Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06BRUSSELS1166
2006-04-05 16:15:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Brussels
Cable title:  

BURMA'S HUMANITARIAN SITUATION DETERIORATING: EU

Tags:  PREF PHUM PREL EAID BM TH EUN USEU BRUSSELS 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 BRUSSELS 001166 

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

DEPARTMENT FOR EAP, PRM AND DRL; PLEASE PASS USAID

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREF PHUM PREL EAID BM TH EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: BURMA'S HUMANITARIAN SITUATION DETERIORATING: EU
STRESSES ASSISTANCE, DIALOGUE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 BRUSSELS 001166

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

DEPARTMENT FOR EAP, PRM AND DRL; PLEASE PASS USAID

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREF PHUM PREL EAID BM TH EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: BURMA'S HUMANITARIAN SITUATION DETERIORATING: EU
STRESSES ASSISTANCE, DIALOGUE


1. (SBU) Summary. The 2006 Burma/Myanmar Forum, sponsored by
the European Institute for Asian Studies (EIAS),focused on
the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Burma. NGOs,
international organizations, academics and government
officials outlined the reasons for increased displacement in
2005, as well as the current obstacles in addressing
humanitarian needs. Specific examples of displacement caused
by military activity, large-scale development projects and
unsuccessful policy initiatives were described in detail.
The conference was not meant to explore political responses
in addressing the root causes of this complex humanitarian
emergency. However, given that the event took place in the
run-up to the European Union,s (EU) review of its "common
position" towards Burma, several speakers made this critical
link. European officials stressed the need for dialogue with
the regime, in contrast to the USG statement which stressed
marginalizing it. Most speakers expressed concern that the
Burmese government's proposed guidelines for NGOs would
obstruct access and the delivery of aid and possibly cause
NGOs to discontinue their work in the country. Regarding
Burmese refugees in Thailand, various speakers spoke in
positive terms about the Thai government's policy shift
towards accommodating a longer-term refugee community. The
EU's common position towards Burma is not expected to alter
significantly when it is reviewed later this month. End
summary.

--------------
EU "common position" on relations with Burma
--------------


2. (U) In his keynote speech at the Burma/Mynmar Forum 2006
on March 29, the European Commission's Director General for
External Relations Eneko Landaburu stressed the need for
balancing criticism of the Burmese regime with limited
engagement. He said that the EU sought to be a global player
and was intent on spreading its values and principles through
"soft power" and multilateral engagement. Landaburu outlined
the EU's common policy -- which has been attacked as both too

mild and too stringent -- and emphasized the need to: 1)
maintain a dialogue which included a focus on human rights;
2) engage the regime to undertake its responsibility in
developing the country; and, 3) ensure assistance for
vulnerable populations, including refugees abroad. He
stressed that isolating Burma and placing restrictions on the
regime could not, by themselves, bring about change.

--------------
EC assistance, the "3D Fund", NGO guidelines, and donor
coordination
--------------


3. (U) Outlining the European Commission's (EC) assistance
strategy for 2007-2013, Landaburu said the emphasis would be
on primary education and health programs. He regretted the
Global Fund's decision to end its program in Burma and said
EC funds would help fill the gap in combating malaria,
HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. EC assistance, he said, would
help prevent a "lost generation" from developing in Burma.
Landaburu ended with a personal reflection on his youth under
Franco's dictatorship and said that engagement, including
visits by tourists, was key in exposing Spaniards to
democracy and market principles.


4. (U) During the conference, EC officials gave more details
about humanitarian and longer-term funding. According to
Burma-Thailand desk office Javier Menendez Bonilla, the
Euroepan Commission Humanitarian Aid Officer (ECHO) considers
Burma a "forgotten crisis." ECHO will provide 8 million
euros for humanitarian needs inside Burma this year -- of
which 2.7 million euros will assist the Rohingyas of Northern
Arakan -- and these funds will be channeled through UNHCR,
WFP and ICRC to provide protection, food aid and
water/sanitation. ECHO's funding is being straight-lined
from 2005 to 2006, but the 8 million figure is four times
higher than the 2003 total.


