Executive Summary: :Myanmar is a closely watched, but puzzling country for the European Union. This means that the EU often encounter difficulties when responding to the autocratic nature of the military regime, the human rights abuses and the general lack of democratic norms. If the EU is viewed as an integrated region, its policy towards Myanmar seems to be divided. However, when the member states that make it up are observed individually, policy towards Myanmar becomes slightly clearer. Some member states have a moral argument as their base, others have a more pragmatic stance, and others have a combination of both. Most member states claim that their individual policies are aligned with the EU as a whole, but at other times these polices are changed, often in an ad hoc manner, to meet the demands of the particular setting. The EU does not have the same difficulty when it comes to the generals and their repressive regime. That is to say, there are similarly minded criticisms on the content of the 2008 constitution, its drafting, the circumstances surrounding the referendum and the up-coming 2010 election. These similarities become less unified, when attention is focused on the expectations the EU has of Myanmar?s generals, and becomes even less unified when the EU has to decide how to react to them. Accordingly, this paper deals with the perception that Europe has of Myanmar from the view point of politicians and also the media; the expectations that Europe has of Myanmar from the perspective of politicians and also the general public; and the reactions of Europe with regard to the issues of sanctions, the internment of Aung San Suu Kyi, and the ongoing human rights abuses. Many of these views are divided and decisions are quite often made for reasons of a moral nature, rather than from a pragmatic stance, and are often decided upon prematurely, before understanding the situation fully. Due to these observations, this report outlines some recommendations which may be useful to keep in mind when contemplating policy towards Myanmar. The recommendations aim to cover a broad area and include, but are not limited to: • The need for the EU to engage in pan-European dialogue to break the ?Myanmar position? stalemate that is occurring. • The need for the EU to revise their view of the sanctions and to understand how ineffective they are at accomplishing change. • The need to improve dialogue between the regime and the EU through the use of both direct and indirect channels, which automatically assumes the loosening of visa restrictions • The need to learn from and follow the lead of Obama?s engaging attitude with his administration?s use of ?the smart policy.? It must be noted that this would only be the starting point; the finish line is indiscernible. • The need to be aware of the deficiencies in development aid and the continuing need to improve it. • The need to be aware of the opportunity for change in a country that is experiencing change on many different fronts, whether the generals like it or not.