International Organizations: Assistance Programs Constrained in
Burma (06-APR-07, GAO-07-457).
Burma is one of the world's most impoverished and isolated
countries. The United Nations (UN) and other international
organizations have become important sources of outside assistance
to the country. In recent years, UN entities have increased their
funding for activities aimed at addressing Burma's problems.
However, Burma's military regime has imposed restrictions on
international organizations' activities in Burma. GAO (1)
identified principal efforts of the United Nations and other
international organizations to address Burma's problems and (2)
described the impact of the regime's recent actions on these
efforts. We reviewed UN, U.S., and Burmese official documents and
interviewed UN, U.S., Burmese, and nongovernmental organization
officials in the United States and Burma. We also visited UN
project sites in Burma.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-457
ACCNO: A67925
TITLE: International Organizations: Assistance Programs
Constrained in Burma
DATE: 04/06/2007
SUBJECT: Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
Foreign aid programs
Foreign governments
International cooperation
International food programs
International organizations
International relations
Military government
Military regimes
Prisoners
Program evaluation
Refugees
Burma
UN Development Program
UN World Food Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-457
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]International Organizations Are Undertaking Wide Range of Ef
* [4]ICRC and ILO Attempt to Monitor Prison and Labor Conditions
* [5]International Organizations Seek to Aid Populations in Confl
* [6]International Organizations Aim to Address Burmese Developme
* [7]Burmese Military Regime Has Blocked or Impeded Activities of
* [8]Regime Has Become More Restrictive Since 2004
* [9]Regime Has Blocked ICRC Initiative to Monitor Prison Conditi
* [10]Burmese Regime Blocked ILO Efforts until Recently
* [11]Regime Has Restricted International Efforts in Certain Confl
* [12]Regime Has Impeded Other Assistance Programs
* [13]Regime's Travel Restrictions Have Hindered Programs
* [14]Regime Impeded Gathering and Sharing of Needed Health
and De
* [15]Despite Restrictions, International Organization Officials S
* [16]Concluding Observations
* [17]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* [18]GAO Comments
* [19]GAO Contact
* [20]Staff Acknowledgments
* [21]GAO's Mission
* [22]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [23]Order by Mail or Phone
* [24]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [25]Congressional Relations
* [26]Public Affairs
Report to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
April 2007
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Assistance Programs Constrained in Burma
GAO-07-457
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 3
Background 4
International Organizations Are Undertaking Wide Range of Efforts to
Address Burma's Problems 11
Burmese Military Regime Has Blocked or Impeded Activities of Many
International Organizations 16
Concluding Observations 26
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 26
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 29
Appendix II Comments from the Department of State 31
Appendix III Comments from the UN Country Team 33
Appendix IV Comments from UNAIDS 39
Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 41
Figures
Figure 1: Burma 7
Figure 2: Reported UN Expenditures in Burma, 2002-2005 10
Figure 3: Participants in a UNDP-Sponsored Small Banking Project near
Bassein 15
Abbreviations
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross
ILO International Labor Organization
UN United Nations
UNAIDS Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS
UNCT United Nations Country Team
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNFPA United Nations Population Fund
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund
UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
WFP World Food Program
WHO World Health Organization
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
April 6, 2007
The Honorable Tom Lantos
Chairman
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Foreign Affairs
House of Representatives
Burma is one of the world's most impoverished and isolated countries.^1
With a per capita national income level below those of neighboring
Bangladesh and Laos, Burma suffers from high infant and maternal mortality
rates, epidemic-level HIV/AIDS infections, and widespread production of
illegal drugs. Burma's isolation is largely the result of policies pursued
by a succession of authoritarian military regimes that have ruled the
country since 1962. According to the U.S. government, these regimes are
responsible for Burma's mismanaged economy, human rights abuses, use of
forced labor, human trafficking, and military campaigns against ethnic
minority groups. During Burma's last election in 1990, Burmese citizens
voted to oust the regime in favor of the National League for Democracy,
led by Aung San Suu Kyi.^2 However, the regime confined her and many other
League members, and continued to rule despite international condemnation
of its actions. The regime's repressive policies have prompted the United
States and other Western nations to end their foreign aid programs to
Burma and enact a range of sanctions.
In 2006, the Burmese regime announced new restrictions on international
organizations operating in Burma. These organizations have become
important sources of outside assistance to Burma's approximately 54
million people as Burma has become increasingly isolated.^3 They include
the United Nations (UN), the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC), and various international nongovernmental organizations. The
regime's actions have raised concerns regarding the extent to which these
organizations will be able to continue their assistance efforts.
^1Since 1989, Burma's military rulers have promoted "Myanmar" as the name
for the country of Burma. In accordance with U.S. government policy, this
report refers to the country as Burma and not as "Myanmar."
^2Aung San Suu Kyi was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
^3The United States helps fund some UN programs in Burma and also funds
Burmese democracy programs and humanitarian aid to Burmese refugees
outside of the country. About $11 million was appropriated for these
activities, as well as additional activities related to Burma, for fiscal
year 2006 in the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-102.
In this report, we (1) identify the principal efforts of the UN and other
international organizations to address Burma's problems and (2) describe
the impact of the regime's recent actions on the activities of these
international organizations. To address these issues, we examined
documents relating to programs conducted in Burma by the UN Country Team
(which includes 10 UN entities located in that country) and the
restrictions imposed on them by the Burmese regime.^4 In New York and
Washington, D.C., we met with officials of the U.S. Departments of State
(State) and the Treasury, the United Nations, the World Bank, and the
International Monetary Fund. We also met with the Burmese UN mission in
New York. In Rangoon, Burma, we met with officials of UN entities, ICRC,
and several international nongovernmental organizations who asked that we
not identify their organizations in this report. In addition, we met with
officials of the U.S. embassy and of the leading democratic organization
in Burma. In and near Rangoon and Bassein, Burma, we met with recipients
of UN assistance. We also traveled to Nay Pyi Taw (Burma's newly built
capital) to meet with officials from the Burmese Ministry of National
Planning and Economic Development and the Ministry of Health. In Bangkok,
Thailand, we met with officials from three additional UN entities that
operate programs in Burma from Thailand,^5 as well as with representatives
of other donor nations.
We conducted our work from May 2006 through February 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. More details on our
scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.
^4UN entities with offices in Burma are the Food and Agriculture
Organization, International Labor Organization, UN Children's Fund, UN
Development Program, Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, UN High
Commissioner for Refugees, UN Office on Drugs and Crime, UN Population
Fund, World Health Organization, and World Food Program.
^5The three UN entities that operate programs in Burma from Thailand are
the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the
Inter-Agency Project on Human Trafficking in the Greater Mekong
Sub-Region; and the UN Industrial Development Organization.
Results in Brief
The United Nations and other international organizations have undertaken
numerous efforts to address some of Burma's most pressing problems. These
efforts include programs aimed at mitigating the effects of prison
conditions, forced labor, and conflicts in Burma's ethnic areas. ICRC has
attempted to monitor prison conditions in Burma, while the International
Labor Organization (ILO) has sought to allow victims of forced labor to
file complaints without interference from the regime. The UN High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and ICRC have worked to assist the
population in conflict areas near Burma's border with Thailand.