5. (U) Menendez Bonilla said that the Burmese government's
proposed guidelines for NGOs are a cause of grave concern in
that they would obstruct access and the delivery of aid.
During the conference, NGOs also expressed concern about the
proposed guidelines and said that they may well cause many
organizations to discontinue working in Burma. They stressed
it was important to ensure that not all humanitarian agencies
cease operations and that a way is found to reestablish and
maintain a humanitarian space in order for operations to
continue.


6. (U) Andrew Jacobs, a Commission official based at the EC's
Delegation in Bangkok and Operations Manager of the proposed
"Three Diseases Fund", gave a detailed overview of this
EC-driven initiative designed to fill the gap caused by the
departure of the Global Fund. Should donors cough up enough
money, Jacobs suggested the 3D fund budget would be $100
million over five years. He said UNOPS had been chosen to
manage the fund because of its independence (i.e., no need to
rely on donor funding). Jacobs highlighted the importance of
combating malaria, the biggest cause of mortality in Burma.
However, he also stressed the role of the 3D fund in
improving dialogue and cooperation with the Burmese
government since the fund will support the public health
sector. Although funds will be used countrywide, Jacobs
noted that the greatest efforts would be made in areas
populated by ethnic minorities.


7. (U) For refugees in Thailand, ECHO will contribute a total
of 8.5 million euros in 2006, of which 5.5 million euros will
be channeled through the Thailand-Burma Border Consortium
(TBBC) of NGOs, largely for food aid. The other 3 million
euros will be devoted to health needs inside the refugee
camps.

8. (U) The Ambassador of the UK to the Union of Myanmar,
Vicky Bowman, focused her comments on the efforts of the UK
Department for International Development (DFID) to spearhead
a Strategic Development Assessment. She began by asking, "How
can humanitarian assistance solve problems instead of being a
band-aid?" She recalled her initial enthusiasm upon arrival
for finding a way to use aid to promote national
reconciliation. However, a forum sponsored by her embassy
last year with ethnic group representatives and students
convinced her there was no point in trying to bring the two
sides together at this time since the minorities did not
trust the government. Bowman stated that perhaps a better
approach would be to use humanitarian assistance to bring
local communities together to address problems. She
indicated that cross-border assistance may be reinforcing
Burma,s divisions and cautioned that conflicts can sometimes
be reinforced by assistance. She also urged incorporating
the centrality of religion in the reconciliation process
(noting that often even Anglican, Baptist and Catholic groups
would not cooperate with each other).


9. (U) Bowman said donors could set an example of cooperation
and reported that a group of the major contributors (UK,
Australia, Germany, Japan and the UN Resident Coordinator)
were already working on the assessment; she hoped the EC,
Sweden and Switzerland would join shortly. The donor group
visited Shan and other conflict areas in 2005 to review
assistance programs and determine future priorities. In the
nine conflict clusters visited, they determined that there
was poor local leadership and governance, general economic
deterioration and a weakened civil society. The group
decided to focus their assistance in ten priority areas. The
top four included: building social capital, strengthening
civil society, promoting local leadership, and improving the
macro-economic situation.

--------------
Humanitarian Needs inside Burma
--------------


10. (U) Ashley South, an analyst based in London who
specializes in ethnic politics, displacement and humanitarian
issues, described three distinct causes of displacement in
Burma: military activities, infrastructure development, and
livelihood vulnerability. According to South, the armed
conflict in eastern Burma, especially Karen State near the
Thai border, is causing much displacement, not only because
of the fighting, but also because of severe human rights
abuses. He sited TBBC data which indicated that as many as
540,000 people were being impacted, some multiple times. The
displaced have four options: 1) hide near their villages; 2)
comply and move to relocation sites where poor living
conditions normally exist; 3) flee to ceasefire areas, or 4)
move to government controlled areas. Frequently, after a
population is displaced, villages are destroyed so
inhabitants cannot return. South emphasized that since
protection needs vary in each displacement situation,
assistance must be tailored. A wide range of conditions can
be encountered by IDPs in the same region, he noted. Since
2003, some areas have stabilized in Karen State while other
areas have deteriorated.


11. (U) South said that in Kachin and Mon States (ceasefire
areas) both military and development-induced displacement
caused by large-scale government controlled projects is
occurring. These include expanded mining projects (which
exploit local natural resources),construction of new
military installations and the new national capital, and
large-scale infrastructure projects. Protection issues
include housing and property rights. Although security is
better in the ceasefire areas and education and economic
opportunities are improving, South said that support is still
needed for these IDPs to transition successfully to new
locations and reestablish their homes and livelihoods.


