The International Communities' Response to Burma's Humanitarian Crisis
By Santipap
There is no question that the people of
Burma are facing one of the worst hu
manitarian crises in the world. Despite increased awareness of the severe oppression in Burma around the globe, the situation for the Burmese population grows worse each day. Whilst the junta plays a significant role in restricting aid agencies accessing and assisting vulnerable populations and prevents the development of civil society, one must ask: are donor countries doing enough or is Burma being placed in the “too hard” basket?
Humanitarian aid in Burma can be delivered via two channels: through Rangoon with the permission of the Burmese military junta or from neighbouring countries across the border. The Burmese military junta simultaneously is the sole conduit for humanitarian aid from Rangoon as well as being the primary root cause of the humanitarian problem. Community based organisations and non-governmental organisations working inside Burma are required to register the SPDC’s Ministry of Interior. To register organisations must sign a Memoranda of Understanding with the junta, which imposes a number of restrictions, which organisations must agree to and abide by. Some restrictions include: limitation on what fields of work and areas where programmes can operate.
The junta also uses more subtle means to hinder humanitarian work within Burma, by arbitrarily denying visas for international staff for non-governmental organisations and UN agencies, restricting travel outside of Rangoon, forbidding organisations and agencies from data collection and refusing to met with non-local staff. Recently the junta refused to renew the UN Resident Humanitarian Coordinator, Charles Petrie’s, accreditation, effectively firing him from his position, stating that his continued presence was not conductive to fostering a good relationship between the junta and the UN. This decision came shortly after a group of international NGOs released a statement about their observations in Burma during the Saffron Revolution a few months earlier.
Furthermore the Ministry of Interior closely monitors CBOs and NGOs which hampers contact and openness between the Burmese population and aid workers and negatively affects aid workers ability to monitor their project’s effectiveness.
CBOs and organisations that work cross border from neighbouring countries face numerous challenges. Firstly military activities by all actors create an unstable situation for CBOs to work. As a result of militarisation by Burmese army troops, ceasefire groups and armed opposition groups, there are many unmarked landmine fields in Burma, which restricts aid workers travel. Additionally, there is a lot of mistrust between different villages, and even between people in one community. This makes it difficult for CBO staff to work with communities as villagers immediately assume they cannot be trusted.
Moreover, as villagers are working tirelessly to grow enough food or earn enough money to support their families it is difficult for them to part take in activities to improve their communities. Time spent on such activities means less time that they can spend on earning their livelihoods, and given the poverty that most of the population face, this is a serious issue. Consequently it can be difficult for CBOs to move beyond humanitarian relief, and to start rebuilding communities, given the need of the people.
Despite the fact that there being two methods for delivering aid in Burma, often extremely vulnerable populations still receive no assistance from either channel, for a number of reasons, including lack of access to the population, limited understanding of the needs of those people and limited resources (time, money and human). Additionally, aid is often restricted to one of the two aid delivery channels. If funding is made available for one, the other is often excluded from accessing money or in-kind support. DfID, a donor to the 3-D Fund (which aims to tackle TB, HIV/AIDS and Malaria in Burma), has said that the fund will work based on need. In eastern Burma malaria rates are consistently above 10 per cent of the population and in some areas they are as high as 22 per cent. Malaria related deaths in eastern Burma account for 45 per cent of all malaria fatalities in Burma. However, the regime places extreme restrictions on geographical areas that aid agencies can access, and DfID has said it cannot give guarantees that activities of their fund will reach people in eastern Burma. And when the Karen National Union, an organisation fighting for a free Karen State, requested support from the 3-Disease fund to combat Malaria in Karen State, which has an extremely high rate of malaria, it was denied.
Furthermore there is a need for greater coordination between humanitarian agencies working inside Burma and cross-border. By developing a comprehensive humanitarian assistance plan, including ‘needs’ mapping exercises, it would be a step forward in ensuring that all people in need are being reached.
However, currently there is an environment of mistrust between organisations recognised by the SPDC to be working inside Burma and those who concentrate their efforts on cross border assistance. In order to increase coordination between these two aid channels, this mistrust needs to be overcome and measures put in place to safeguard the security of staff and information that is shared. International organisations are possibly better placed to start this process, as they are more aware of the efforts are being made from both sides and can potentially act as a bridge between the two.
