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.

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

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.

The EU has threatened to suspend Generalized Scheme of Preferences (GSP) status for Myanmar, under which the country’s exports can enter Europe without any tariffs or quotas. The official reason cited by the EU is a growing concern over human rights violations and issues around labour rights in Myanmar. If this threat were to be carried out, the business sector that will be most affected is Myanmar’s burgeoning garment sector, which employs around 700,000 people, most of whom are women. The principal worry in Myanmar is that if EU buyers and brands have to start paying tariffs to import Myanmar-made garments, then they will opt to shift their sourcing to other countries. Without GSP, Myanmar’s garment exports may no longer be price competitive. As one of the few manufacturing sectors in Myanmar to employ semi-skilled women, many of whom migrated from poor rural areas, the garment sector has come to play an important socioeconomic role in the country. Whether or not the EU decides to withdraw GSP status, Myanmar’s garment sector faces a number of challenges. How Myanmar’s policymakers and garment industry leaders respond to global industry trends will be just as important, in the long run, in determining the sector’s commercial sustainability.