12. (U) Livelihood vulnerability induced displacement is
caused primarily by the government's opium eradication
programs in Shan State and by natural disasters. South
indicated that local NGOs are active in dealing with these
vulnerable groups but that international agencies should
mainstream protection to allow access to the full range of
services, not just assistance.


13. (U) Chris Lewa, coordinator of the Northern Arakan
Project working out of Bangkok, described the chronic
emergency situation found in the North Arakan region of
Rakhine State which is caused by acute poverty. She said
international aid is essential to avoid a mass migration to
neighboring Bangladesh. Three Muslim-majority townships in
this region have long suffered discrimination. In 1978,
250,000 refugees from this region were repatriated from
Bangladesh to Burma in mass. However, a Burmese law passed
in 1982 rendered this population stateless because it
categorized them as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. They
are severely restricted in their movements and for a while
even required official permission to marry. Frequently
subject to forced labor and extortion, they have no economic
opportunities and receive no public services. Malnutrition
is a constant state. Lewa said that eleven international
organizations and seven NGOs are active in this region.


14. (U) Lewa noted that the EU has been the largest donor
(combining EC contributions with bilateral contributions from
EU Member States). In addition to the ECHO funds noted
above, the EC contributed 6.9 million euros in food
assistance from EuropeAid funds during the 2003-2005 period.
Lewa emphasized that Burma's crisis is political in nature
and that the presence of international agencies to ensure
protection is essential. She called on the EU to exert more
pressure on the Burmese regime to lift restrictive practices
and policies.


15. (U) Lewa detailed a list of abuses instigated by the
regime. Harassment is a constant. Food aid deliveries are
frequently hindered during lean periods. Muslims are not
allowed to receive health training and must rely on the
Buddhist medical staff that frequently hinders assistance and
treatment. Travel passes are frequently denied for those
seeking medical treatment outside of the region for more
serious conditions. The education system is also in a
deteriorated condition due to poorly trained teachers and
lack of facilities. Access to higher education outside of
the region for promising students is usually denied due to
travel restrictions. She also said that protection should
include economic and cultural rights.


16. (U) Saw David Taw of the Karen Internally Displaced
Committee and Daw Shirley Sen of the Kachin Women's
Organization, both based in Chiang Mai, stressed other
difficulties inside Burma, including trafficking in persons,
sexual violence against women, HIV/AIDS, child labor and
child soldiers, drug addiction, lack of basic social services
and economic opportunities in remote regions, negative
effects of unsustainable drug eradication programs, malaria
and general isolation from lowland areas. Sen said that only
three NGOs are working in the ceasefire areas -- the Metta
Foundation, YMCA and Kachin Baptist Convention -- and they
are only able to provide small scale support. She stressed
the particular problem of trafficking in persons across the
China/Burma border for the purpose of forced marriages and
prostitution. According to Shirley, the SPDC regime's
anti-trafficking policies are not working and actually serve
to restrict the rights of women (such as to free movement).


17. (U) According to UNHCR Senior Desk Officer Marc Rapoport,
while there had been some sense of possible repatriation of
refugees to Burma from Thailand in 2004, the difficulties
encountered in 2005, described above, have curbed the initial
optimism. Because progress and presence of humanitarian
actors in areas of return is still modest, Rapoport concluded
that "conditions are not conducive for repatriation for the
time being."

--------------
Humanitarian needs in Thailand
--------------


18. (U) In his overview of the refugee situation, Director of
the TBBC Jack Dunford said that the militarization of the
border area over the past decade and subsequent development
projects had contributed significantly to the outflows.
Refugees were fleeing from both forced labor situations and
environmental damage (i.e., inundations for new dams,
widespread logging, etc.). Since December 2005, at one
refugee camp alone, over 1200 have arrived. Thousands more
are poised across the border to join them. Dunford noted
that the number of new arrivals would be greater, except for
the landmines and efforts by the Thai army to push them back.



