Relations between Europe and Burma, as well as its Southeast Asian neighbours, remained as troublesome as ever in early 2005 and close observers were regarding the coming months as a crucial for the future of the country.

The EU policy to some degree appeared out of step with the unfolding of the events in the country itself in view of the ouster of the recent leadership and even with the growing dismay in the region itself.

Following months of political turmoil and reversals which saw the former Burmese Prime Minister ousted and placed under house arrest in late 2004, the country found itself in a crucial situation that some say could culminate this year by a proclamation of fulfilment of its so-called road-map to democracy with a dictated constitution, a rigged referendum and bogus elections as well as the release of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi.

With ASEAN neighbours, the EU and others watching with increasing scepticism and dismay the country’s ruling military regime would then be expected to proclaim that it has achieved a functioning multiparty democracy and claim its normal turn as presidency of the ASEAN group in 2006.

To examine this situation, the European Commission in Brussels organised a policy in conference in April involving a number of non-governmental organisations and other active players in the region. At the meeting in Brussels, controversy arose over policy recommendations made by external policy experts recommending dialogue with the regime.

Asia, Europe and the rest of the international community which had long grappled with the leadership in Burma-Myanmar over its governance of the key Southeast Asian state, had been thrown into even more confusion in October 2004 when it was announced that the Prime Minister for the past year had been deposed, detained and replaced and that his once-powerful military intelligence apparatus had been dismantled.

General Khyn Nyunt, widely regarded as a moderate within the secretive military junta which has led the country for decades and reputed as perhaps the best or only hope for moderation and evolution toward a more open form of government, became the latest political victim of the murky Burmese leadership struggles.

The moves on October came only a few days after Asian and European leaders met in Hanoi with a representative of the Burmese State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) leadership and continued to discuss the strained triangular relations. It also followed the decision just afterwards by the EU to tighten its system of restrictive sanctions against the government by adding bans against commercial transactions.

Some analysts regarded the crackdown against the Prime Minister as not only the latest flareup in the rivalry between him and Supreme General Than Shwe, but also indicating that the hard-liners believed Khin Nyunt’s more open style toward the international community had failed and even backfired.

Leaders and commentators in the ASEAN region and Europe reacted prudently but with apparent concern over the possible deterioration of prospects for normalisation of the internal and international dialogue.

The internal upheaval was quickly followed by unusual international diplomatic activity by General Than Shwe and the new Prime Minister Soe Win, who immediately departed on visits to the country’s largest neighbours in India and China.

But it also triggered rising unease among the country’s ASEAN neighbours who began expressing their concerns about the turn of events in Myanmar and the prospects of the country assuming the ASEAN presidency in 2006, as well as its possible impact on the group’s image and relations with the EU and US

The EU Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner took what appeared to be an unexpected and sudden turn in policy while attending a meeting of EU and ASEAN Foreign Ministers in Jakarta March 11 when she indicated that the EU would seek to engage in contacts with the Burmese regime in an attempt to persuade it to reform. Such a position would be comparable to the EU stance in the preparations for the Asia-Europe Summit Meeting (ASEM) in Hanoi in October 2004 which already watered down the previous EU refusal to meet with high-level representatives of the Myanmar Government. While this approach of engaging rather than ignoring the Rangoon leadership eased tense relations with ASEAN and other Asian partners, it proved to be largely unproductive and was criticised in Europe and elsewhere.

Following Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner’s declarations in Jakarta it was uncertain whether the EU position had in fact shifted further toward engagement and conciliation or whether it was a either a personal or Commission initiative without formal consent of the EU Member Governments. Some EU sources indicated that the Commissioner had indeed overstepped her mandate in making the pronouncement.

The US has increased the scope of the legal sanctions against business, trade or investments with Burmese interests. The EU also tightened its former restrictions on travel in the wake of the October ouster of the Prime Minister to include a prohibition against business with a list of Burmese enterprises. But it has been noted that omitted from that list was the most important enterprise connected with the military regime, the national oil and energy company, which is the partner in a controversial venture in the country by the French firm TOTAL.

The SPDC sent out mixed signals just on the eve of the ASEAN summit in Vientiane in November 2004 when it announced that it would release an estimated 9000 prisoners from jail, including some 80 members of the National League for Democracy among which was its deputy leader held for 15 years, but also let it be known that Aung San Suu Khyi would be detained at least for another year. The move had been seen as a gesture to try to defuse the mounting criticism from its ASEAN neighbours on the eve of the summit and to perhaps dampen a threatened discussion of the issue at the meeting. It was also widely noted, however that the large majority of the prisoners let out of Burmese jails were common offenders and not political dissidents.

