Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-56)
MR BENEDICT
ROGERS AND
MR MARK
FARMANER
7 JUNE 2007
Q40 Mr Davies: You regard him really
as someone who has basically sold out to the regime, is that right?
Mr Farmaner: I would not go that
far. It seems that he favours very much working within the regime
and believes that international pressure just makes the delivery
of humanitarian assistance more difficult. I think he genuinely
wants to help the people in Burma and, regardless of what people
think about him, the fact that he has become a controversial and
polarising figure means that he is not able to do his job properly,
he is not trusted by significant portions of the population, what
you would term the democracy movement. You have this terrible
division between organisations delivering aid inside the country
and those outside the country delivering cross-border aid and
the lack of trust. He has polarised those divisions rather than
acting to bring people together.
Q41 Mr Davies: I am very glad I have
given you the opportunity to put it on the record because they
seem to be important criticisms, alarming as a matter of fact
in their import. Of course, I cannot myself endorse any particular
facts, but you have come to this Committee with the benefit of
the confidence of quite a number of my colleagues who have seen
the work you have done on the ground. I hope we will have a chance
for the United Nations to respond to those criticisms because
they are very serious, but this Committee has no great leverage
on the United Nations organisation of course, as we have on the
executive branch of the British Government. What do you think
DFID can do to try to address the situation?
Mr Farmaner: We have been raising
the problem of lack of proper co-ordination with DFID.
Q42 Mr Davies: Have you had a satisfactory
response?
Mr Farmaner: Yes, it is starting
to be; certainly they are saying that the UN office for Co-ordination
of Humanitarian Affairs should be expanding its operations in
relation to Burma. That is very welcome and as a UN body it will
be seen as more neutral and not having taken sides they will be
more trusted by many organisations in the current highly heated
atmosphere that there is at the moment. That is something that
we would welcome and DFID pushing for that would be welcome.
Q43 Mr Davies: Have you discussed
with DFID the possibility of they or our Mission in New York lobbying
to get Mr Petrie, if that is who he is, assigned to other duties
somewhere if he is not suitable for this role?
Mr Farmaner: That is not something
we have discussed, no. The general perception is that DFID staff
in Rangoon are very close to Charles Petrie so ...
Q44 Mr Davies: I see, so the DFID
local organisation is part of the problem as well as Mr Petrie.
Mr Farmaner: Some people would
say that, yes.
Mr Davies: Thank you very much.
Richard Burden: I was going to
ask about how you felt about the appointment of another co-ordinator,
but you have volunteered that information so that is fine.
Q45 Sir Robert Smith: The refugees
who are actually in Thailand, where we visited one of the camps,
in the Burma Campaign submission you highlight TBBC as mainly
responsible for food and shelter and there is a need for more
help with education in the country. What specific steps could
DFID take to improve the lives of refugees living in the camps
on the Thai border?
Mr Farmaner: Again, it is a question
of funding. There are international agencies who are working in
the camps with limited resources to deliver some basic healthcare,
basic education and other services but it is consistently under-funded.
One of the more serious things for the future of Burma in any
sort of democratic society is that, for example, the thousands
of children who are growing up in the refugee camps have very,
very limited opportunities for any further education and certainly
the refugees that have grown up on those camps that we speak to,
that is one of the main things that they always say. A few of
them are lucky enough to get scholarships in Thailand or internationally
but very, very few.
Q46 Sir Robert Smith: We went to
see some of the further training that was available and obviously
it was much appreciated, but there was recognition that there
was a block which is a more worrying development as the camps
become longer term as the crisis becomes more embedded. Resettlement
is beginning to be seen as one way of dealing with some of the
refugees and obviously the people who can be resettled are the
ones who are providing the education and the healthcare in the
camps; do you see that becoming more of a challenge, to fund the
people resources to provide it as well as financial?
Mr Rogers: That is certainly a
challenge and whilst I would not criticise anybody for wanting
to go on resettlement to take the opportunities that are available
to them, it does cause a problem in the camps.
Q47 Sir Robert Smith: Do you think
that countries taking resettlement should be maybe less picky
of the best and actually provide resettlement of people with basic
needs?