19. (U) On developments in Thailand, Dunford said that the
good news was a shift towards a more realistic approach to
the refugee situation, with the Royal Thai Government (RTG)
no longer talking about refugee returns within three years
and new preparations for longer-term refugee populations in
Thailand. He said that the RTG had reacted encouragingly to
a letter sent by the TBBC on December 8, which outlined a
comprehensive plan to improve the situation of the refugees.
The letter stressed that long term confinement in camps would
not be beneficial to the refugees. The Thai Ministry of
Interior approved extension of skills training and income
generating projects, as well as the teaching of the Thai
language to Burmese refugees. Dunford called on donors to
seize the momentum of this shift in the RTG stance and
provide the financial support for these new programs which
may eventually facilitate local intergration. He also
mentioned current funding difficulties caused by currency
fluctuations and the need to possibly cut food rations if
additional funds did not become available. Dunford said the
TBBC was slightly worried that these steps towards improving
the situation for refugees could encourage more arrivals.
However, he noted that the push factors are driving them out
independently of possible camp improvement and without regard
to other pull factors in Thailand.


20. (U) Rapoport gave a similarly upbeat report on the
positive shift in the RTG. He said that while Thailand was
still not a party to the Geneva Refugee Convention it had
maintained the spirit of the document through a generous
asylum policy over the last three decades. He noted that the
provincial admission boards, which ceased accepting asylum
claims in 2001, resumed them in 2005 using a definition of
refugee very similar to that of the Geneva Convention and
that 25,000 camp residents have had their status regularized.
When asked by a Czech diplomat whether the international
community should press the RTG to ratify the Geneva
Convention, both Rapoport and Dunford stressed that the
current helpful attitude of the RTG is more important than
formalities; Dunford also noted the deep political division
in Thailand and said that this uncertainty also meant the
time for such a sensitive deliberation was not right.


21. (U) Rapoport said that UNHCR intended to refer 13,500
refugees from nine camps for resettlement in 2005 and a
similar number in 2006. According to Dunford, the RTG
approved the departure of up to 10,000 this year to the ten
major resettlement countries, but he believe that only about
half that many would actual leave. He also stressed that
asylum rights for those not in camps needed to be maintained
by the RTG.


22. (U) Several speakers noted the growing number of Burmese
migrants in Thailand, now estimated at 1.5 million. UNHCR's
Rapoport contrasted the situation of the migrants, who have
been progressively offered more opportunities, with the
psychological problems developing among refugees. The most
memorable line from the conference was delivered by Thaung
Htun of the National Coalition Government of the Union of
Burma, who quoted one migrant about his lot, as follows:
"Thai hell is better than Burmese hell."

--------------
Comment
--------------


23. (SBU) As always, identifying the problems are much
easier than charting out a course of action to address root
causes. EIAS Secretary General Dick Gupwell made it clear in
his introductory remarks that ASEAN membership had completely
failed to change the direction of the generals. A videotaped
message from former Czech president Vaclav Havel urged
participants "not to yield to the lobby that would like to go
on trading normally with the regime." Yet that lobby tried
to make that exact case during and in the margins of the
conference. Editorials by Dr. Zar Ni of the Free Burma
Coalition, which said "protracted economic sanctions and
international isolation of Burma only stymie the emergence of
a viable civil society" and which noted the failure of the
U.S. embargo to bring down Fidel Castro, were circulated.
However, PRMOff's defense of the USG policy on sanctions was
applauded by some. One participant noted that the EU Member
State with the hardest line toward Burma, the UK, also had
the highest amount of foreign investment in the country.


24. (SBU) Some participants also expressed concern about the
perceived softening of the EU "common position" --
particularly in Germany, France, Italy and Austria -- towards
Burma. Landaburu's emollient remarks and emphasis on
engagement undoubtedly added to their fears. Ambassador
Bowman said that the international community had run out of
ideas for delivering impact. "What good would come of
Burma's expulsion from ASEAN? If Total withdrew, Petro-China
would take its place," she noted. Nonetheless, Bowman said
she believed the EU's "common position" would be maintained,
not softened. USEU contacts in the EU Council Secretariat in
Brussels confirmed Bowman's analysis and indicated that the
mood in the Council is currently not disposed toward a more
liberal stance on Burma. Since much of the conference was
spent outlining the deterioration of the situation caused by
new abuses perpetrated by the regime, common sense should
indicate that easing pressure at this point would not be
prudent. Department may wish to demarche EU Member States in
advance of their review of the "common position" which should
take place in late April or May.

GRAY
.