International organizations are also attempting to provide food to
vulnerable populations, promote local economic development, improve health
conditions, and strengthen the Burmese educational system. For example,
two UN entities have provided food and agricultural support to vulnerable
populations, while the UN Development Program has created village- and
township-level community development and small banking groups. Several UN
entities have provided assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and
tuberculosis, as well as to improve reproductive health and combat the
manufacture and use of dangerous drugs. The UN Children's Fund is working
to address health and educational problems affecting Burmese children.
Burma's military regime has blocked or impeded activities undertaken by
many international organizations in Burma over the past 3 years. After
ousting the former Prime Minister in 2004, the regime distanced itself
from the international organizations and began adopting increasingly
restrictive policies. In 2006, it published formal guidelines to restrict
international activities in Burma. These guidelines, which have yet to be
fully implemented, contain provisions that UN officials consider to be
unacceptable. The regime's increased restrictions have had the greatest
impact on international efforts focused on prison conditions, forced
labor, and ethnic conflict. The regime has blocked ICRC efforts to monitor
prison conditions and frustrated ILO efforts to monitor forced labor for
four years before signing an agreement with ILO in February 2007. The
regime also significantly restricted UNHCR and ICRC efforts to assist
populations living in areas affected by ethnic conflict. To a lesser
degree, the regime has also impeded UN food, development, and health
programs by restricting their ability to (1) move food and international
staff freely within the country and (2) conduct research needed to
determine the nature and scope of some of Burma's problems. Despite these
restrictions, several international organization officials told us they
are still able to achieve meaningful results in their efforts to mitigate
some of Burma's humanitarian, health, and development problems.
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of
State and cognizant UN and ICRC officials. We received written comments
from State, the UN Country Team in Burma, and the Joint UN Programme on
HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), which are reprinted in appendixes II, III, and IV,
along with our responses to specific points. State commented that the
draft report was thorough, accurate, and balanced and that it would
continue to encourage the regime to lift its unnecessary and unreasonable
restrictions on international organizations. The UN Country Team agreed
that international agencies are able to achieve meaningful results in
Burma despite what it termed "a difficult and complex environment."
However, while it did not dispute our specific findings about the regime's
restrictions, the UN Country Team expressed concern that our draft report
did not note that the United Nations and its partners had achieved "a
significant opening of humanitarian space on the ground" over the past
decade. This statement is in contrast to information UN officials had
provided earlier stating that conditions had deteriorated since the 2004
purge within the regime. The UN Country Team also noted that on February
26, 2007, ILO and Burma had signed an agreement establishing a complaints
mechanism for victims of forced labor. We have updated our report to
reflect this change, which took place after we submitted our draft report
for comment. The UN Country Team also said our report did not adequately
reflect the nature of the UN entities' work and the differences in their
mandates. We believe we fairly describe the entities' work in our first
objective. While our draft report noted that UNDP has a restricted mandate
prohibiting it from working with the government, we added language stating
that other UN entities' mandates do not have similar restrictions. UNAIDS
commented that it appreciated our recognition of progress despite
difficulties but added that the draft report could contain more evidence
of this progress. We believe we fairly described UNAIDS' work in our draft
report.
Background
Military regimes have ruled Burma for most of the past 45 years. The
current regime took power in 1988. In Burma's last election in 1990,
Burmese citizens voted to oust the regime in favor of the National League
for Democracy. The regime confined the League's leader (Aung San Suu Kyi)
and many of the League's members, and continued to rule Burma despite
international condemnation. As of September 2006, the regime was holding
more than 1,100 political prisoners under conditions that State has
described as "harsh." Amnesty International reported that the regime has
subjected Burmese political prisoners to torture and ill-treatment that
has resulted in the deaths of some prisoners.^6 The regime has also
condoned the use of forced labor and taken military action against ethnic
groups living in areas within Burma. According to the U.S. government,
Burmese campaigns against ethnic minorities in conflict regions may have
displaced as many as 500,000 persons. Due in part to the country's
widespread violations of human rights, The Fund for Peace ranked Burma
among the world's top 20 most unstable countries,^7 while Transparency
International ranked Burma 1.9 on a corruption scale ranging from 0
(highly corrupt) to 10 (highly clean).^8
Burma is also one of the world's most impoverished countries. In 2006, the
UN Development Program (UNDP) ranked Burma 130 out of 177 countries in its
annual human development index based on economic and social indicators.^9
The U.S. government has ranked Burma's per capita gross domestic product
186 out of 229 countries and territories--below those of neighboring
Bangladesh and Laos. Both infant and maternal mortality rates are high in
Burma. Humanitarian needs are particularly acute in the border areas that
have been afflicted for many years by conflict and instability, according
to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. HIV/AIDS has become a
generalized epidemic, with approximately 1.3 percent of the population
suffering from the virus. According to UN officials, the quality of
education in Burma has been declining from formerly high levels. Low
educational attainment is depriving many Burmese children of a good start
in life and significantly lowering their income opportunities and
productivity as adults, according to the United Nations. The weak
education system also has long-term implications for the country's ability
to develop. According to the most recent World Bank data available to the
public, the regime spent less during 2001 and 2003 on health and education
in terms of percentage of gross domestic product than Bangladesh,
Cambodia, and Laos, which are other low-income nations in the region.
Burma has also emerged as a leading opium and
methamphetamine producer and a source of human trafficking, according to
the U.S. government.
^6See Amnesty International, Myanmar's Political Prisoners: A Growing
Legacy of Injustice (June 2005), which can be viewed at
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa160192005 .
^7Foreign Policy and The Fund for Peace, 2006 Failed State Index.
^8Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2006.
^9UNDP's indicators include life expectancy, literacy rates, and per
capita income.
The regime's leadership and policies have undergone shifts since it took
power. Beginning in 1989, the regime began signing cease-fire agreements
with some of Burma's ethnic groups. In 2002, it released the winner of the
1990 election. In 2003, Burma's newly appointed Prime Minister began
offering the United Nations expanded opportunities to address some of
Burma's problems. However, the regime subsequently renewed military
activities against minorities along Burma's border with Thailand,
reconfined the winner of the 1990 election, and, after purging the Prime
Minister from power in October 2004, issued new restrictions on
international organizations in Burma. In November 2005, the regime
announced that it was moving Burma's capital from Rangoon to Nay Pyi Taw,
which is more than 200 miles from the Rangoon headquarters offices of
international organizations working in Burma (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: Burma
The regime's actions have prompted the United States to impose a variety
of sanctions. The United States has banned the importation of Burmese
goods, the export of financial services and arms by U.S. persons to Burma,
and new U.S. investment in Burma. It has barred high-ranking Burmese
officials from visiting the United States. The United States also proposed
a UN Security Council resolution that would have called upon the regime to
cease attacks on civilians in ethnic minority areas and begin a
substantive political dialogue that would lead to a transition to
democracy.^10 In addition, it has supported UN resolutions on Burma, such
as those passed by the UN General Assembly in response to the human rights
situation in Burma. According to State, U.S. objectives for Burma include
the release of political prisoners, the start of a credible and inclusive
national reconciliation process, the ending of forced labor and attacks on
civilians, and increased access for UN organizations and nongovernmental
organizations.
