I am new to work on Burma, but in my eight weeks of involvement to date I am finding the world of Burma advocacy rigid and doctrinal. There is just one overarching narrative: the struggle of the Burmese democracy movement, led by Nobel Peace Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, against the repressive Burmese generals. It is a classic tale of good vs. evil, and thus perfect for political mobilization on behalf of a just cause.
The problem is that the political struggle is stuck, while the Burmese people suffer in isolation. Refugees International is presently attempting to interject humanitarian considerations into the discussion of how to respond to the current stalemate. Based on our recent assessment mission inside the country, we believe that it is possible for independent non-governmental organizations to address the needs of the 55 million people inside Burma without benefiting the generals. Many in the Burma solidarity movement disagree, believing that no independent work inside the country is possible and any aid provided merely gives comfort to the regime. Therefore, the only humanitarian assistance provided should be through cross-border operations from Thailand that reach only a tiny portion of the population in areas of eastern Burma, where ethnic minority armies are resisting the government.
There is certainly room for principled debate on these issues. But based on my experience with Burma advocacy so far, the political solidarity groups prefer rather to rely on emotional appeals and misinformation about the operating environment for humanitarian organizations inside the country.
I reach this tentative (and, I hope, incorrect) conclusion based on a panel discussion I attended last week at a leading think tank. It was a typical Washington Burma panel discussion with three like-minded individuals --- two Burmese activists, including one who had just received a high-profile award from First Lady Laura Bush at a gala event the previous evening, and a former National Security Council staffer --- who hold views that reinforce the overarching Burma narrative. In their formal presentations not one alluded to the humanitarian problems inside the country.
That was disappointing, but not surprising. But when I raised a question about the panel's views on assistance inside the country, I was stunned by the misrepresentations. As her first example of the operating environment being untenable, one panelist stated that the UN World Food Program had withdrawn from Burma. I had to immediately interrupt and state that this was untrue. In fact, not only is WFP still present, but it is considered the most effective UN agency in the country, providing food assistance through a variety of programs to more than a million people. It went downhill after that.
The Burma solidarity adherents often evoke "the courageous Burmese people" to support the aid embargo. This is an easy rhetorical device, and may sound plausible, but it is based on discussions with a narrow set of political actors, most of them outside the country. The Burmese I spoke to during my ten days in Burma were furious about the aid embargo, and equally angry about the nerve of people living in comfort in the United States claiming to speak on their behalf.
This is a debate among elites, in which ordinary Burmese play no role. Aid to Burma has become politicized, to the detriment of the Burmese people and humanitarian principle. The overarching goal of RI's Burma work is to change this situation. It's not going to be easy.
[ Any views expressed in this article are those of the writer and not of Reuters. ]
Palestinian mourners gather next to four bodies during the funeral in Nusseirat Refugee Camp, central Gaza Strip April 17, 2008. Israeli forces killed 17 Palestinians, most of them civilians including a ...