Mr Rogers: That is something that
should be thought about because making sure that the camps have
leaders and teachers and people in their clinics and so on is
very important. I do not have an immediate solution to the problem
but it is certainly something that should be thought about.
Q48 Sir Robert Smith: One of the
other non-financial things was the restrictions that the Thai
authorities put on people moving from the camps who are doing
any kind of limited work. There seemed to be mixed messages that
perhaps more of that was going on than was officially meant to
be going on. Is that a role for DFID or the Foreign Office to
maybe work with the Thai authorities to improve the integration
of the camps within the wider community?
Mr Rogers: It is possibly a role
for both of them given that DFID are involved in supporting TBBC
which is working in the camps, but it may be more of a Foreign
Office matter. Either way it is certainly an issue that should
be raised with the Thais to encourage them. The Karenni camps
in particular are suffering very severe restrictions at the moment
and refugees who are found out of the camp are now being warned
that they face the very real possibility of deportation if they
are not back in camp.
Q49 Ann McKechin: Very quickly, at
the moment DFID funds the camps via Christian Aid and other agencies
which means that they are almost at third-hand. Do you think it
would be better if they could actually be more directly involved
in the funding rather than this second-hand mechanism which I
personally think would increase problems in terms of accountability
and contact. The second thing is that given the fact that there
is a need to look at the permanent future of the people in the
refugee camps and how they can move on, would it be better for
the UN to take a much stronger role and perhaps start operating
the camps with a view to looking for permanent solutions for the
refugees, many of whom are very unlikely to go back to Burma at
the current time?
Mr Farmaner: With regards to the
way they channel money, one of the things that some DFID staff
have complained about is the lack of capacity. If they are using
third parties, like Christian Aid, with a lot of experience of
those issues and working with refugees there then that would seem
to make sense in terms of they can reduce their administrative
burden and make sure that they get the expertise.
Q50 Ann McKechin: With Christian
Aid staff in London, which is the criticism we get of DFID not
being around, Christian Aid are not around either.
Mr Farmaner: As far as I am aware,
Christian Aid staff are visiting regularly, they are in constant
contact with the organisations. The Christian Aid model of operating
is to work through partners and local organisations and I think
that is a very good one in terms of not saying, "We are going
to do everything ourselves and know what is best".
Ann McKechin: I am just wondering
whether you thought one of the reasons for lack of communication
was because everything was coming third-hand back to DFID.
Q51 Sir Robert Smith: If DFID funded
TBBC directly, would there not be more communication automatically?
Mr Farmaner: They do not need
to fund directly to communicate. Their offices are 15 minutes
apart in Bangkok. It is a question of will.
Q52 John Bercow: We are focused on
the issue of the Thai-Burma border, but I wonder whether you think
DFID ought to consider funding work with refugees on Burma's other
borders, notably the Indian, Chinese and Bangladeshi borders?
I suppose really I am asking both of you those questions although
I think Ben has made several visits to borders other than the
Thai-Burma and might have a particular view on that.
Mr Rogers: Yes. I have made several
visits to the Indian and Chinese borders; I have not been to the
Bangladeshi border. All three of those borders are even more vulnerable
and forgotten than the Thai border. They are vulnerable in the
sense that they are not receiving the assistance that they need,
both in terms of refugee numbers on the Indian and Bangladeshi
borders but also in terms of the internally displaced people,
particularly in the Chin State which is probably the poorest part
of the country. There are excellent groups, Back Pack medical
groups, trained by a clinic in Thailand and they are working very
much on a shoestring without much funding at all. I think it would
be very good if DFID could investigate the possibilities thoroughly.
I appreciate that some of those borders are more restricted perhaps
than the Thai border but, nevertheless, an attempt to investigate
the options there would be very important.
Mr Farmaner: It comes back to
the issue of looking at Burma as a whole—where are the most
vulnerable people, what are their needs—and if that was
done automatically there would be decisions made to increase assistance
to other border areas as well.
