Select committee: Foreign Affairs Committee
Conclusion 16
Fourth Report - The UK Government's Response to the Myanmar Crisis
Published 16 Jul 2021
Paragraph 29
Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Foreign Affairs Committee The Myanmar crisis All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (the committee's words)
We heard that banks operating in countries including Singapore and Thailand can be compelled by UK regulators to enforce UK sanctions, as they conduct transactions in British pounds. This would cut off a key intermediary for the junta’s revenues, shutting down another line of income.
From: Foreign Affairs Committee, Fourth Report - The UK Government's Response to the Myanmar Crisis (HC 203), paragraph 29, 16 July 2021
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 23 September 2021 (deadline 16 September 2021).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The government welcomes the Committee's recommendations and says it has "gone beyond statements" through sanctions, arms embargo coalition-building, humanitarian funding and support for accountability, while setting out limits on several proposals.
- On the National Unity Government, it cites a policy of "according recognition to States, not Governments", but says the NUG and CRPH are "important voices" and that it has worked to amplify them at the UN.
- On a binding UN arms embargo, it says there is "currently a lack of support" at the Security Council, so it has focused on building a broader coalition, while continuing to "explore opportunities to push for stronger action".
- On sanctions, it says it agrees with the recommendation to pursue sanctions on businesses the junta depends on, favours a targeted approach, and states it has "no power to enforce sanctions extra-territorially where there is no UK nexus".
- On the Uniting for Peace procedure it "notes" the suggestion but says invoking it "would not be changed" in practice; on the ICJ genocide case it will "consider the legal arguments" to establish whether a UK intervention "would add value".