Master’s Thesis 2016 30 ECTS Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norway’s Constructive Engagement in Myanmar. A small state as norm entrepreneur. Birgitte Moe Olsen Master of Science in International Relations I The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU). Eight departments, associated research institutions and the Norwegian College of Veterinary Medicine in Oslo. Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development lies in the interface between research, education (Bachelor, Master and PhD programmes) and assignments. The Noragric Master thesis are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfil the requirements under the Noragric Master programme “International Environmental Studies”, “International Development Studies” and “International Relations”. The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Noragric. © Birgitte Moe Olsen, December 2016 [email protected] Noragric Department of International Environment and Development Studies P.O. Box 5003 N-1432 Ås Norway Tel.: +47 64 96 52 00 Fax: +47 64 96 52 01 Internet: http://www.nmbu.no/noragric II Declaration I, Birgitte Moe Olsen, declare that this thesis is a result of my research investigations and findings. Sources of information other than my own have been acknowledged and a reference list has been appended. This work has not been previously submitted to any other university for award of any type of academic degree. Signature……………………………….. Date………………………………………… III Acknowledgements Writing this master thesis has been a long and challenging process. The combination of living abroad for eight months, difficulties in finding a supervisor and a period of illness all contributed to stall the project. However, sitting with the final product in my hands makes it all worth it. I am thankful for how it has taught me more about myself and the world. I am confident that it also served as good preparation for professional life, however that might turn out. I want to extend my sincere gratitude to everyone who has helped me realize this project. First of all, I would like to thank everyone who took time off of their busy schedules to meet me for an interview. Your knowledge and experiences are extensive, and I have truly appreciated to learn more about them. I want to thank my supervisor, Paul Beaumont at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), for input and encouragement along the way. You did an excellent job, and I am confident I won’t be the last master student you supervise. Thank you to Marte Nilsen at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) and Kristian Stokke at the University of Oslo (UiO) for input at various stages of the research process. Thanks to the Norwegian Burma Committee (NBC) who allowed me to use their network for interviews. Thanks to NMBU for a research stipend that allowed me to do field work in Myanmar and Thailand. Thank you to the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Yangon who took me in for an internship. It was a truly meaningful and educational time. Not only did it introduce me to the world of the Foreign Service, but it gave me a unique insight into the Burmese way of life. The thesis would not have been possible without this experience. Lastly, I want to thank my friends and family for their support. I hope I can return the favor. IV Abstract 2011 marked a significant change in Myanmar politics. After nearly 50 years of military rule, a civilian government came to power through multi-party elections and embarked on a series of economic and political reforms. However, members of the democratic opposition saw the transition as nothing more than a façade, as the same generals who had ruled the country in uniforms simply traded them for civilian clothes. It therefore came as a surprise to many that Norway, previously a dedicated supporter of the democratic opposition, became an international frontrunner in engaging with the regime. To understand the tangent taken by Norwegian politicians, critics started accusing Norway of having vested business interests in the national reform process. Many believed that Norway placed too much faith in the reform agenda and contributed to the strengthening of an illegitimate and authoritarian regime. This study frames Norway’s policy of constructive engagement in Myanmar as norm entrepreneurship. The aim of the thesis is to show how and why Norway assumed this role. I will discuss how constructive engagement became a legitimate option for Norwegian decision makers by looking at discourse. Norwegian politicians aligned its rhetoric within a discourse that challenged the dominant norms on democratic change in Myanmar. By defending alternative strategies, and benchmarking in constructive engagement with the regime, Norway acted as a norm entrepreneur for other Western governments. Norway searched for alternative political solutions in Myanmar, and constructive engagement must therefore be seen as a continuation of the established foreign policy practice of involvement. Moreover, the case study illuminates how small states are able to exercise influence on the international stage by assuming roles as norm entrepreneurs. Norway used soft power tactics in order to influence the reform agenda in Myanmar, and gather support in the international community. As a small state, Norway has comparative advantages over great powers for assuming the role as norm entrepreneur. Because it is able to fill a role great powers are unable to take, Norway’s norm entrepreneurship is a constant source of status in the international community. Norway’s endeavors in Myanmar must therefore be seen as a continuation over a prevailing trend in Norwegian foreign policy, where Norway uses its moral capital for the sake of status. V Contents Declaration .......................................................................................................................................................................... III Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................................... IV Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................. V Table of figures.................................................................................................................................................................. IX Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. X Introduction 1.1 Research questions ............................................................................................................................................. 2 1.1.1 Structure of paper ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Conceptual framework ............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2.1 Studying small states .................................................................................................................. 5 1.2.2 The role of norms in IR ............................................................................................................... 6 1.2.3 Discourse analysis ....................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Research design ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 1.3.1 Case selection ........................................................................................................................... 10 1.3.2 Evaluation and bias .................................................................................................................. 12 1.3.3 Data collection .......................................................................................................................... 13 1.3.4 Interviews ................................................................................................................................. 14 1.3.4.1 Access to informants ......................................................................................................... 15 1.3.4.2 Structure and language ..................................................................................................... 15 1.3.4.3 Researcher’s role ............................................................................................................... 16 1.3.5 Empirical analysis ..................................................................................................................... 16 1.4 Background: from military regime to semi-civilian government ........................................................ 18 Two Discourses on Democratic Change 2.1 Mainstream pro-democratic discourse .......................................................................................................... 23 2.1.1 A polarized political landscape ................................................................................................