While several other nations have imposed sanctions on Burma, China has
strengthened its ties with that country. Australia, Canada, and the
European Union have joined the United States in imposing some form of
sanctions against the regime, according to State. In contrast, China has
increased its commercial presence in Burma, emerged as Burma's largest
single source of imports (about 30 percent in 2005), and become a strong
market for Burmese exports. In addition, the current Burmese Prime
Minister visited Beijing in February 2006 and signed agreements with
Chinese officials that will provide Burma with grants and concessionary
loans.
Burma has also become increasingly isolated from the World Bank, the Asian
Development Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. The World Bank
reported that it has not approved any new loans to Burma since 1987 and
has no plans to resume its program. Burma is currently in arrears to the
World Bank and has not enacted economic and other reforms. The Asian
Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund have not made new
loans to Burma since the 1980s.
The United Nations and several international organizations have become an
important source of outside assistance to the country. UN entities
informed us that they had spent about $218 million in Burma from 2002
through 2005. In 2005, more than 70 percent of these funds were spent by
UNDP, the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food Program (WFP), as
shown in figure 2.^11 Of the remaining agencies, the UN World Health
Organization (WHO) informed us it spent about $4.9 million in Burma during
2005, while UNHCR and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) informed us they had
each spent about $4.3 million. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported they had spent
about $3 million and about $2 million, respectively, in Burma during the
same year. ILO informed us it spent about $321,000 in Burma during 2005,
while UNAIDS reported it spent about $691,000.
^10The resolution was vetoed by China and Russia.
^11UNDP and WFP reported significant increases in their spending in Burma
in 2005. According to UNDP officials, UNDP funding increased to about $23
million in 2005 as a result of the former Prime Minister's decision to
allow UNDP to expand into certain areas. According to WFP officials, WFP
funding increased approximately $6 million between 2004 and 2005 as it
provided assistance to an increased number of families affected by the
regime's 1999 plan to eradicate poppy production over a 15-year period. We
did not assess the reliability of UN expenditure data because we used it
for background purposes only.
Figure 2: Reported UN Expenditures in Burma, 2002-2005
Note: Percentages may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.
The United States has provided financial support for some UN programs in
Burma. For example, it has helped fund programs conducted in Burma by
UNICEF. U.S. law requires that the United States withhold a proportionate
share of its voluntary contributions to most UN organizations in
connection with their programs in Burma. For example, the United States
has withheld a proportionate share of its voluntary contributions to UNDP
because UNDP conducts programs in Burma.^12
UNDP's governing board has also limited the scope of UNDP's mandate to
conduct programs in Burma. UNDP's governing board, which includes the
United States, has directed UNDP to work directly with the Burmese people
at the grass roots level and not through the regime. State has requested
and obtained annual assurances from UNDP that UNDP's Burma program is
focused on the needs of the poor, does not provide any benefits to the
regime, and works only through organizations that are independent of the
regime.^13 Other UN entities are not restricted from working with the
Burmese regime by their mandates.
International Organizations Are Undertaking Wide Range of Efforts to Address
Burma's Problems
The United Nations and other international organizations have undertaken
numerous efforts to address some of Burma's most pressing problems. These
efforts include programs aimed at addressing prison conditions, forced
labor, and conflicts in Burma's ethnic areas. International organizations
are also attempting to provide food security to vulnerable populations,
promote local economic development, detect and treat HIV/AIDS and other
diseases, and strengthen the educational system.
^12Section 301 of chapter 3 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended (Pub. L. 87-195), states that "the President is authorized to make
voluntary contributions on a grant basis to international organizations
and to programs administered by such organizations...." Section 307 of the
act specifies that "none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by
this chapter shall be available for the United States' proportionate share
for programs for Burma...." with the exception of contributions to UNICEF
and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Under Section 307, State
withheld more than $905,000 from its fiscal year 2004 voluntary
contributions to UNDP in connection with programs in Burma.
^13State has also obtained UNDP assurances that UNDP has consulted Burmese
pro-democracy groups regarding its program in Burma. Congress included
similar conditions in a provision of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg
Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001,
Pub. L. No. 106-113, S 108, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-417 (1999). This
provision, which is no longer in effect, specified that of the funds made
available for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for voluntary contributions to
UNDP, the United States would withhold "an amount equal to the amount"
that UNDP spent in Burma unless State certified that all UNDP programs met
the act's conditions.
ICRC and ILO Attempt to Monitor Prison and Labor Conditions
ICRC and ILO are attempting to address issues involving prison and forced
labor conditions in Burma. ICRC has attempted to monitor prison conditions
in Burma, while ILO has sought to allow victims of forced labor to file
complaints without interference from the regime.
ICRC has sought to improve Burmese prison conditions by meeting with
inmates unaccompanied by Burmese officials. In accordance with its
international mandate of visiting prisoners during situations of internal
violence and their consequences, ICRC began visiting Burmese prisons in
1999 following 13 years of negotiations with the regime. According to ICRC
officials and documents, ICRC staff conducted about 450 prison visits
between 1999 and 2005. ICRC staff informed us that while they do not allow
regime officials to accompany them during prison visits, they have worked
with regime ministries to improve prison health conditions and to help
prisoners contact their families. According to ICRC, the prison visit
program has helped improve prisoners' physical and psychological
well-being.
To address the problem of forced labor in Burma, ILO has recently
succeeded in establishing an independent mechanism to handle complaints
from victims of this practice. ILO is charged with defining international
labor standards, including an internationally recognized ban on the use of
forced labor.^14 In 1998, an ILO inquiry reported that it had found
"abundant evidence" of the "pervasive use of forced labour imposed on the
civilian population...by the authorities and the military" in Burma.
Following negotiations with ILO, Burma agreed in 2002 to allow ILO to
station a liaison officer for forced labor issues in Rangoon. In 2003,
Burma agreed in principle to an ILO plan of action that called for the
establishment of a non-Burmese facilitator for forced labor issues. This
facilitator would receive and investigate complaints of forced labor
provided in confidence and would then work with the regime to resolve the
complaints while protecting the rights of the complainant.
^14The Forced Labour Convention, adopted on June 28, 1930 in Geneva,
Switzerland, prohibits the use of forced labor, as defined in the
convention. The convention may be found at
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/31.htm . Burma ratified the
convention in 1955.
International Organizations Seek to Aid Populations in Conflict Areas
International organizations are also attempting to help populations in
areas of Burma that have been marked by tension or conflict between regime
forces and ethnic groups, according to officials of international
organizations. These organizations include UNHCR and ICRC.