Q53 Chairman: One point that was
repeatedly made to us was that, and you mentioned the international
community has not really got its act together and is not co-ordinated,
but quite specifically and in direct opposition to that we were
told that China, India and Russia were in effect actively supporting
the regime. Funnily enough, we were told that China was at least
privately asking for some assurances, possibly to protect their
own investments but nevertheless they had some concerns. We were
told that the Indians did not seem to have any concerns whatsoever
and were trading openly. Frankly, I was shocked to hear that Russia
was proposing to build a nuclear reactor in Burma and announced
that last month. One would have thought if the international community
had Burma at the top of its agenda then a Russian decision to
build a nuclear reactor in Burma would be top of the G8 agenda
right now, whereas I suspect it is not even on it. I wonder what
you think the British Government could or should be doing to engage
with those three countries in terms of their relationships to
the regime in Rangoon.
Mr Rogers: With all three countries
I think there are opportunities to urge them to have a change
of mind, most particularly with India given Britain's relationship
with India and the fact that India is proud to call itself the
world's largest democracy. As you have rightly stated, its position
in some ways is worse than China's because China is at least asking
some questions behind the scenes. India has moved from a position
in the late 1980s and early 1990s where it supported the democracy
movement to now quite blatantly arming the regime, providing military
training for the regime, investments in Burma and not being willing
to say anything critical of the regime or helpful for the democracy
movement. Given Britain's relationship with India I think Britain
should be trying to raise this issue with the government of India.
Mr Farmaner: One of the first
things that needs to happen is that the UK needs to start talking
to these governments about this issue at a high level. There is
some embassy to embassy contact, some junior ministers have raised
the issue in passing along with a whole other range of issues
when they are meeting with these countries but the Foreign Secretary
and the Prime Minister are not raising these issues with their
counterparts at all. Indian officials have said to us, "Well,
the British Government never really talks to us about this, why
should we worry?" One Indian government official said to
me that he knew there was absolutely no moral justification for
what they are doing, they are interested in three things really:
the first is countering Chinese influence in Burma; the second
is they want their gas; the third is assistance with counter-insurgency
in the north of the country. India is a democracy, it would be
vulnerable to international pressure on this issue if it was applied
but it is just not being applied. From our discussions with Indian
government officials they cannot believe that they are getting
away with what they are doing.
Chairman: Maybe that is a rich
seam of parliamentary questions.
Q54 John Bercow: I confess I feel
some coming on, Chairman, as a result of these exchanges. Mark
Farmaner has just touched on part of the point but I would like
to follow this up because it is a point I have raised before with
others. First, is it your understanding—this is in no sense
meant to be some sort of personal attack, it is a political question—that
the Foreign Secretary herself has not had any contact with her
opposite numbers in these three countries, China, India or Russia,
on the subject of Burma, at any rate no contact of which you have
been informed?
Mr Farmaner: No contact of which
we have been informed and various Members of Parliament have placed
parliamentary questions over the last couple of years and on each
occasion it has been stated that the minister responsible for
Burma, Ian McCartney, has raised issues but not the Foreign Secretary.
We do not know if the Foreign Secretary did raise it in bilateral
discussions but during a speech in China she did refer to Burma
and that was very welcome, but at the moment that sort of thing
only happens on an annual basis.
Q55 John Bercow: The second and final
point is this: it may be that I have just missed something but
I have tried to trace a single oral statement in the House of
Commons on the subject of Burma and I am not aware of the existence
of such since records began. Am I wrong?
Mr Farmaner: I am not aware of
that at all.
Q56 Chairman: Can I thank both of
you. You will gather from the questions and some of the comments
that you have given us quite a lot of think about. It would also
be fair to say that the situation in Burma and the way it is being
treated by the international community, including our own government,
is out of the mainstream, and part of the reason why we are looking
into this is that, yes, there is a humanitarian crisis that needs
to be addressed but it is a humanitarian crisis that arises out
of a political situation which is not being coherently addressed,
it would appear. I want to thank you very much indeed for your
evidence and the insight you have brought to us, which I hope
will inform us. We are taking more evidence and we will have an
opportunity to question our own ministers before we produce a
report. You have really helped us a great deal, thank you very
much for your time.
Mr Rogers: Thank you very much.
Mr Farmaner: If I could just briefly
say, because there has been a misunderstanding in the past, the
criticisms that we made of DFID are not criticisms of the existing
work they are doing and saying that is not valuable, it is saying
that we think there are extra things that need to be done that
should be being done.
Chairman: I think we understand that
a little better actually and we have understood the point you
are making. Thank you.
| 
