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.
		   
		   Regimeï¿½s 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.
		   
		   GAOï¿½s 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. ***