UNHCR is currently working in two areas that have been subject to ethnic
tensions. Near Burma's border with Bangladesh, UNHCR is serving as the
lead international agency in engaging the regime on protection issues
affecting a large population of stateless Muslims, including more than
200,000 former refugees who began returning to Burma from Bangladesh in
1993. According to UNHCR, it is coordinating the work of several other
international organizations in providing needed support to this
population. UNHCR is also attempting to address the needs of persons
living in three provinces near Burma's southeastern border with Thailand,
where military campaigns have displaced large numbers of villagers. As a
result of these campaigns, many thousands of Karen, Karenni, and Mon
ethnic groups have crossed the border into Thailand. A senior UNHCR
official told us that UNHCR was granted access to these areas in 2004 as
part of a contingency plan for the possible repatriation of these
refugees.
ICRC has also sought to assist and protect populations in conflict areas.
ICRC officials informed us that ICRC teams travel to these areas to
persuade fighting forces to avoid harming civilians and to help civilians
who have already been harmed. The teams, which include medical personnel
and interpreters, have operated from ICRC field offices. ICRC officials
informed us that ICRC policy calls for the teams to travel freely in these
areas without regime supervision. They stated that they do not notify
authorities of each team's activities, although they must ask for
permission to establish field offices.
International Organizations Aim to Address Burmese Development and Health Needs
UN and other international organizations have launched a wide range of
assistance programs in Burma to address Burma's many social and health
problems. These problems include food shortages, poverty, threats to
public health, and a deficient and declining educational system.
International organizations have sought to address food shortages in
Burma, including those affecting displaced populations along Burma's
borders as well as other areas where malnutrition is increasingly
prevalent.
o WFP, the emergency food aid arm of the United Nations, has
sought to provide food to vulnerable populations in Burma that
suffer from hunger, malnutrition, and poverty and have been
adversely affected by regime policies. WFP delivers food
assistance to northwestern Burmese Muslim populations and to
families from mostly ethnic minority groups who lost their main
livelihood under a regime ban on opium cultivation. WFP implements
food assistance programs for students and landless workers, and
provides nutrition support for mothers and young children. WFP
implements its programs with cooperating partners such as other UN
entities or nongovernmental organizations rather than the regime.
WFP has also provided emergency food assistance to families
affected by the 2005 tsunami disaster and has responded to other
localized food crises, such as floods and crop failures.
o FAO helps developing countries improve and modernize practices
in agriculture, livestock and fisheries, and forestry by providing
technical cooperation, expertise, and information, and by bringing
knowledge to the field. For example, in northwest Burma, FAO works
with foreign donors to provide support for agricultural resource
management and promotes seed projects to improve food security for
refugees returning from Bangladesh. FAO has also provided
technical assistance to strengthen Burma's emergency preparedness
for avian influenza and to aid tsunami-affected areas.
UNDP is currently operating several major programs at the grass
roots level that seek to address poverty in Burma. These programs
include projects aimed at strengthening the capacity of poor
communities to address their basic needs, in part through the
creation of community development groups. In 2005, UNDP expanded
its operations to include a greater number of poor communities in
selected remote townships. It was able to retain access to several
formerly inaccessible townships after the ouster of the former
Prime Minister who had invited UNDP to establish itself in them.
It has also supported the creation of small banking networks that
provide financial services to producers in selected poor villages,
including the one pictured in figure 3. UNDP has also worked with
other UN entities to secure funding from other international
donors to establish a major campaign against the spread of AIDS
and other infectious diseases in Burma.
Figure 3: Participants in a UNDP-Sponsored Small Banking Project
near Bassein
International organizations have also sought to address threats to
public health in Burma. Several UN entities have provided
assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis; to
support the country capacity in both the human and animal sectors
for avian and human influenza pandemic preparedness and response;
and to improve reproductive health and combat the manufacture and
use of dangerous drugs.
o UNAIDS is a joint effort of 10 UN entities that aims to prevent
new HIV infections, provide care for those already infected, and
mitigate the impact of the epidemic. Using available data on
HIV/AIDS prevalence, UN entities aim to promote condom usage;
raise awareness on prevention methods; provide care, treatment,
and support for people living with HIV/AIDS; and take other
actions.
o WHO, the UN authority on international health, provides
technical cooperation on health matters to Burma and other member
states. WHO's priorities for Burma include preventing and
controlling diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis
and vaccine-preventable diseases such as polio, measles, and
neonatal tetanus and tuberculosis; strengthening health systems;
improving child, adolescent, and reproductive health; and
strengthening Burma's ability to address avian and human
influenza.
o UNFPA assists countries such as Burma in providing quality
reproductive health and family planning services and formulates
population policies that support sustainable development. UNFPA's
assistance to Burma has focused on reducing maternal mortality and
preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS by improving reproductive health
information and services and by providing reproductive health
commodities.
o UNODC operates several programs in Burma, including efforts to
reduce demand for injecting drugs and the transmission of HIV
among and from users of injecting drugs. Implementation of these
programs is concentrated in areas near certain border areas where
the prevalence of HIV and drug abuse is high. According to UNODC,
it has supported almost 2,400 individuals in accessing drug
treatment and rehabilitation services, while about 12,000 youth
accessed its youth development centers and more than 6,500
individuals accessed UNODC health care services. UNODC has other
programs in Burma, including programs to help define alternative
livelihoods for families who lost their main livelihood under a
regime ban on opium cultivation.
UNICEF also conducts a range of activities that include programs
aimed at addressing deficiencies in Burma's educational system and
improving women and children's health. Based on educational data
to which it has access, UNICEF works with Burma's Ministry of
Education to promote comprehensive quality education in Burma.
UNICEF has supported projects in early childhood development,
quality basic education, life skills, and HIV/AIDS prevention
education. It has also provided school supplies to children from
poor families and supported local parent-teacher associations and
teachers in improving the learning environment for children.
Burmese Military Regime Has Blocked or Impeded Activities of Many
International Organizations
According to officials of international organizations, Burma's
regime has blocked or impeded activities undertaken by many
international organizations following its ouster of the former
Prime Minister in 2004. It has blocked international efforts to
monitor prison conditions, and, until recently, forced labor
cases. The regime has also significantly restricted international
assistance to populations living in conflict areas, and, to a
lesser degree, impeded food, development, and health programs.
Despite these actions, many of the international officials we
spoke with told us that they are still able to achieve meaningful
results in their efforts to mitigate some of Burma's many
problems.
Regime Has Become More Restrictive Since 2004
The Burmese military regime became more restrictive regarding
activities of international organizations after it purged the
former Prime Minister in October 2004, according to officials of
international organizations now working in Burma. The regime
formalized its restrictions on the international organizations in
2006 by publishing guidelines to govern their activities in Burma.
The guidelines, if fully implemented, would further tighten regime
controls over these activities and contain provisions that UN
officials consider to be unacceptable.
International organization officials informed us that the regime
had become more restrictive of their activities since 2004. While
the regime allowed UNDP to proceed with a previously agreed upon
expansion of its programs into certain remote villages,
international organization officials told us that the regime had
otherwise increased restrictions on international access to
conflict areas. The regime has also begun pressuring some
international organizations to work more closely with
regime-sponsored political mobilization groups, such as the Union
Solidarity Development Association. A senior UN official in Burma
told us that since 2004 the regime has made the operating
environment for UN organizations far more difficult than before.