In addition to assistance inside the country, there is a need for humanitarian assistance along Burma’s borders. India, Bangladesh and Thailand all house refugee communities, with over 700,000 registered refugees living in these three countries and Malaysia.1 Among these refugee and migrant communities, there is a growing civil society movement working for human rights, democracy, and social causes.
In total Burma receives an estimated US$150 million in humanitarian assistance each year.2 For a country with a population of 52 million,3 that amounts to less than US$3 per person. This is the level of funding deemed adequate by the international community to alleviate the chronic humanitarian crisis that engulfs the population, where 75 per cent of people lives below the poverty line4 and 40 per cent are infected with TB.5 One in five childen in eastern Burma die before their fifth birthday6, while the national figure is one in ten.7
In comparison Zimbabwe, Timor Leste and Africa receives more funding from a single donor, DfID, the UK government’s development arm, per person than Burma does from all donor countries and governments combined.8
Moreover despite the, lets be honest, limited humanitarian assistance that is going into Burma, the living standards of the people are continuing to decline. People are facing extreme difficulties in meeting their basic needs, and services such as health care and education are a luxury for the rich. The people of Burma need to be thrown a rope, so that they can pull themselves out of the poverty abyss that has been forced upon them as a result of the junta’s mass mismanagement of the country. While a mass increase in humanitarian assistance is a vital part, a genuine solution to the root causes of the humanitarian crisis is also necessary. Otherwise, all efforts will merely be stopgap measures and there will be a continued need for humanitarian assistance.
Consequently, while in the past donors have separated discussions about political reforms and humanitarian assistance, if a true solution to the crisis is to found, more efforts to change Burma’s political, social and economic spheres is needed. Of the US$150 million in humanitarian aid Burma receives each year only an estimated US$10 million is spent on human rights and democracy projects in Burma. Each year human rights and organisations working for good governance operate on shoe-strings budgets want to expand their work and make a real difference, however are unable to due so to a lack of funds.
In Burma’s neighbouring countries there is an emerging civil society especially among ethnic groups that address a number of different issues such as health, education, food security, community development, human rights, democracy, and many more. Some argue that funding these “exile” groups is not contributing to finding a solution in Burma and while it is true that the skills and civil society are being developed outside the country; many groups are transferring this knowledge to people inside Burma through the implementation of their programmes and are very clear in their plans to return to their homeland when there is genuine space for activism.
Without the development of a strong civil society which engages all people this crisis will continue unabated. Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy and noble peace prize winner, said “better governance is the answer to Burma’s humanitarian crisis…the most important aspect of humanitarian assistance or any kind of assistance is good governance. Unless there is good governance, you cannot ensure that the assistance will really benefit the country”.9 Improved governance can only be achieved through the development of civil society and expanding human rights and democracy work, which requires more funding.
However, funding for these types of projects is seriously inadequate and is under threat. In the past three years the European Commission has slashed its funding of projects promoting human rights and democracy in Burma by more than halve. As organisations scramble to secure a small portion of available funding, their efforts to rebuild their communities and countries are being severely limited because donor nations have put a price tag on the Burmese people’s future and have said it costs too much.
Sadly, it is not only civil society groups that are facing funding shortages, but also organisations that provide basic necessities to displace and refugee populations. Organisations providing food, shelter and services to Burmese refugees in Thailand, such as the Thailand Burma Border Consortium and the International Rescue Committee, are facing serious funding shortages, wherein they have had to reduce food allowances and services to refugee communities.10
The calls from donors for exit strategies and claims that they cannot keep supporting the people of Burma indefinitely are being heard loudly and funding reductions demonstrate that they are serious. However, the level of humanitarian funding to Burma does not reflect the needs of the population and is not conductive in enabling the Burmese people’s to bring about the political, social and economic changes they so desperately want and need. Whilst the expression “you need to spend money to make money” can not be applied in its entirety to this situation, the simple truth is if we genuinely want to see the people of Burma enjoy peace, democracy, human rights and justice, we need to support them in a meaningful, useful way.
Generations have not known peace, and young people in their early 20s are working now, not for a better future for themselves but for the next generation because they have resigned themselves to the fact that they will not see change in their lifetimes.
