EU, ASEAN and politics of exclusion<\/p>\n
For the EU the issue of the exclusion of Myanmar from EU-Asean
\nforums is not likely to go away, says Michael Leifer.<\/p>\n
EVER since the end of the Cold War, the relationship between
\nthe EU and ASEAN has been troubled by a tension over human
\nrights.<\/p>\n
That tension has been registered most explicitly over how to
\ndeal with the unelected military regime in Yangon. Indeed, an EU-
\nASEAN Joint Cooperation Committee meeting due to have been held
\nin Bangkok in November last year was canceled because the EU side
\nhad refused to accept Myanmar's participation with the status of
\nan official observer, despite its full membership in the
\nassociation from the previous July.<\/p>\n
That cancellation prompted speculation that the issue of
\nMyanmar's representation might well prejudice the second Asia-
\nEurope heads of government meeting scheduled to convene in London
\nin April 1998. The leaders of the Yangon government have been
\nbanned from visiting EU capitals under visa restrictions imposed
\nas part of a package of sanctions in 1996. The prospect of an
\nAsean boycott as a demonstration of a refusal to be subject to a
\nEuropean diktat over representation arose when a source close to
\nthe Philippine chair of its Standing Committee threatened the EU
\nwith exclusion from security dialogues under the Asean Regional
\nForum and the Asean Post-ministerial Conference.<\/p>\n
In the event, the issue of Myanmar's representation has not
\nbeen allowed to threaten the second ASEM which exists on a
\ndifferent plane to the relationship between EU and ASEAN. It was
\nmade clear at the historic first meeting between the heads of
\ngovernment of ASEAN and their counterparts from China, Japan and
\nSouth Korea in Kuala Lumpur in mid-December last year that there
\nwould not be automatic membership in ASEM for ASEAN governments
\nwhich had joined the association since the first meeting in
\nBangkok in March 1996. Indeed, no new members would participate
\nin London.<\/p>\n
Disentangling ASEM from the relationship between the EU and
\nASEAN, at least for the time being, has not solved the problem
\nwhich arose over Myanmar. That problem exemplifies fundamental
\ndifferences of policy which may be defined with reference to the
\nconcept of exclusion. The EU has taken a high moral tone towards
\nthe military regime in Yangon in keeping with its resolution on
\nHuman Rights, Democracy and Development in November 1991. In
\nprotest at the deplorable human rights record of that regime and
\nits refusal to embark on a dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, the EU
\nhas sought to punish Myanmar through a policy of exclusion from
\npolitical dialogue, albeit not to the extent of breaking off
\ndiplomatic relations either on an individual or an EU basis.<\/p>\n
That policy of exclusion was pursued in the EU's abortive
\nattempt to persuade ASEAN not to admit Myanmar to membership
\nuntil its human rights record had improved. Since its entry in
\nJuly 1997, the EU has refused to accord Myanmar ASEAN-member
\nstatus at meetings with the association which led to the
\ncancellation in Bangkok last November. ASEAN has long taken a
\ndiametrically opposite view towards Myanmar expressed in the
\nnotion of \"constructive engagement\". That policy of inclusion is
\njustified on the grounds that sanctions will only reinforce the
\ndoggedness of the Yangon government and also encourage it to
\ndevelop an even closer relationship with Beijing.<\/p>\n
On ASEAN's side, there is an evident resentment of the
\nEuropean presumption to dictate the terms of the association's
\nenlargement.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the perceived spurious legalism of the EU's
\nrationale for excluding Myanmar on the grounds that it was not a
\nsignatory of the original Cooperation Agreement of 1980 is also
\ndeemed offensive. Added to those factors is the evident
\nsensitivity within ASEAN of the way in which its new-found
\neconomic adversity has been greeted in Europe and the failure of
\nthe EU, which seemed to rediscover Asia in 1994 from a sense of
\neconomic opportunism, to demonstrate a greater willingness to
\nhelp in mitigating that adversity.<\/p>\n
It has been suggested that part of the problem between the EU
\nand ASEAN last November was the measure of diplomatic rigidity
\ndisplayed by the Luxembourg Presidency. A greater diplomatic
\nimaginativeness and flexibility is not going to be sufficient in
\nitself as a basis for rebuilding the troubled relationship with
\nBritain replacing Luxembourg in the EU presidential role.<\/p>\n
Indeed, Britain's Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, has
\nregistered the ethical dimension of his government's foreign
\npolicy which is driven, in part, by the close link between a
\nnumber of UK-based NGOs and the ruling Labour Party.<\/p>\n
From ASEAN's point of view, in seeking to make an issue of
\nMyanmar, the EU is attacking a soft target with which economic
\nengagement is limited by contrast, for example, with China where
\nconfrontation has been deliberately avoided. European
\ninconsistency over human rights and ASEAN's sensitivity to the
\nEU's presumption to interfere in the management of its own
\naffairs drives a disposition to diplomatic solidarity, even on
\nthe part of those members strongly committed to democratic values
\nand uncomfortable about Myanmar's membership.<\/p>\n
If the EU may be accused of inconsistency, so may ASEAN in its
\nexclusion, albeit temporarily, of Cambodia from membership as a
\nresult of Hun Sen's successful violent coup in July last year.
\nMoreover, the EU may be reluctant to compromise over human rights
\nand Myanmar as the sense of economic opportunity which prompted
\nits Asian initiative in 1994 gives way to a more pessimistic
\nregional outlook.<\/p>\n
The fact of the matter is that for domestic reasons in EU
\ncountries the issue of exclusion in the case of Myanmar is not
\nlikely to go away, certainly as long as the government in Yangon
\nrefuses to attend to its lack of political legitimacy which has
\nnot been achieved by a recent change of nomenclature. For the EU,
\ndemocracy is part of its organic identity which is not the same
\nfor ASEAN which has always been a diplomatic and not a political
\ncommunity. For ASEAN, however, the EU's policy of exclusion is no
\nmore than a posture without practical merits and to be resisted
\nfor that reason as well as for its presumptuous nature.<\/p>\n
Professor Michael Leifer is Professor of International
\nRelations and Director of the Asia Research Centre at the London
\nSchool of Economics and Political Science.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/eu-asean-and-politics-of-exclusion-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}