He noted that the regime had distanced itself from international
organizations. Other officials told us that their organizations
were unable to make contact with regime officials for months after
October 2004. International organization staff also reported that
a lack of coordination and consistency between regime ministry
staff and between local commanders led to delays in international
programs and approvals of needed agreements.
The effect of the regime's withdrawal has been compounded by its
decision to distance itself physically from the international
organizations. In 2006, the regime moved its officials to the new
capital, Nay Pyi Taw, which is more than 200 miles inland from
Rangoon. As a result, Rangoon-based international organization
officials must now spend several hours traveling by car and
airplane to meet with government officials who were formerly
located in Rangoon.
The regime moved to formalize restrictions on the international
organizations in February 2006, when the Burmese Ministry of
National Planning and Economic Development published guidelines
governing international organizations' programs in Burma.^15 A
senior official of the Ministry of National Planning and Economic
Development told us that the guidelines are intended to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of the international
organizations' programs by improving coordination and eliminating
duplicative programs. The official also stated that the guidelines
would help address the tendency of some international humanitarian
entities to become involved in what she referred to as "political
matters." The ministry disseminated differing English and Burmese
language versions of the guidelines. A UN-provided translation of
the Burmese language version revealed that it contains several
restrictions not included in the English language version. A
senior ministry official told us that the Burmese language version
is intended to help Burmese local officials better understand the
English language version of the guidelines.
The provisions in the two versions of the guidelines would
restrict several aspects of international organizations'
activities in Burma. For example, the guidelines would require the
international organizations to
o agree that their international staff may only travel within
Burma with permission from the subject area ministry and with a
regime representative;
o obtain prior approval of all international projects by subject
area ministries and by the Ministry of National Planning and
Economic Development;
o avoid conducting or distributing any surveys not mentioned and
approved in the original project documentation;
o deposit all incoming funds in Burma's national bank for
subsequent withdrawal as "foreign exchange credits";
o agree that their programs will "enhance and safeguard the
national interest," "prevent infringement of the sovereignty of
the State," and "be on the right track...to contributing to the
socio-economic development of the Nation";
o coordinate their work with local and state coordinating
committees that include representatives of the Union Solidarity
Development Association and similar groups; and
o select their Burmese national staff from government-prepared
lists of individuals.
The extent to which the regime will fully implement these
guidelines is unclear. High-ranking officials of the Ministry of
National Planning and Economic Development and the Ministry of
Health told us that the guidelines are now in effect and are not
being negotiated. UN officials, who have taken the lead in
speaking for all international organizations regarding the
guidelines, informed us that they continue to try to engage the
regime in discussions regarding the guidelines.
A senior UN official familiar with the full range of UN programs
in Burma told us that the United Nations has informed regime
officials that the last three of the above restrictions are not
acceptable to the United Nations. According to this official, the
United Nations cannot agree that its programs would support the
regime's definitions of the national interest because UN
humanitarian assistance must be apolitical. For the same reason,
he told us, the United Nations could not work with committees that
include the Union Solidarity Development Association and similar
organizations. Other international organization officials also
informed us that they would not agree to allow the regime to
select their Burmese staff members.
Regime Has Blocked ICRC Initiative to Monitor Prison Conditions
According to ICRC officials, the regime has blocked ICRC
monitoring of prison conditions. The regime has halted ICRC's
prison visit program by insisting that pro-regime staff observe
ICRC meetings with prisoners. ICRC staff told us that the regime
appeared to have reassessed its view of ICRC and other
international organizations in 2004. According to ICRC officials,
in September 2005 the Burmese Ministry of Home Affairs suddenly
demanded that representatives of the Union Solidarity Development
Association accompany ICRC staff on all prison visits. ICRC
refused the ministry's demand, given ICRC's policy of protecting
the confidentiality of
its discussions with inmates. As a result, the ministry has denied
ICRC access to Burmese prisons since the end of December 2005.
Burmese Regime Blocked ILO Efforts until Recently
The regime frustrated ILO efforts to conclude an agreement
establishing an independent complaints process for forced labor
victims for 4 years until signing an agreement with ILO in
February 2007. In 2003, Burma agreed in principle to establish
such a process. ILO relations with the regime deteriorated after
October 2004. In the absence of a final agreement on the
establishment of an independent complaints mechanism, the ILO
liaison officer worked with regime officials to informally address
complaints of forced labor. However, he stopped doing so after the
regime began to arrest and prosecute complainants. Three
individuals were sentenced to death for allegedly contacting ILO.
In 2005, the Union Solidarity Development Association staged mass
anti-ILO rallies, while the ILO liaison officer reported receiving
21 similarly worded death threats. Following ILO expressions of
concern about the situation, the regime released the imprisoned
complainants, agreed to not prosecute complainants for the next 6
months, and began negotiating a new "understanding" with ILO to
protect complainant rights. These negotiations deadlocked in
October 2006 after regime officials objected to language in the
draft understanding that would have allowed the liaison officer to
employ a sufficiently large staff with the diplomatic and travel
rights needed to meet with complainants in a timely and
confidential manner. ILO and the regime subsequently agreed that
necessary adjustments to the liaison officer's staff capacity
would be made "after due consultation," and ILO announced on
February 26, 2007, that it had reached an agreement with Burma to
establish a complaints mechanism for victims of forced labor.
Prior to the signing of this agreement, ILO had no project
activities under way in Burma because of the regime's policies.
Regime Has Restricted International Efforts in Certain Conflict
Areas
According to officials of international organizations, the regime
has impeded international efforts to address the needs of
populations in conflict areas by restricting international access
to those areas. It has limited UNHCR efforts along the Thai
border, while halting or impeding efforts in conflict areas by
ICRC and other organizations.
A senior UN official familiar with the full range of UN activities
in Burma informed us that the regime's refusal to allow free
access to conflict areas is one of the most important restrictions
faced by international organizations in that country. The official
contrasted the current regime's
policies with those of the former Prime Minister, who expanded
opportunities for UNDP to work in previously closed parts of
Burma.
The current regime's policies have particularly affected efforts
by UNHCR to assist displaced persons in the southeast region near
the border with Thailand. UNHCR officials told us that UNHCR
operating conditions in the southeast region near the border had
deteriorated sharply in 2005. Previously, according to UNHCR, the
agency had been developing plans for the anticipated repatriation
of thousands of refugees from the Thai side of the border, with
the support of the Prime Minister in assessing the region's
capacity to support returning refugees.^16 These conditions, along
with the prospects for a political settlement between the regime
and a Karen organization, changed after the Prime Minister's
removal. The regime's Ministry of Interior initially ignored
UNHCR's efforts to restart discussions before reassigning UNHCR to
a less influential ministry. More importantly, the resumption of
military operations in the area convinced UNHCR that conditions
were no longer conducive to the return of refugees.