Are we really saying that the price of peace and justice for Burma is too much? Isn’t the cost of doing nothing higher?
End Notes
“The Security Dimension”, Burma Issues and Concerns, Vol 4, Altsean, April 2007
“New Threats to Humanitarian Aid”, International Crisis Group, December 2006
“Threat to the Peace Report”, DLA Piper, Rudiuck Rudnick Gary Cary, September 2005
Economist Country Profile 2004
“Responding to AIDS, Tuberculosis, Malaria and emerging infectious diseases in Burma: Dilemma’s of policy and practice”, Breyar et al, PLOS, October 2006
“Chronic Emergency: Health and Human Rights in Eastern Burma”, Back Pack Health Worker Team, 2006
“World Health Statistic 2007”, http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm , accessed November 2007
“Failing the People of Burma? A call for a review of DFID policy on Burma”, The Burma Campaign UK, December 2006
August 2002, “Humanitarian Assistance to Burma: How to establish good governance in the provision of humanitarian aid – ensuring aid reaches the right people in the right way”, Burma UN Service Desk, March 2003
“Budget cuts at Thai-Burmese border”, The Irrawaddy, January 15, 2008
What humanitarian assistance
is needed in eastern Burma?
A variety of humanitarian assistance
is needed in eastern Burma. The most needed includes:
security, food, education, health and community development.
Security
Villagers have the basic knowledge
needed to competently look after themselves. Given the
opportunity they can grow enough food, run schools and
clinics (hiring qualified staff) and govern their communities.
However, currently they lack the physical security to
do so. People in eastern Burma live in constant fear
of the Burmese army and are always ready to flee. If
grassroots communities had security they could start
to invest in creating a permanent community for themselves,
their families and neighbours. For villagers to have
the physical security they need a genuine resolution
to crisis in Burma is needed. This also involves demilitarisation,
including the removal of landmines. Humanitarian organisations
should continue to advocate for change, but also to
empower grassroots communities to lead the change themselves.
Food
Food scarcity is a serious problem
for the population of eastern Burma. Most people rely
on agriculture for their livelihoods. In some areas
villagers are forced to grow off-season crops, or risk
having their land confiscated. People must also fulfill
demands for forced labour from the SPDC. All these factors
contribute to lower crop yields, which in turn affects
people’s food supplies. Consequently, across eastern
Burma there is food insecurity. Most villagers’ diets
are inadequate. Malnutrition is rife, and in some areas
intervention is necessary. Villagers need and want community-run
programmes that make their villages more self-sufficient
and stable in terms of food production. In addition
to increasing food production, these programmes should
also look at raising awareness of nutritional issues
with community members.
Education
Most villagers cite education
as a priority for their community; however, the quality
of education is very low in eastern Burma. Even in locations
where there are schools issues, such as school closures,
extortion of arbitrary fees, the theft of teachers’
salaries, unmotivated teachers, lack of materials, sadly
prevail. More support for education is needed in order
to provide children with a better future. As the Burmese
junta continues to under fund education and implements
policies that are detrimental to education, other assistance
is needed. The people of eastern Burma want support
to provide basic education to their children and to
develop skills that they can use in their communities
to overcome some of issues they are facing daily, for
example more agricultural skills to improve livelihoods.
Health
Many people die from preventable
or easily treatable diseases. Health services are virtually
non-existent within the state, with health workers being
poorly trained and clinics lacking very basic equipment
and medicines. In some areas there are no clinics or
medical service providers. There is a need for more
health services in eastern Burma and health workers
need to have unrestricted access to all parts of the
population. Additionally, people need clean drinking
water, appropriate sanitation, and education about basic
health care, including disease prevention.
Community Development
Communities have many great ideas
about how to improve their living standards, livelihoods
and social services. These include: crop diversification,
building dams and bridges for community use, health
clinics, schools and self-reliance programmes to name
a few. These initiatives are usually developed via a
participatory means and bring real benefits for the
grassroots communities. However, communities often lack
the resources necessary to implement these ideas. Attempts
at fundraising are made, however, communities usually
struggle to reach their targets, especially without
outside assistance. As villagers’ efforts to develop
their community’s continually fail, they become disillusioned
and focus on their survival.
To go to the other articles published in the December 2007 BI Newsletter click on the links below:
