International Politics

The European Union has agreed to suspend non-military sanctions on Burma for one year, following democratic reforms in the Asian nation. Ruled by a military junta who suppressed opposition and wielded absolute power for over half a century, it was a widely-condemned pariah in the international community. [1]

But over the last two years, things have, slowly, begun to change. In 2010, pro-democracy opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest, which she had been under on and off for 21 years. In March 2011, a nominally civilian government was introduced under President Thein Sein, and in parliamentary elections in April 2012, the National League for Democracy, Ms Suu Kyi’s party, won 43 of the 45 seats it contested, including hers.

In April 2012, key EU figures visited Burma; David Cameron became the first British Prime Minister to visit the country since it declared independence in 1948, and Catherine Ashton visited between 28th-30th April. Both met with both Thein Sein and Aung San Suu Kyi. Ashton stated before her visit "The European Union welcomes the remarkable changes in Burma/Myanmar and has decided to open a new chapter in our relations. We have suspended the sanctions with the exception of the arms embargo. Of course reforms need to continue - we need to see further progress, in particular the unconditional release of all political prisoners and efforts to end ethnic conflicts. We are ready to assist with these efforts as well as with economic and social development. We will continue to support the democratic transition, including through electoral assistance, and encourage trade and investment in the country.”  [2]

As Ashton says, reforms need to continue: the military junta automatically has 25% of the seats in parliament, and the positions of interior and defence minister are reserved for serving generals. But the signs are certainly encouraging, and the West has recognised that. It can only be hoped that the progress continues, and that we will see a fully-democratic Burma being accepted and welcomed into the international community.

Image source: European Commission

EU leaders reached agreement this week on the launching of a new partnership programme with six Eastern states. Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine will take part in this programme, into which the EU will invest €600 million. Previous EU partnership agreements such as the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and European Mediterranean Partnership (EMP) have been praised for their effects in ensuring economic reforms and political progression in participating states. It is hoped that this will also be the case for the six above-mentioned states, particularly Belarus, whose system of government is widely regarded as more authoritarian than democratic. However, without the perspective of accession the political conditionality has proved to have little effect.

Image: www.wikimedia.org

The international conference on interreligious dialogue held Wednesday 16 July in Madrid is good news in that it brought together the high representatives of the three Book religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – to jointly proclaim their will towards dialogue and mutual comprehension. The conference was the intitiave of King Abdallah II of Saudi Arabia, a country embodying the most severe Islamic doctrine, Wahhabism. This paradox explains itself by Abdallah’s will to change the kingdom’s image, tainted by the 2001 terrorist attacks of which the majority of culprits were Saudi. At the end of the Madrid Conference, participants called for the organisation of a special session of the United Nations General Assembly dedicated to interreligious dialogue. At a time when relations between religions are too often the pretext for tension and nearly violence, such an initiative deserves recognition.

Pascal Lamy, Director General of WTO, summoned a last chance meeting in Geneva this Monday 21 July, bringing together thirty trade ministers among the 153 members to the organisation. Taking into account the electoral calendars of the main partners and the general economic situation, which tends to favour protectionnist views, this ministerial meeting will either lead to an agreement on the Doha Round, or freezing negotiations for a while. The Doha Round, launched in 2001, is the ninth cycle of international trade negotiations aiming at lowering cross-border tariffs since 1945. Current negotiations are lagging as they are not only involving ten developed countries like in the past, but 153 member states launched in a worldwide barter of thousands of products. If Mr. Lamy’s bet fails, trade wars and bilateral agreements risk multiplying, which very few will benefit from.

The Kosovar’s claim to independence is understandable in the light of the sufferings of many Kosovars from the hands of the Serbs. It is therefore equally understandable that 18 EU countries so far have been quick to recognize Kosovo and to signal that they have or will launch official contacts with the authorities of Kosovo. European leaders tend to argue that Kosovo is a unique case. But every case is unique and by recognizing Kosovo the European leaders should, though, be aware that they are setting a precedent for future cases. In the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin wall Europe has witnessed a number of claims to independence being raised by different communities. While the doctrine of self-determination is intrinsically sympathetic, the independence of Kosovo raises a general question: How do we decide who has the right to independence? Does every ethnic group throughout the world that manages to establish itself as a nation need its own state? Obviously, the answer can be found nowhere and the question lends itself to politics. In this respect, the very definition of Kosovo as a “unique case” is a highly political act.

The change of government in Poland in November 2007 continues to bring good news. Last week saw Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk stating that Poland was in no rush to set up the US missile shield that, according to the US administration, should protect the US and Europe from rogue states such as Iran. Plans that have provoked heavy protests from Russia. Mr. Tusk was supplemented by his Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski, saying that Poland is not feeling itself threatened by Iran. Indeed, different words than the discourse that could be heard in pre-November 2007 Poland, when the last name of the Polish PM was Kaczynski. Seen from the other side of the Atlantic the new Polish approach is yet another example of US President George Bush’ increasing status as a lame duck. As the presidentials are approaching Mr. Bush founds himself being a President without much power. In this case, with EU-Russia relations soaring over a number of issues, the new foreign policy signals from Poland are good news.

Those were the words of Congolese economy professor, Aime Mianzenza when criticising the new EU-Africa trade deals proposed by the EU at an EU-Africa summit last December in Lisbon. They outline the duty-free terms for most imports coming from the poor continent to the south. The condition of the EU proposal was that African countries would gradually open up their markets to competition, which led many African countries to turn it down. At the core of the debate lies a longstanding controversy in international trade policy: at what point in the course of economic development does competition benefit a poor developing country. Some argue that the African refusal to open up their markets is a token of sheer protectionism that in the longer run undermines their own economic growth. Others argue that the EU and the US are leading a campaign of equally crude protectionism in the name of trade liberalism spearheaded by the WTO. A campaign that, if successful, would see European subsidised agricultural products flood the African markets and destroy their home economy. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

They came, they saw and they left, without having reached an agreement. Less than two weeks before the US, Russia and the EU are to report back to the UN on the future of Kosovo, the EU-countries failed to align their foreign policy positions on the status of Kosovo, who seeks independence from Serbia. Three-day talks in Austria between the member states ended Wednesday 28 without an agreement on the single most important foreign policy issue in the backyard of the EU. A majority of the 27 would support a unilateral declaration of independence from Kosovo as would the US. However, at least five member states are strongly opposed to this solution. Should Kosovo, as expected, declare its independence, a strong and firm common position is necessary to prevent the question from turning into another regional armed conflict. At present, the member states are writing the script of another Balkan-story featuring the Union as a lame duck in its own backyard. Again, it is not looking good.