The regime has also resisted UNHCR's subsequent efforts to assist
communities on the Burmese side of the border that have been
affected by the displacement of persons within the area. UNHCR
officials told us that restrictions on UNHCR's access to several
areas have impeded the agency's efforts to improve its fragmented
understanding of the population's needs and its capacity to
address them. The regime, which denies that internally displaced
persons are in the region, has not allowed UNHCR to access certain
border areas that it does not control. While UNHCR has been
allowed to implement certain "quick impact" projects (such as the
building of schools and bridges) in some 300 villages, UNHCR
considers these projects to be only a first step toward fulfilling
its protection objectives. Because regime officials closely
monitor these projects, UNHCR staff cannot easily meet with
villagers to improve UNHCR's understanding of the problems facing
internally displaced persons. A senior UNHCR official in Burma
told us that UNHCR does not want to jeopardize its already limited
access to the region or to put the local population at risk by
holding public meetings on protection issues.
The regime has halted ICRC's efforts to assist and protect
civilians in conflict areas over the past 2-1/2 years. ICRC staff
informed us that the regime began restricting ICRC's access to
conflict areas after October 2004. ICRC staff also told us that
regime authorities had begun demanding that representatives of the
Union Solidarity Development Association accompany ICRC teams in
certain conflict areas. ICRC staff stated that allowing regime
representatives to do so would compromise the independence of
ICRC's role in these areas. ICRC staff estimated that between 2002
and October 2006, regime actions reduced the scope of ICRC's
assistance and protection effort by 90 percent. The regime then
ordered ICRC to close its five field offices in Burma, including
those that served as bases for ICRC conflict area teams. ICRC
stated that the closures will make it impossible for it to carry
out most of its assistance and protection work for civilians in
the conflict areas. According to State and ICRC officials, the
regime has since allowed ICRC to reopen the field offices but has
not allowed ICRC to resume humanitarian assistance programs out of
the offices. The regime now insists that ICRC follow strict
guidelines that do not allow space for independent movements by
teams as in the past, according to a senior ICRC official in
Burma.
Several other international organizations reported similar
difficulties in sensitive regions of Burma. FAO staff reported
that local police had barred them from traveling to villages in
Shan State to question people regarding food supplies. UNICEF
staff stated that they had difficulties accessing parts of the
country. WHO also lacks access to populations in certain areas. A
representative of an international nongovernmental organization
told us that the regime began strictly enforcing its ban on access
to conflict areas after 2004.
Regime Has Impeded Other Assistance Programs
Officials of international organizations informed us that the
regime has also impeded international food, development, and
health programs. They stated that it has done so by restricting
their ability to (1) move food and international personnel freely
within Burma and (2) gather data needed to understand the scope
and nature of Burma's problems.
Regime�s Travel Restrictions Have Hindered Programs
The regime's policies on travel have hindered international
organizations' efforts to ship food to vulnerable populations
within the country. For example, delays in obtaining transport
permits for food commodities from the current regime have hindered
WFP efforts to deliver food to vulnerable populations. A senior
WFP official told us that WFP has not always been able to deliver
food on schedule because regime officials have required 3 to 5
months to approve food shipments and because regional military
commanders have not always been available to approve food
deliveries upon their arrival. As a result, he stated, WFP had
been unable to deliver several months' worth of food to students
and their families in the northern parts of the Rakhine State
during the 2005 school year. In addition, he informed us that WFP
had been unable to deliver 20 percent to 30 percent of its planned
food shipments during 2005. He added that the regime began to
provide authorizations in a timelier manner in 2006.
The regime's time-consuming travel procedures have also impeded
the ability of international staff to move freely within the
country to ensure the timely provision of assistance. According to
UN officials, the Burmese regime typically requires non-Burmese
staff of UN entities and other international organizations to
obtain travel permits to visit project sites. Officials of eight
of the nine UN entities that provide humanitarian, health, and
development assistance in Burma told us that the regime requires
at least 3 to 4 weeks' advance notice to authorize travel. An
official of the remaining entity told us that it is required to
provide 2 weeks' notice. These officials said that the additional
time it takes to apply for travel permits impedes the planning and
monitoring of projects through field visits and reduces the scope
of their activities. In August 2006, the acting UN Resident
Coordinator informed the Minister of National Planning and
Economic Development that with regard to internal travel,
"Unnecessary and time-consuming procedures impede us from
providing assistance in a timely manner."
Moreover, the regime's internal travel restrictions contributed to
a major setback to international efforts to fight three diseases
in Burma. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and
Malaria^17 had agreed to provide $98.4 million over 5 years,
beginning in 2005. However, in 2005 the fund terminated its
program in Burma after the regime instituted new travel clearance
procedures that would have impeded international staff travel to
project sites. In announcing its decision to terminate the
program, the fund cited the adverse impact that the new travel
restrictions would have had on its ability to ensure that the
program was properly managed.^18
^15Burmese Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development,
Guidelines for UN Agencies, International Organizations, NGO/INGOs on
Cooperation Programs in Myanmar (February 2006).
^16Over 150,000 Burmese refugees live in camps along the border in
Thailand, according to officials of a nongovernmental organization that
works on the Burma-Thailand border. UNHCR and international organizations,
such as the Thailand Burma Border Consortium, assist these refugees. The
consortium's efforts in Thailand are partially funded by the United
States.
^17For more information on the Global Fund, see GAO, Global Health: The
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria Is Responding to Challenges but
Needs Better Information and Documentation for Performance-Based Funding,
[38]GAO-05-639 (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2005).
^18Donors are working to establish an alternative trust fund that supports
efforts to combat tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and malaria in Burma.
Some UN international staff also reported they have been hindered
by the regime's requirement that they be accompanied by their
regime counterparts when they travel in Burma, although others
noted that the requirement has some benefits. One official said
that counterparts had prevented her from meeting with project
beneficiaries in private. Another stated that his organization has
faced the challenge of finding government counterparts to
accompany international staff when they need to travel. However,
four UN officials noted that Burmese technical experts had
facilitated their travel and access and provided input to their
work.
In addition, officials of three UN entities reported difficulties
in obtaining permission for experts located outside Burma to visit
sites in that country. These experts had been sought out to
provide technical expertise on agricultural, HIV/AIDS, and
educational projects. One organization in Thailand also reported
delays in obtaining visas as the primary reason that it did not
have active programs in Burma.
Regime Impeded Gathering and Sharing of Needed Health and
Development Data
International organization officials told us that the regime's
informal restrictions on surveys and data sharing have impeded
their efforts to address Burma's problems. According to UN
officials, regime data concerning health and education in Burma is
incomplete and unreliable. UN officials noted that the regime has
not conducted a census since 1983 and expressed concern that the
regime's collection of statistics has deteriorated since 2004. WHO
has reported with concern that Burma's deteriorating statistics on
health are not reliable and that Burma lacks a plan to develop a
nationwide health information system. Officials working for other
UN entities in Burma's health sector expressed similar concerns.
UN officials also criticized Burmese statistics on education. One
official told us that the lack of solid and evidence-based
research on education in Burma significantly impedes efforts to
address educational problems. UN officials also expressed concern
that the regime is deliberately providing inaccurate data to the
public.
The United Nations has stated that these data weaknesses have
impeded international organizations' efforts to assess needs,
conduct strategic planning, and implement programs in Burma.
