Continued foot-dragging on the future of EU sanctions on Burma, coupled with lingering controversy within the bloc over the ethics of investing there, is placing European companies at a disadvantage, the EU’s Commissioner for Development has said.
Andris Piebalgs says sanctions would be lifted “as soon as possible” if nascent reforms enacted by the Burmese government continue apace. He said however that it “would require a lot of steps” to get companies to “look again” at Burma, given scepticism of the quality of changes there.
That could be to the detriment of European business, he warned in an interview with Reuters today. “I believe this country is big enough for opportunities and has a lot of wealth potential, but at the same time companies will be extremely conservative, and that’s where I’m a bit afraid that we will lose time in so far as direct investment could make a difference.”
The EU has already relaxed a visa ban on top government ministers, including President Thein Sein, as a reward for developments in the country since the new government came to power in March last year. That could pave the way for a gradual lifting of all sanctions over the coming year, after which investment could sweep in.
But despite reports of Rangoon hotels bursting at the seams with business delegations, there is a feeling that the predicted “rush” to Burma may not be so dramatic after all: the country is yet to overhaul archaic investment laws, and armed conflict continues in the border regions that many consider a veritable goldmine of natural energy potential.
Moreover, entrenched corruption across all rungs of Burmese society does little to aid the image of an unstable investment environment. Piebalgs conceded that European companies “would not come by [themselves], because they would say, ‘Well, how stable [is] change?’”.
Concerns that Burma, which is eager to open up to western trade and investment, could become victim to a neoliberal hijack will be reinforced by a sense that EU businesses are increasing looking to Southeast Asian markets replete with cheap labour and malleable investment regulations in the wake of the financial crisis now rocking Europe.
European banks, including Germany’s Commerzbank AG and Britain’s Standard Chartered PL, have already shown interest in scoping out opportunities in Burma. The Asia head of Standard Charter told reporters in January that the bank would “very happy to get back there [Burma]“.
The feeling that Burma may be prone to exploitation by foreign investors is shared by Surin Pitsuwan, head of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). He told the Myanmar Times this week that unmonitored investment could bring “more inequality and more disruption”.
“I’m worried about all these people who are already gathering in Bangkok and Singapore and who are bent on exploiting Myanmar’s [Burma’s] resources and opportunities,” he said.
Piebalgs said that wealth from ventures into the energy sector should be shared equally among the population, a sentiment that Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who leaves Burma on Tuesday after a five-day visit, has pressed on the government. To date the vast majority of output from energy projects has gone to neighbouring countries, while the government has been accused by campaigners of siphoning the proceeds into offshore accounts in Singapore.
Tags: burma, eu, investment, myanmar
MPs returned to Parliament in Burma’s capital Naypyidaw
The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.
Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.
Powered by Vote It Up
Western banks and corporations are definitely not angels, so there will always be a certain level of “making a quick buck out of Burma”, but this is peanuts compared to the alternative: total exploitation by the Chinese, which goes beyond exploitation. China basically wants to turn Burma into a vassal state for geo-strategic reasons (access to the Bay of Bengal). I would be wary of the Singaporeans (most of them are Chinese after all!), but in general, this is a no-brainer.
Poor EU. They are so hard done by, they find it hard to think anything other than how to get out of the hole. (They stopped reporting riots in Athens hoping keeping quiet will make it good in the morning.)
Unfortunately all the education in Harvard, Berkeley,LSE,Cambridge University, etc put together comes up with only one answer. That of resource exploitation (selling out Grandma’s silver) and excitation of consumerism (destructive greed for irreverent trendy consumer products for illogical reason-eg. 4mm thick Television with fake colours Samsung will sell you in 2012) as the way to get their debt paid.
To exploit resources, to generate energy and to entice the half a billion untapped consumers in South-East Asia starts with solid integration of strategic Burma for trade routes ( which Thant Myint- U discovered) at the same time as resource extraction and energy production.
The maintenance of culture and tradition of the wonderful variety of people of Burma, and keeping the irreplaceable nature and environment clean and pristine are not the real concern of either Europeans or the rest of the world.
So whose concern is that?
How much do we want to sell out the coasts, rivers and land? (Robbing our own children!!!
How do we evict 25 million small land owning farmers for massive scale mechanised farming to be “NO.1 producer of rice in the world again” (why?) with attendant use of permanently polluting fertilizers and genetically modified grains?
Do people really think the crowded mega-cities are truly better than nice peaceful rural land everyone commenting about Burma seem to be so ashamed of?
There is knowledge. There is wisdom.