Following months of official silence in the aftermath of a change in Prime Ministers reflecting what many analysts saw as a power struggle that took the country backwards from an uncertain road-map to more democracy, the Burmese military authorities February 15 announced preparations to reconvene the national constitutional conference after seven months amid a largely sceptical international reaction.

More than 1000 participants selected by the ruling Special Peace and Development Council (SPDC) which has held power since 1980 to take part in a new phase of a constitutional convention gathered a site some distance from the capital Rangoon to resume discussion and drafting of a new constitution promised for several years. The document work had been started in 199XX but suspended following the withdrawal of the National League for Democracy (NLD) party headed by Aung San Suu Khy which had won elections in 1990 which the ruling military leadership had ignored.

The gathering was also boycotted by representatives of a number of the country's various ethnic groups. The leadership had just a few days earlier arrested a number of leaders of the Shan state.

Exile opposition groups said that the constitution expected to emerge from this process would not guarantee human or political rights and would set aside some 25-30% of the parliament seats for the military. The hand-picked delegates are expected to ratify such a draft and the SPDC was also expected to stage a referendum to approve the text.

Since the October coup, the reclusive regime has had some contacts with India, China and some other neighbours, with the SPDC leader Than Shwe, who has rarely been abroad, making an unusual visit to India, where the encounter was heavily criticised. But most of these contacts seem to have been inconclusive or disappointing Burma’s hosts or visitors.

One ASEAN parliamentary group took an unusually hard stance and such discussions by suggesting that other ASEAN members refuse Rangoon’s assumption of the group’s presidency in 2006.

Another major issue facing the military regime in Rangoon is the still-pending question of relations with and role of the country’s numerous ethnic communities in the political system. Tenuous cease-fire agreements in the country’s decades-old internal conflicts had been brokered with a number of such communities. Some had also been invited to participate in the drafting of the constitution, but not all had accepted.

Conflicting signals had also emerged since the ouster of ex-Prime Minister Kyhn Nyunt, who had negotiated a number of such cease-fires, including renewed squirmishes, threats of renewed warfare and on the other hand initial contacts between the Governments and the Karen rebels who had previously remained aloof from such negotiations.

But knowledgeable Burmese sources express concerns of possible outbreak of hostilities that could alter the relative calm. Both the ethnic community leadership and the new direction of the military regime are said to be restive and to view renewed military operations as useful to their causes, if probably not decisive. Such clashes which have ravaged the country since independence have never led to a conclusive victory or defeat for any side and risk spilling over again into other neighbouring states in the form of refuges or outright fighting.

One such scenario would involve the Government initiating attacks against the Wa tribe and state, perhaps in order to demonstrate a concern for eliminating the drug production and smuggling that provides much of the resources for that community but also supplies the international drug traffic. Such an offensive might stimulate some support from the US and its own international efforts in Colombia and elsewhere, according to some experts, but it might also alarm China preoccupied by such turmoil, conflict and harm on its doorstep and even into its territory.

The EU Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner took what appeared to be an unexpected and sudden turn in policy while attending a meeting of EU and ASEAN Foreign Ministers in Jakarta March 11 when she indicated that the EU would seek to engage in contacts with the Burmese regime in an attempt to persuade it to reform. Such a position would be comparable to the EU stance in the preparations for the Asia-Europe Summit Meeting (ASEM) in Hanoi in October 2004 which already watered down the previous EU refusal to meet with high-level representatives of the Myanmar Government. While this approach of engaging rather than ignoring the Rangoon leadership eased tense relations with ASEAN and other Asian partners, it proved to be largely unproductive and was criticised in Europe and elsewhere.

Following Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner’s declarations in Jakarta it was uncertain whether the EU position had in fact shifted further toward engagement and conciliation or whether it was a either a personal or Commission initiative without formal consent of the EU Member Governments. Some EU sources indicated that the Commissioner had indeed overstepped her mandate in making the pronouncement.

The US has increased the scope of the legal sanctions against business, trade or investments with Burmese interests. The EU also tightened its former restrictions on travel in the wake of the October ouster of the Prime Minister to include a prohibition against business with a list of Burmese enterprises. But it has been noted that omitted from that list was the most important enterprise connected with the military regime, the national oil and energy company, which is the partner in a controversial venture in the country by the French firm TOTAL.