracy figurehead around the world. The revolution was put down by the military junta in a bloody attack on peaceful protesters.
The Rohingya live in Arakan state, sharing a border with Bangladesh and are descendants of foreign traders and soldiers, mostly Arab, Mongolian, Turkish, Portuguese and Bengali, mixing with different native tribes who converted to Islam in the fifteenth century when it was part of Bengal (Jonassohn and Bjornson, 1999). The Rohingya are seen as illegal immigrants and denied basic citizenship rights by the military junta. The religious dimension has been exploited by the military junta to promote a feeling of ‘otherness’. This generates suspicion of the Rohingya's presence as a non-Burman and foreign influence on Burma.
For a detail investigation into refugees’ experiences under the military, see KWO (2004).
For an individual study on internal displacement in Myanmar, see Bosson (2007).
Constructive engagement is a conceptualization of ASEAN's collective diplomatic approach to Myanmar, which developed out of the Thai policy of accommodation towards Yangon. It is a policy alternative to strategies of condemnation and confrontation (Haacke, 2003).
According to Freedom House, a non-partisan institution that evaluates countries worldwide on their levels of political rights and civil liberties, Indonesia is the only ASEAN member classified as ‘Free’; while Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore are classified as ‘Partly Free’; the remaining members are classified as ‘Not Free’ (Freedom House, 2008). As a result I refer to these members as the more progressive ASEAN members because of their shift towards democracy over the other members stagnant positions as ‘not free’.
For a more detailed analysis of the limited investment ban, please see the Burma Campaign UK: www.burmacampaign.org.uk.
The ‘Sovereignty with Responsibility’ approach was coined by Francis Deng in the mid-1990s and is widely cited in Deng et al (1996).
Some EU member states advocate lessening the current levels of sanctions. These are Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain. A handful of other EU member states advocate increasing the sanctions. These are Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (Burma Campaign UK, 2006).
Lee (2006) refers to groups representing industry and NGOs, so one can assume that his definition of NGO is similar to mine in that they are social policy-oriented.
References
Abramowitz, M. and Pickering, T. (2008) Making intervention work. Foreign Affairs 87 (5): 100–108.
Abrar, C.R. (1995) Repatriation of Rohingya Refugees. Regional Consultation on Refugee and Migratory Movements, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Acharya, A. (2001) Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order. London: Routledge.
Alexander, A. (2008) Without refuge: Chin refugees in India and Malaysia. Forced Migration Review 30: 36–37.
ASEAN. (1976) Treaty of amity and cooperation in Southeast Asia. Indonesia, 24 February.
Barnett, M. (2000) UNHCR and involuntary repatriation: Environmental developments, the repatriation culture, and the Rohingya refugees. Paper delivered to International Studies Association; 14-18 March, Los Angeles, California, USA, pp. 1–24.
Bosson, A. (2007) Forced migration/internal displacement in Burma with an emphasis on government-controlled areas. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Geneva, Switzerland.
Brees, I. (2008) Forced displacement of Burmese people. Forced Migration Review 30: 4–5.
Burma Campaign UK. (2006) The Alternative Human Rights Report. A Report published by Burma Campaign UK, UK Chagos Support Association, Justice for Colombia, Free Tibet Campaign, Free West Papua Campaign and Western Sahara Campaign, http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/reports/althumanrights_email.pdf, accessed 30 October 2006.
Cutts, M. (ed.) (2000) The State of the World's Refugees 2000: Fifty Years of Humanitarian Action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Deng, F. (1996) Sovereignty as Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
European Commission. (2007) The EC/Burma/Myanmar Strategy Paper (2007–2013).Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
European Union. (2008) European Council common position 2007/750/CSFP, http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/myanmar/intro/index.htm, accessed 15 May 2009.
Freedom House. (2008) Freedom in the World 2008. Washington DC: Freedom House, http://www.freedomhouse.org/, accessed 25 September 2008.
Garver,J.W. (2006) Development of China's overland transportation links with Central, South-West and South Asia. The China Quarterly 185 (March): 1–22.
Haacke, J. (2003) ASEAN's Diplomatic and Security Culture: Origins, Development and Prospects. London: Routledge.
Haacke, J. (2006) Myanmar's Foreign Policy: Domestic Influences and International Implications. Adelphi Papers, 381.
Jonassohn, K. and Bjornson, K.S. (1999) Genocide and Gross Human Rights Violations in Comparative Perspective. London: Transaction Publishers.
Karen Women's Organisation. (2004) Shattering Silences: Karen Women Speak Out About the Burmese Military Regime's Use of Rape as a Strategy of War in Karen State. Mae Sot, Thailand: Karen Women's Organisation.
Kent, J. (2006) Burma: Holding Southeast Asia hostage’ BBC News online, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5201918.stm, accessed 14 September 2006.
Khoo, N. (2004) Deconstructing the ASEAN security community: A review essay. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 4 (1): 35–46.
Kraft, H.J.S. (2000) ASEAN and intra-ASEAN relations: Weathering the storm? The Pacific Review 13 (3): 453–472.
Lee, J. (2006) Comparing NGO Influence in the EU and US. Programme on NGOs and Civil Society. Geneva, Switzerland: Centre for Applied Studies in International Negotiation.
Lewa, C. (2008) The Rohingya: Asia's new boat people. Forced Migration Review 30: 40–41.
Mason, J. (2000) No Way Out, No Way In: The Crisis of Internal Displacement in Burma. Washington DC: US Committee for Refugees.
Narine, S. (2005) Humanitarian intervention and the question of sovereignty: The case of ASEAN. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 4 (3–4): 465–485.
Nye, J. (2005) Soft Power: The means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.
Pereira, R. (2005) The Fifth Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) summit, an assessment. Asia Europe Journal 3: 17–23.
Phiri, P.P. (2008) Rohingyas and refugee status in Bangladesh. Forced Migration review 30: 34–35.
Rarick, C.A. (2006) Destroying a country in order to save it: The folly of economic sanctions against Myanmar. IEA Economic Affairs 26 (2): 60–63.
Thai Burma Border Consortium. (2005) Internal Displacement and Protection in Eastern Burma. Bangkok,Thailand: Wanida Press.
Than, T.M.M. (1998) Myanmar: Preoccupation with regime survival, national unity, and stability. In: M. Alagappa (ed.) Asian Security Practice: Material and Ideational Influences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Than, M. and Thein, M. (2007) Transitional economy of Myanmar: Present status, development divide and future prospects. ASEAN Economic Bulletin 24 (1): 98–118.
UNHCR. (2007) Country Operations Plan – Thailand. UNHCR Country Operations Plans 2007. Geneva: UNHCR.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cook, A. Positions of responsibility: A comparison of ASEAN and EU approaches towards Myanmar. Int Polit 47, 433–449 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2010.7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2010.7