According to the United Nations, international organizations
require a comprehensive understanding of the needs of the
population to efficiently direct their resources. The United
Nations has also noted that surveys would be valuable for
identifying issues related to poverty alleviation, initiating
activities that create longer-term benefits, and evaluating
program performance.
However, UN and other international officials told us that the
Burmese regime has impeded their ability to conduct their own
surveys and freely share the data they gather regarding the nature
and scope of Burma's problems. In its strategic framework for
assistance to Burma, the United Nations has called upon the regime
to allow a wider range of data to be collected, analyzed, and
shared without alteration. According to one UN official, the
regime has rejected project proposals that cite the terms
"research" or "data collection." UN health officials also told us
that the regime had restricted the scope of their HIV/AIDS
research and the health data that they could share with the
public. A WFP official told us that while his organization has not
encountered any problems carrying out surveys and assessments in
the regions in which it has been operating, it has encountered
difficulty in carrying out national surveys on food needs.
Representatives of several international nongovernmental
organizations working in Burma also expressed concerns about
regime restrictions on research and surveys by their staff.
International organization officials also noted that the
guidelines for international organizations contain the regime's
first formal restriction on research.
In commenting on a draft of this report, UNDP said it recently
completed two major research projects without encountering
significant difficulties with the government. According to UNDP,
its survey of over 18,000 households represented a unique effort.
Similarly, UNDP noted that its agricultural sector review provides
an in-depth analysis of the inadequate growth of Burma's
agriculture in recent decades that has contributed to declining
real incomes and growing poverty in rural areas.
Despite Restrictions, International Organization Officials
Stressed That Their Organizations Are Still Able to Achieve
Meaningful Results
Several international organization officials stressed that their
organizations are still able to achieve meaningful results in
their efforts to address Burma's development, humanitarian, and
health problems, despite the regime's post-2004 restrictions. For
example, UNDP reported that its banking projects for small
businesses in selected poor villages had over 180,000 active
borrowers as of March 2006. UN officials working in the health
sector told us that the Burmese regime had been increasingly
cooperative in efforts to address HIV/AIDS prevalence and recently
worked with several UN entities to develop a multisectoral plan
that targets all victims of the disease in Burma. For example, UN
officials told us that UN entities provided home-based or
community-based care and support on HIV/AIDS to over 5,000 people
in 2005, a 175 percent increase over service provision in this
area in 2004. UN officials also noted that they launched a measles
campaign after October 2006 after earlier government resistance.
In addition, a WFP official told us that WFP operations have
expanded over the last 3 years in Burma and have gained better
access to certain areas.
Programs that address health and development issues in Burma have
generally been less constrained by the regime's restrictions than
the ILO and ICRC human rights efforts. Officials said that careful
planning is the key to managing useful health and development
projects within regime limits. Several officials also emphasized
that restrictions have had the least effect on their
organizations, which tend to work closely with the regime. For
example, an FAO official told us that FAO generally has good
relations with the technical ministries it cooperates with due to
its close work with these ministries in providing technical
assistance and supporting knowledge transfer.
Concluding Observations
Due to restrictions imposed by the Burmese regime, international
organizations are facing an increasingly uncertain future as they
continue their efforts to address Burma's assistance needs. The
recent actions of the Burmese regime indicate that it is now
seeking to exert a greater degree of control over international
activities in Burma than before. While the regime appears to have
accepted international efforts to relieve Burma's development,
health, and educational problems as necessary, it has also opted
to regulate them more closely. The regime also appears to have
become more insistent that international organizations cooperate
with regime-sponsored political mobilization groups. Such actions
can only further narrow the opportunities for international
organizations to address Burma's pressing human rights,
humanitarian, and development problems.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary
of State and cognizant officials at the United Nations and ICRC.
We received written comments from State, the UN Country Team in
Burma, and UNAIDS, which are reprinted in appendixes II, III, and
IV, along with our responses to specific points.
State said that the draft report presents the challenges and
opportunities facing international nongovernmental organizations
in Burma in a thorough, accurate, and balanced fashion. State
added that it "will continue to encourage the Burmese regime, both
directly and through various UN fora, to lift the unnecessary and
unreasonable restrictions it has placed on organizations seeking
to provide humanitarian assistance and to promote respect for
human rights."
The UN Country Team said that it agreed with our analysis that UN
and other international agencies are able to achieve meaningful
results in Burma despite a difficult and complex environment.
However, it expressed concern that our draft report did not note
that a significant opening of humanitarian space on the ground has
been achieved by the UN and its partners in the past decade. This
statement is in contrast to information UN officials had provided
earlier stating that conditions had deteriorated since the 2004
change in government. The team did not dispute our specific
findings about restrictions faced. However, it noted a significant
development for one organization--ILO. Following the completion of
our draft report, ILO and Burma signed an agreement to establish a
mechanism for victims of forced labor to file complaints on
February 26, 2007. We have updated our report to reflect this
change.
The UN Country Team also said our report did not adequately
reflect the nature of the UN entities' work and the differences in
their mandates. We believe we fairly describe the entities' work
in our first objective. While our draft report noted that UNDP has
a restricted mandate prohibiting it from working with the
government, we added language stating that other UN entities'
mandates do not have similar restrictions.
UNAIDS commented that it appreciated our recognition of progress
despite difficulties but added that the draft report could contain
more evidence of this progress. We believe we fairly described
UNAIDS' work in our draft report.
State, UN agencies, and ICRC submitted technical comments that we
have incorporated into this report, as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution
until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send
copies to interested congressional committees, the Secretary of
State, and other interested parties. We will also make copies
available to others on request. In addition, this report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov .
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9601 or at [email protected] . Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key
contributors are listed in appendix V.
Thomas Melito
Thomas Melito
Director, International Affairs and Trade
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
To identify the principal efforts of United Nations (UN) and other
international organizations in addressing Burma's problems, we
examined documents relating to programs conducted in Burma by the
10 UN entities located in that country. We also traveled to
several locations in Burma, where we met with officials of the
Food and Agriculture Organization, International Labor
Organization, Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, UN
Children's Fund, UN Development Program, UN High Commissioner for
Refugees, UN Office on Drugs and Crime, UN Population Fund, World
Health Organization, World Food Program, and International
Committee of the Red Cross. We also met with several international
nongovernmental organizations (who asked that we not identify
their organizations in this report). In addition, we met with
Burmese staff working for the United Nations who are implementing
three projects in or around Rangoon and two projects in villages a
day's travel by car and small boat outside of Rangoon and Bassein.
In Thailand, we met with officials from the Inter-Agency Project
on Human Trafficking in the Greater Mekong Sub-Region; UN
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; UN High
Commissioner for Refugees; UN Industrial Development Organization;
and UN Office for Project Services. We conducted telephone
interviews and videoconferences or exchanged e-mail
correspondences with officials at the headquarters of the 10 UN
entities and the respective U.S. missions in Geneva, New York,
Rome, and Vienna. We met with additional U.S. Department of State
officials in Washington, D.C., Burma, and Thailand. We did not
assess UN data on UN expenditures in Burma because we only used
these data as background information in our report.
