The London School of Economics and Political Science Making EU
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The London School of Economics and Political Science Making EU Foreign Policy towards a ‘Pariah’ State: Consensus on Sanctions in EU Foreign Policy towards Myanmar Arthur Minsat A thesis submitted to the Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, June 2012 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 97,547 words. Statement of use of third party for editorial help I can confirm that my thesis was copy edited for conventions of language, spelling and grammar by Dr. Joe Hoover. 2 Abstract 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 policy- makers on a principled common policy, which would induce political reform in Myanmar mainly via the implementation of punitive measures. Hence, non- compliance 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. 3 Table of Contents Part I/ Introduction Chapter 1 Introduction: The Paradox of EU Sanctions on Myanmar 14 Chapter 2 Explaining EU Foreign Policy-making: The Special Case of EU Sanctions Regimes 56 Part II/ Case Study Chapter 3 The Context of EU Foreign Policy towards Myanmar 99 Chapter 4 The EU and Myanmar until 1995: From a Non-existent Relation to ‘Critical Engagement’ 135 Chapter 5 The EU and Myanmar between 1996 and 2003: UK Norm Entrepreneurship and European Consensus 175 Chapter 6 The EU and Myanmar between 2004 and 2010: Strengthening the Consensus in an Intergovernmental Framework 238 Part III/ Conclusions Chapter 7 Conclusions: Explaining the Consensus on Tougher Sanctions 301 Annexes 349 Bibliography 364 List of Persons Interviewed 454 4 Acknowledgements Writing a PhD thesis is a difficult enterprise, which I would not have been able to accomplish without the help of many persons. My supervisors, Professor Karen E. Smith and Dr. Jürgen Haacke, unwaveringly guided my research project despite its tumultuous route. Among many things, I am immensely grateful for their impeccable intellectual rigor. My examiners, Dr. David Camroux and Dr. Spyros Economides, engaged with my dissertation in its finest details and made constructive comments. Dr. Joe Hoover deserves special thanks for proofreading this thesis painstakingly. The members of my research panel, Dr. John Kent and Dr. Ulrich Sedelmeier, graciously shared helpful comments on original chapters. I thank the Department of International Relations for awarding me a four years research studentship, as well as grants for my fieldwork, which provided me with essential financial support. Thanks also to the Student Union for a grant for student parents facing financial difficulties. Moreover, the Department generously allowed me to suspend my studies to take part in the UN peace-keeping mission in Côte d’Ivoire. I am thankful to the 80 anonymous interviewees who kindly shared their experiences with me. I can credit in person: the Head of the EU Office in Yangon Dr. Andreas List, former Ambassador to Burma Vicky Bowman, and the former ambassador and chairman of Network Myanmar Derek Tonkin. I enjoyed Bert Morsbach’s open-hearted hospitality during my field research in Yangon. My heartfelt memories go to my friend late Dr. Nay Win Maung, founder of Myanmar Egress, for his generous inputs and frank discussions. The London School of Economics is a unique place to grow intellectually. This thesis benefits from multiple seminars organised at the school and enriching interactions with members of the faculty. Fellow students and friends gave me much feedback on my thesis as we shared many pains and joys. Teaching several courses at the school proved one of the most stimulating experiences – I hope my students learned as much from me as I did from them. My gratitude also 5 goes to Professor Brigitte Young, Dr. Kyaw Yin Hlaing, and Dr. Willem van der Geest who encouraged me to apply to this PhD programme. Last, but certainly not least, I could not have completed this thesis without the love of my wife Sandy and my daughter Dewy, who inspired me and courageously put up with my prolonged absences from home. During these challenging years, scarce were the moments we spent together. My parents, Gérard and Françoise, and my brother Hugo trusted me wholeheartedly. 6 List of Acronyms 3DF Three Diseases Fund AA Auswärtiges Amt ABC Atomic, Bacteriological, and Chemical ABSDF All Burma Students’ Democratic Front ADB Asian Development Bank APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations ASEM Asia-Europe Meeting ASSK Aung San Suu Kyi BC UK Burma Campaign UK BGR Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe BMZ Bundesministerium für Zusammenarbeit (Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany) BSPP Burmese Socialist Programme Party CDU Christlich Demokratische Union (Germany) CEO Chief Executive Officer COFACE Compagnie Française d’Assurance pour le Commerce Extérieur COREPER Committee of Permanent Representatives CRDB Committee for the Restoration of Democracy in Burma CSR Corporate and Social Responsibilities DAB Democratic Alliance of Burma DCI Development Cooperation Instrument DFID UK Department for International Development DPNS Democratic Party for a New Society (Myanmar) DPRK Democratic People’s Republic of Korea DS Democrazia Sinistra (Italy) DTI Department of Trade and Industry (UK) DVB Democratic Voice of Burma EBA Everything But Arms EBO Euro Burma Office ECGD Export Credit Guarantees Department ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Office (i.e. the Commission’s Directorate General for humanitarian aid) EFP European foreign policy ETUC European Trade Union Confederation EEAS European External Action Service EEPA Europe External Policy Advisor EESC European Economic and Social Committee EIAS European Institute for Asian Studies ENC Ethnic Nationalities Council EU European Union FAC Foreign Affairs Council FCO UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office FDI Foreign Direct Investment 7 FDP Freie Demokratische Partei (Germany) FLEGT Forestry Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade FPA Foreign Policy Analysis FRG Federal Republic of Germany FTUB Federation of the Trade Unions of Burma GAERC General Affairs and External Relations Council GDP (PPP) Gross Domestic Product based on purchasing-power-parity GDR German Democratic Republic GFATM Global Fund for Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (German Society for International Cooperation) GmbH Gesellschaft mit begrentzter Haftung (Germany) GNA ECHO’s Global Needs Assessment GNI Gross National Income GONGOs Government-organised Non-Governmental Organisations GSP Generalised System of Preferences GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (German Society for International Cooperation) HRVP High Representative for EU Foreign and Security Policy and Vice President of the Commission ICG International Crisis Group ICFTU International Confederation of Free Trade Unions ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross IDOs International Development Organisations IFIs International Financial Institutions ILO International Labour Organisation IMF International Monetary Fund IQR Interquartile range IR International Relations