The UK and other European Union members are not fully implementing the EU asset freeze on the Burmese regime. As a result total frozen assets could be a meagre £57.
EU members have a joint policy on Burma, known as a ‘common position’. In 2000 they agreed to freeze the assets of ‘undertakings or entities associated with the military regime’. However, the Bank of England list of assets to be frozen only includes assets of individual members of the regime, not any of the regime’s companies or associated undertakings.
Questioned by Conservative MP, Richard Spring, in a debate in the House of Commons today, Foreign Office minister Mike O’Brien admitted that the UK has not frozen any regime assets. During the debate MPs from all three main political parties called on the government to impose tougher sanctions on Burma.
“EU sanctions on Burma are weak enough as it is,” said John Jackson, Director of the Burma Campaign UK. “To find out that even these pathetic measures are not being implemented is a disgrace. It is no surprise the regime does not take EU threats seriously.”
Failure to implement the sanctions will have given the regime time to move any assets from the UK and other EU countries, rendering the measure effectively meaningless. The Burma Campaign UK is only aware of one government that has frozen any assets. Germany has frozen 86 euros (£57).
EU foreign policy on Burma is now facing a crisis of credibility. If the EU will not stand up to the regime in Burma, which massacres its own people, uses rape as a weapon of war, forces thousands into slave labour and has 1,400 political prisoners, when will it act? Only tough sanctions on important sources of income, such as on gems and timber, will restore EU credibility.
“Despite repeated calls from Aung San Suu Kyi, the EU has not imposed a single sanction that has had any significant impact on the regimes financial interests,” says John Jackson. “It is time the EU banned gem and timber imports, which earn the junta millions of pounds a year. Burma’s people are dying while the EU dithers.”
For more information contact Mark Farmaner, Media Officer on 020 7324 4713 or John Jackson, Director of the Burma Campaign UK, on 020 7324 4712
NOTES TO EDITORS:
1. Despite strong rhetoric, the EU has only imposed very limited sanctions on Burma. These include:
A ban on arms sales: Impact: Minimal. EU arms sales to Burma had already all but dried up.
A visa ban: Impact: None. The visa ban has been breached several times. Being unable to visit the EU has had no visible impact on the behaviour of the regime.
An asset freeze: Impact: None. The failure to fully implement the asset freeze means total assets frozen Europe-wide could be just £57.
Withdrawal of trade privileges: Impact: Minimal: A welcome move, but The EU has been one of Burma’s biggest investors and trading partners, earning the regime hundreds of millions of dollars.
2. In contrast to the EU, the United States has imposed tough economic sanctions on Burma. These include a ban on new investment, an asset freeze, a ban on Burmese imports, and a ban on financial transactions.
3. Failure by the EU to implement sanctions is undermining US sanctions. Following implementation of financial sanctions by the US, the regime switched from using US dollars to Euros. Swift – the international financial technology co-operative controlled by most of the world’s major banks – is working with the regime to help it use euros so it can get round US sanctions.
4. (EU Council of Foreign Ministers Conclusions June 2003) “In view of the further deterioration of the political situation in Burma/Myanmar, in particular the arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi and other senior NLD members and the closure of NLD offices, the Council has decided to extend the scope of the visa ban and assets freeze to include further members of the military regime, the military and security forces, the military regime’s economic interests and other individuals, groups, undertakings or entities associated with the military regime who formulate, implement or benefit from policies that impede Burma/Myanmar’s transition to democracy and their families and associates.”