[AFMM] Insight: Who really profits from the AFMM’s shiny new solutions?

The Delegate of EU sharing his working paper: A proposal towards a common fund that supplies resources for green economies. (Photo: DVB Myanmar)

The AFMM discusses much about loaning resources to less developed countries, but concerns about where the funds would flow begin to crop up.

Bickering behind closed doors

It appears that the debate remains stale. There exist two main blocs — one siding with the EU, and the other, against it.

On one hand, delegates siding with the EU push for the prevalence of transparency in the distribution of funds, wishing for more regulatory policies as a whole.

In support of this, the Delegate of India raised the idea of accountability frameworks, ensuring that environmental sustainability standards are upheld, and that funds are not used inappropriately.

On the other hand, while other delegates were concerned with transparency mechanisms for fund allocation, the Delegates of Russia, China, and Myanmar argue that the acquisition of investors is of utmost priority above the implementation of regulations.

For “without investors, regulations are useless”, as stated by the Delegate of Russia. Such rhetoric appeared to prioritise the accumulation of private sector capital rather than the equitable use and distribution of such funds.

Throughout multiple rounds of the General Speakers’ List and caucuses, the two blocs jousted back and forth on this issue. The council came to a standstill, stuck in a seemingly endless circular debate.

The EU would harp on about taxonomy regulation and its benefits, before Russia and China inevitably reiterate that foreign investors need to be sufficiently attracted to their markets before regulations would be feasibly useful.

The question of accountability

In October 2021, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) added Myanmar to the list of high-risk jurisdictions having significant gaps in anti money laundering and terrorism financial countermeasures, a position which the military junta shares with nations the likes of Iran and North Korea.

With this in mind, should one not tread with caution to prevent powerful resources from landing into the wrong hands? Yet, delegates in the AFMM consistently speak of developed countries helping to enhance the green economies of less developed countries, without ever considering the repercussions of such resources landing in the wrong hands. The Delegate of Russia offers assistance through the provisions of nuclear energy, liquified natural gas, and hydrogen fuel to developing countries like Myanmar.

The Delegate of China, on the same note, aims to issue grants and monetary support to less developed countries in ASEAN, such as Myanmar. The issue with this inheres within the fact that simply dispensing money upon countries would inevitably lead to the abuse of these resources. The military junta lead by Min Aung Hliang’s track record exemplifies this.

In Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos alike, authoritarian regimes spoil themselves with the assets bestowed upon them from foreign investors wishing to provide aid to smaller corporations. As such, it is no surprise they lobby so strongly for increased investment.

So, when large countries like China, Russia, and the United States solely dump money into ASEAN states without any fallback or transparency, the aid does not flow to the people. It goes to their rulers, oppressive and totalitarian.

Moving forward

Representatives of the military junta have been intentionally veiled about their intentions. The Delegate of Myanmar in AFMM has been hopping about blocs, jumping ship based on their own agendas.

Meanwhile, in a press conference that was held with the AMMS, the Delegate of Myanmar refused to respond to a DVB reporter’s question, which goes as follows: “Foreign sports trainers or other well-meaning parties may be unwilling to risk their lives in high-risk or high-conflict areas such as Myanmar. Have you considered this worry and integrated it into your proposed solutions?”

Other delegations answered questions and bright and clear, with the Delegate of Singapore even replying to our question instead of Myanmar. In the AFMM, it is not just Myanmar being uncooperative, but rather, countries like China and Russia also being determined to safeguard their own national interests.

Russia and China, respectively, are at best lukewarm towards our nation’s plight. The Delegate of Russia had 3 words to describe his thoughts towards our civil war: “We are aware.”