European Sanctions Against Myanmar

"The European Union's Myanmar policy has been paved with good intentions. The intention has been to help establish a legitimate, democratically elected civilian government in Myanmar. This would end repression, violation of fundamental freedoms and lead to prosperity. These are no small objectives and they are all published in the Council Conclusions and Presidency Statements. In addition to this, the personal interest of political leaders and the impact of European advocacy groups have lead to the perception that they are on "the right side of history"--Publisher's description.

Abstract: The violence against the Rohingya, which has led hundreds of thousands of Rohingya to seek refuge in Bangladesh, has severely damaged Myanmar's international image. In response to the deterioration of the human rights situation in Myanmar in October 2018, the European Union (EU) threatened to withdraw the trade preferences that ensure the country has duty-free access to the EU common market. It seems highly plausible, however, that such measures would fail to alter the political calculations of the Burmese government or of the military. Instead, a withdrawal of the trade preferences would primarily hit the mostly female workers in the country's textile industry. The EU and its Member States should therefore consider a combination of specific sanctions against military enterprises as well as tightened entry bans and account freezes that are directed at leading military personnel. These targeted sanctions against Myanmar's armed forces should be flanked by an increase in the level

The European Union has devoted growing attention to sanctions since the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty. In total, the Council has imposed Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) sanctions targeting countries, economic sectors, groups, individuals and entities on 27 different occasions. The novelty in the area of sanctions is that targets are not only states, as in the recent cases of Iran and Syria, but they are also individuals and non-state entities, e.g. anti-terrorist lists, President Robert Mugabe and his associates, and several companies connected with the military junta in Burma/Myanmar. Additionally, the contexts in which sanctions are utilised can be diverse, ranging from the protection of human rights to crisis management and non-proliferation. Despite the fact that the effectiveness of sanctions has been much debated, the EU has developed a sanctioning policy and intensified its adoption of sanctions. Sanctions were traditionally seen as a way to impose economic penalties as a means of extracting political concessions from targets, but EU sanctions do not always impose a cost nor do they always seek to induce behavioural change. To this extent, a new narrative may be needed.

This thesis seeks to explain why the European Union ratcheted up restrictive measures on Myanmar from 1991 until 2010, despite divergent interests of EU member states and the apparent inability of sanctions to quickly achieve the primary objectives of EU policy. This empirical puzzle applies the 'sanctions paradox' to the issue of joint action in the EU. It also connects the assessment of policy effectiveness to EU foreign policy-making. The investigation unravels this conundrum through competitive theory testing. The study discovers that EU foreign policy was essentially decided by the largest member states. Since 1996, the UK has fostered a consensus among EU policymakers on a principled common policy, which would induce political reform in Myanmar mainly via the implementation of punitive measures. Hence, noncompliance by the target with EU demands offers a credible, but insufficient explanation of why the EU tightened its sanctions regime. US pressure on EU policy was marginal. The dissertation argues that a 'normative' interpretation of liberal intergovernmentalism best solves this puzzle. The EU met domestic pressures for action, although the measures adopted were clearly too inadequate to be effective. Feedback on policy effectiveness did not play a significant role in EU decision-making. EU policy was driven by a consensus to treat Myanmar as a 'pariah' state. Ideological motivations have largely outweighed material interests. Normative arguments were necessary to put proposals on the common agenda; yet, decisions ultimately involved 'cooperative bargaining' among the largest states. Consensus building was therefore a dynamic process. The policy entrepreneur defined its interests domestically; member states with lower preference intensity generally refrained from opposing its leadership. This thesis thus contributes to the liberal intergovernmental scholarship by proposing a more comprehensive explanation for the drivers and constraints that influence the making of European sanctions.

"When it comes to sanctions against Myanmar, Western public debate has crystallized broadly into two schools of thought-- either in favor of sanctions, as a reflection of a moral position, or against sanctions because of their perceived lack of overall effectiveness. This policy brief suggests a more targeted and evidence-based approach. To begin with it is essential to have a clear and precise understanding of what sanctions should accomplish as well as knowledge of the actual impact of those sanctions on the ground. Equally important is to thereafter promptly dismantle any misguided measures while maintaining and reinforcing those measures that work according to the objectives. Finally, the flow of information to the international community must concern the actual impact of sanctions rather than rhetoric and propaganda"--Publisher's description.

This book introduces the concept of geoeconomic diplomacy to unearth the diplomatic actors and ‘networked practices’ that shaped the implementation of the European Union’s far-reaching sanctions regimes against Russia and Syria, some of its most significant geoeconomic interventions of the past decade.

This book examines sanctions as a political tool of influence and evaluates the efficacy of sanctions imposed by the European Union (EU) against countries from the early 1990s to present day.

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - Topic: Public International Law and Human Rights, grade: 1.3, University of Constance, language: English, abstract: Since the end of the Cold War a new option in the decision on how to respond to threats to state security and freedom has gained popularity in foreign policy: economic sanctions. This middle course between military intervention and inaction has assumed an increasingly prominent role in many countries. The United States used sanctions against Haiti, Yugoslavia, Lybia and Iraq; the list of countries on which UN sanctions have been imposed includes embargoes against Al Quaeda, Iran, Liberia, North Korea and several more. With the emergence of an increasing demand for human rights by governments and institutions, sanctions have become a popular instrument to underscore and pressure for human rights claims.

This book analyses European foreign policy as the activity of the European Union (EU) as a global actor and explores its efforts to raise its visibility in Southeast Asia through its relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Myanmar. Contributors examine the EU’s engagement in a process of dynamic consolidation of its relationship with Asia and the Pacific region. They shed light on how interregional relations with ASEAN and interactions with Myanmar can be viewed as a perfect opportunity to promote the EU’s presence in the region. Chapters examine the EU’s efforts to inspire Myanmar to connect with security cooperation and Myanmar’s engagement with the EU to diversify its foreign relations with China. The book also explores the extent to which the EU has failed regarding the Rohingya crisis and whether the EU’s effort to support the peace process in Myanmar has been beneficial. A timely and important contribution to the growing literature on the EU’s role in the world and its relations with East and Southeast Asia, this book will be of interest to academics in the field of International Relations, European Politics and Foreign Policy, Comparative Regionalism, East Asian and Southeast Asian Studies.

With some 40 different types of restrictive measures in force, the European Union is undisputedly one of the major protagonists of today's sanction regimes. Measures such as selective trade embargos, asset freezes and travel bans have been adopted by the EU not only to implement Security Council mandated sanctions, but also in addition to (as with Iran and North Korea) or in the absence of UN action (as with Syria and Russia). Further, EU recent practice evidences that sanctions (Myanmar and Zimbabwe) have served the EU and its member states' own interests also with the view to promoting (the European construction of) values generally shared in international society. After outlining the legal discipline and the policy framework of EU restrictive measures, the present article analyses the legal issues emerging with respect to EU sanctions over the last four years. Among these, the 2017 ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the EU in Rosneft, Brexit and its consequences on the implementation/adoption of sanctions by the United Kingdom, and recent developments concerning the legal position of candidate countries which refused to align with the EU sanction adopted in reaction to the Ukraine crisis, are the most important.