Zinovia Verikokidi
Just Access Representative to the Coalition for the International Criminal Court
Myanmar’s ongoing crisis has raged since the 1st of February 2021, when Myanmar’s military, known as the Tatmadaw, seized power in a coup, abruptly dismantling the country’s fragile democracy. The fallout has been catastrophic: 3.5 million people have been displaced, and an estimated 18.6 million will need humanitarian assistance by the end of 2024. Myanmar now ranks among the deadliest conflict zones worldwide, with fatalities surpassed only by Ukraine and the occupied Palestinian territories.
In response, the international community, including the US and the EU, escalated trade sanctions against Myanmar. However, these measures have been criticised by human rights defenders and academics for lacking the necessary force to bring about meaningful change. A key point of contention lies in the selective use and withdrawal of trade preferences. Driving this debate is the question: why are some major powers hesitant to enforce them?
Myanmar now ranks among the deadliest conflict zones worldwide, with fatalities surpassed only by Ukraine and the occupied Palestinian territories
The Role of the GSP in Myanmar's Trade Relations
The World Trade Organization (WTO) allows certain exceptions for developing countries through special and differential treatment provisions, such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). The GSP permits developed countries to offer non-reciprocal preferential treatment, such as reduced tariffs, for goods from developing countries.
The US reserves the right to withdraw these preferences if the beneficiary fails to meet criteria like respecting worker rights and maintaining a fair market economy. Similarly, the EU’s GSP allows for zero or reduced tariffs for exports from developing countries, promoting economic growth. Before the 2021 coup, Myanmar benefited from the GSP under both the US and EU frameworks. In fact, the EU reinstated Myanmar’s GSP status in 2013, a status previously withdrawn due to systematic human rights violations.
Diverging Responses to Myanmar's Ongoing Crisis: the US vs. The EU
On the 29th of March 2021, following the coup, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai announced the immediate suspension of its engagement with Myanmar under the 2013 Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA), initiating a review of Myanmar’s compliance with international worker rights standards. In contrast, three years later, the EU still has not suspended Myanmar’s GSP status. Myanmar continues to export goods like rice, textiles, and precious stones under the Everything But Arms (EBA) scheme, fully utilising its preferential access to the EU market.
To better understand the trade dynamics between the EU and Myanmar, it is beneficial to examine EU–Cambodia relations. Myanmar and Cambodia are both classified as “least developed countries” by the UN and are both eligible for the EU’s EBA. Furthermore, both countries are members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and discussions regarding the potential suspension of the GSP scheme for both countries occurred almost simultaneously within the EU.
The EU's reluctance to withdraw trade preferences sharply contrasts with its stance toward Cambodia.
Similar to Myanmar, the EU was Cambodia’s fourth-largest trading partner. In 2022, Cambodia exported goods worth €5.5 billion to EU markets, compared to Myanmar’s €4.3 billion. Regrettably, the similarities between Myanmar and Cambodia extend beyond trade to their political landscapes. Both nations have experienced political environments marked by a lack of genuine democratic processes and authoritarian governance. In Cambodia, the ruling Cambodian People’s Party has retained power by banning the main opposition party and securing all the National Assembly seats, effectively establishing a one-party state.
Nevertheless, the EU’s reluctance to withdraw trade preferences sharply contrasts with its stance toward Cambodia. Despite the similar human rights records of these States, the EU imposed stricter trade penalties on Cambodia for human rights violations while maintaining Myanmar’s trade privileges. Some scholars argue that the EU’s differential treatment may reflect a more strategic interest in maintaining trade relations with Myanmar.
The Question of Justification
This discrepancy in the EU’s actions raises the question: is the reluctance to impose sanctions on Myanmar driven by geopolitical considerations or a genuine commitment to human rights? The case of Myanmar exposes the complexities and contradictions in the international community’s response to human rights abuses and tests the credibility of the global powers in upholding their stated principles.
The EU's inconsistent application of trade preference withdrawals seemingly conflicts with the requirement for the uniform treatment of all “similarly situated” countries under the Enabling Clause.
By examining the cases of Myanmar and Cambodia, it becomes evident that political and economic considerations often shape international responses, leaving room for debate on the legitimacy and effectiveness of these actions in promoting democratic values and human rights. Regardless, the EU’s inconsistent application of trade preference withdrawals seemingly conflicts with the requirement for the uniform treatment of all “similarly situated” countries under the Enabling Clause. Such an inconsistency suggests a potential violation of WTO law, which requires equal treatment in the application of trade preferences.
Can the big powers truly justify their actions—or lack thereof—to Myanmar's Ongoing Crisis?
At the end of 2024, Myanmar’s ongoing crisis had displaced over 3.5 million people, according to UN investigators. Reports indicate a disturbing rise in human rights violations, including systematic torture, gang rapes, and abuses against children, with crimes perpetrated by the military escalating at an alarming rate.
As the situation continues to deteriorate, it remains important to question the motivations behind these decisions and to scrutinise whether they align with the principles of justice and human rights they claim to uphold. In line with the questions raised by the European Parliament, the central issue remains whether the European Commission intends to initiate the process for the temporary withdrawal of GSP preferences from Myanmar under the current GSP Regulation or if progress in poverty eradication is a sufficient argument for prolonging these preferences.
Moreover, it is important to question whether the use of trade sanctions and preferences to address human rights crises is an effective tool at all, or if it is just one selectively used by powerful states to justify meeting their own economic and political interests.
Subscribe to the Just Access newsletter
Don’t miss any of our great blog posts, or any of our great content!
Stay up to date with our work by subscribing to the Just Access Newsletter (six mailings per year).