To describe the impact of the Burmese regime's recent actions on
the activities of international organizations in Burma, we
reviewed the Guidelines for UN Agencies, International
Organizations, and NGO/INGOs on Cooperation Programmes in Myanmar
set forth by the Burmese Ministry of National Planning and
Economic Development. We traveled to Nay Pyi Taw, the newly built
Burmese capital, to discuss the regime's restrictions on
international organizations with senior officials from the
Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development and the
Ministry of Health. In addition, we met with officials of the U.S.
embassy and of the leading democratic organization in Burma, as
well as with local recipients of UN assistance. We also spoke with
a UN official from the Department of Political Affairs and met
with the Burmese UN mission in New York. In Thailand, we met with
representatives of the British and Dutch embassies to discuss
aspects of their nations' aid to Burma. In Washington, D.C., we
met with officials of the U.S. Departments of State and the
Treasury, individuals from several international nongovernmental
organizations, and individuals at the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund.
We conducted our work from May 2006 through February 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State
Appendix III: Comments from the UN Country Team
See comment 2.
See comment 1.
See comment 3.
See comment 4.
See comment 5.
GAO Comments
The following are GAO's comments on the UN Country Team's letter
dated March 5, 2007.
1. The UN Country Team (UNCT) noted that the
International Labor Organization and Burma had
concluded an agreement establishing a forced labor
complaints mechanism after we had submitted our draft
report for comments. We have updated the text and
title of our report to reflect this recent
development.
2. The UNCT commented that our draft report did not
adequately reflect the differences in UN entities'
mandates, in that it did not clarify which entities
are mandated to work with the regime and which are
not. We disagree. Our draft report noted that UNDP's
governing board has restricted UNDP from working
through the regime. We further clarified our report
by adding a sentence noting that the mandates of
other UN entities do not contain restrictions similar
to those of UNDP.
3. The UNCT commented that our draft report did not
describe a significant opening of humanitarian space
in Burma. The UNCT's letter is not consistent with
the information and assessments provided to us by
UNCT members and NGO officials during our October
2006 fieldwork in Burma. At the time, UNCT and NGO
officials provided numerous examples of how Burmese
restrictions had impeded their activities (including
UNHCR's recent efforts in the Thai border region) and
a senior UN official in Burma informed us that the
"humanitarian space" in Burma was dwindling. UNCT
members reconfirmed much of this information in
February 2007, when we asked them to review excerpts
from our working draft report for accuracy and
sensitivity. We then reflected many of their
suggestions in our draft report, which we
subsequently submitted to UN entities for official
review and comment. The UNCT comments do not take
issue with our findings concerning the range and
nature of the regime's restrictions (with the
exception of the recent agreement reached between the
government and the ILO). Moreover, they do not
explain how those restrictions might have eased
following our field work.
4. The UNCT commented that our draft report did not
address human rights activities by agencies other
than ILO and ICRC. In assessing the effect of the
regime's restrictions on international human rights
efforts, we focused on ILO and ICRC because their
missions in Burma are primarily related to human
rights. We did not focus on ancillary efforts by
agencies whose primary mission is to address
development and humanitarian concerns.
5. The UNCT letter states that we did not include the
examples of successes in Burma that we requested in
February 2007. We reviewed the information the UN
organizations sent to us and believe we fairly
summarized UN achievements in Burma.
Appendix IV: Comments from UNAIDS
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601 or [email protected]
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the person named above, Cheryl Goodman (Assistant
Director), Pierre Toureille, Lyric Clark, Barbara Shields, Debbie
Chung, and Ian Hongola made key contributions to this report.
Martin De Alteriis and Mary Moutsos provided technical assistance.
GAO�s Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
the performance and accountability of the federal government for
the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
no cost is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of
newly posted products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax:
(202) 512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
(202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548
(320417)
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-457 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Thomas Melito at (202) 512-9601 or
[email protected].
Highlights of [40]GAO-07-457 , a report to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, House of Representatives
April 2007
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Assistance Programs Constrained In Burma
Burma is one of the world's most impoverished and isolated countries. The
United Nations (UN) and other international organizations have become
important sources of outside assistance to the country. In recent years,
UN entities have increased their funding for activities aimed at
addressing Burma's problems. However, Burma's military regime has imposed
restrictions on international organizations' activities in Burma. GAO (1)
identified principal efforts of the United Nations and other international
organizations to address Burma's problems and (2) described the impact of
the regime's recent actions on these efforts. We reviewed UN, U.S., and
Burmese official documents and interviewed UN, U.S., Burmese, and
nongovernmental organization officials in the United States and Burma. We
also visited UN project sites in Burma.
The United Nations and other international organizations have undertaken
numerous efforts aimed at addressing Burma's most pressing problems, which
include forced labor, harsh prison conditions, ethnic conflict, an
HIV/AIDS epidemic, and poverty. The International Labor Organization (ILO)
and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have sought to
monitor forced labor and prison conditions in Burma by allowing victims to
voice their complaints without interference from the regime. The UN High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and ICRC seek to assist populations in
conflict areas near Burma's border with Thailand. International
organizations also attempt to provide food to vulnerable populations,
promote local economic development, improve health conditions, and
strengthen the Burmese educational system. For example, several UN
entities provide assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and
drug abuse, as well as to improve reproductive health.
Burma's military regime has blocked or impeded activities undertaken by
many international organizations in Burma over the past 3 years. In 2004,
the regime distanced itself from these organizations and began adopting
increasingly restrictive policies. In 2006, it published formal guidelines
to restrict international activities in Burma. These guidelines, which
have yet to be fully implemented, contain provisions that UN officials
consider to be unacceptable. The regime's restrictions have had the
greatest impact on international efforts to monitor prison conditions,
investigate claims of forced labor, and assist victims of ethnic conflict.
The regime has blocked ICRC efforts to monitor prison conditions and,
until recently, ILO efforts to address forced labor. The regime has also
restricted UNHCR and ICRC efforts to assist populations living in areas
affected by ethnic conflict. To a lesser degree, the regime has impeded UN
food, development, and health programs by restricting their ability to (1)
move food and international staff freely within the country and (2)
conduct research needed to determine the nature and scope of some of
Burma's problems. Despite these restrictions, several international
organization officials told us they are still able to achieve meaningful
results in their efforts to mitigate some of Burma's humanitarian, health,
and development problems.
We asked the Department of State and officials of international
organizations to comment on a draft of this report. State commented that
the draft report was thorough, accurate, and balanced. The United Nations'
country team for Burma did not dispute our specific findings regarding the
regime's restrictions but expressed concern that that we had not noted
that it had achieved "a significant opening of humanitarian space on the
ground." We believe that this statement is not consistent with information
provided to us earlier by UN officials, who stated that conditions in
Burma had deteriorated since the 2004 purge within the regime. Other
comments and our responses to them are contained in appendixes II, III,
and IV.
References
Visible links
38. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d07457.htm#http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-639
40. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d07457.htm#http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-457
*** End of document. ***