Examiation of Witnesses (Questions 131-139)
MR RAY
HASAN
12 JUNE 2007
Q131 Chairman: I think MSI's problem
was that not being an in-country representative, to some extent—with
no disrespect to them—they had no secrets to share. I think
we are really in your hands because you have seen the things that
we have pursued and you have indicated that there are a number
of things that you can share with us which might help. It will
be recorded but the transcript will be shared with you and if
we use the information hopefully we will use it in an unattributable
way. In terms of what you would like to say, perhaps you would
like to tell us what it is you want to share with us that you
think will help us that could not be put on the record.
Mr Hasan: I am aware of the time
so I will try and keep it as brief as possible. Just to share
with you maybe some of the issues related to cross-border work
and experiences also of supporting initiatives inside the country
to meet the needs of the displaced. With regards to cross-border,
I am aware that there have been issues raised about there is too
much money already and there are all these issues. [****] The
capacity of CBOs to do the work is increasing and therefore funding
is not sufficient, that is clear to us, so to recognise that with
regards to the cross-border access to the most marginalised of
the displaced—we need to be very clear these are people
hiding in the jungle, these are not people in relocation sites—is
only really primarily done from across the border, and those needs
are very clear. The ability of groups to increase the assistance
provided and to increase their outreach into areas that they are
still finding difficult to get to, not because they cannot but
because they do not have the resources, is very much an issue
that we want to raise. We do also support initiatives inside the
country through civil society groups and these are also groups
that DFID have a relationship with. I have found it very difficult
to understand how these are the same organisations when I talk
to DFID about the work that they can do and the opportunities
they have. They talk about 100,000 needs met from across the border
and they say that therefore we can meet the needs of 400,000,
which for me is just nonsense; there is not the capacity there
to do that. International NGOs do not get access to any significant
degree at all. They are very much dependent on local organisations,
whether it be church networks, Buddhist networks, et cetera. It
took us two years working with one particular network to get to
the stage where we were convinced that we could give them any
funding at all because their capacity was so weak. We are now
funding that initiative, and it is progressing very well indeed.
We are delighted with it but we are also very much aware that
it is very limited in its outreach and its impact. If you also
take another example of the Mon refugees in Mon State, currently
the needs of the resettled refugees that were in Thailand that
are not internally displaced in relocation sites in Mon State
are almost entirely—we are talking about 95 per cent plus—being
met from Thailand. This is a ceasefire area where access should
be able to be negotiated from inside, but it is not being negotiated
because the SPDC will not allow access, and this is the constraint
that we are working under and it is very important to recognise
that for DFID to increase its funding to work with IDPs inside
the country, absolutely, but it is incredibly limited on what
it can genuinely achieve. This is our experience. We remain committed
to developing the capacity of organisations to do that but it
is very, very difficult indeed. [****] The delight on people's
faces was apparent, the excitement of meeting each other, bearing
in mind that these are people who know each other in a sense,
they are not aliens, they come from the same townships, et cetera.
That was incredibly inspiring and it just goes to show that with
a little initiative you can bring people together who can start
trying to find ways of sharing ideas and information. DFID have
a key role to play in this area of work for me. You may well have
picked up a genuine feeling still of distrust amongst international
organisations working in Burma and that is historic, unfortunately,
and it is still being recycled. [****] We share information with
them in their offices. That is something that has already had
some impact in sharing ideas and bringing thoughts together because
ultimately we are all trying to achieve the same thing. The voice
of the Burmese, unfortunately, is missing in a lot in these debates.
Although DFID's funding is not significant, on a policy development
basis their impact is quite significant. They are having an impact
on Swedish Government policy and Australian Government policy
and this makes us particularly concerned about a more focused
view on one way of working and we have argued to DFID that it
needs to play a key role in bringing groups together in starting
to break down these barriers that are preventing people from developing
trust.
Q132 Chairman: Are these groups based
outside?
Mr Hasan: When I say "these
groups" I mean pretty much everyone involved, the international
community—so the organisations, for example, that have been
on this table. There are still challenges around bringing people
together and what has happened is that we have this more informal
mechanism that was previously mentioned where one or two would
get together and they know each other and they trust each other
and they discuss. You need more formal approaches and DFID need
to play one of those key roles in allowing a platform to bring
these people together in a closed environment.
Q133 Chairman: Do they do that in
Rangoon?
Mr Hasan: No.
Q134 Chairman: That is the problem,
where it is going to be.
Mr Hasan: It would be absolutely
impossible. There are a number of different networks—a child
rights network for example, HIV co-ordinating networks—of
INGOs that have an agreement with the government there. [****]
DFID can still play a role of getting international organisations
inside and outside to come together more frequently to start breaking
down those barriers of mistrust.
Q135 Chairman: What do we need to
have in Thailand to be able to do that?
Mr Hasan: I would be very disappointed
if DFID ends up entirely based in Rangoon. I think it will be
very difficult for them to develop a truer vision of what the
challenges are in Burma today. What I think they will end up having
is a very focused idea that working inside is the only solution.
It is not the only solution and it cannot be a solution on its
own. I think they need to be very careful about that and hopping
over on a plane to Bangkok every month will not be sufficient.
Q136 John Bercow: Do you have a view,
Ray, about personnel and their visits to or familiarity with the
border? I confess I was genuinely surprised that the head of DFID
for South East Asia, Marshall Elliot, was visiting the border
for the first time. He has been in post for I think three years.
Off the record does that surprise you or not?
Mr Hasan: No, it is disappointing.
In the last six years I have dealt with four different desk officers
for Burma in Bangkok and I think that is always one of the problems.
Q137 John Bercow: In DFID or in the
Foreign Office?
Mr Hasan: This is DFID only I
am talking about. When you have that turnover it becomes problematic.
You develop a relationship and they move on and you start again.
No, I do not get a sense that beyond the desk officer level there
has been clarity, and I mentioned in the public session on really
what DFID is wanting to do, and I think that is a concern we obviously
have. You get different views sometimes when you are in Rangoon
as opposed to when you are in Bangkok.
Q138 Chairman: Does that imply that
in the line management Rangoon should report to London and Bangkok
should report to London as well because otherwise Rangoon is going
to be in charge of Bangkok? You see what I am getting at? It seems
to me that there are two separate operations and they should co-ordinate
but if one is nearer than the other—
Mr Hasan: Quite honestly, you
do not want to develop two separate systems. This is one country
programme that has to be seen that way and you do not want to
have part of it being run by a team somewhere else and part of
it run by a team in Rangoon; you have to have that co-ordinating
mechanism. Reporting back to London would strike me as maybe being
quite difficult when you have a lot of staff on the ground, so
why do you not have one person there with that leadership role.
John Battle: The nearest parallel
that occurred to me during the previous conversation is we went
out as a Committee to Pakistan to look at the border because of
Afghanistan, during that time, and there were camps in Pakistan
and the Foreign Office dealt with Pakistan and DFID were dealing
with refugees in Afghanistan, but when they came over the border
they were in Pakistan and the Pakistan authorities were saying,
"We want the international community to help us, we are not
feeding these camps, it is the international community's problem.
They have come over here from another country and they either
go back home or you take them." I think that has been part
of the fracture. The Foreign Office have been dealing with the
refugees—either they go back or we resettle them elsewhere
around the world—and that is our job. It is the first time
that it is DFID in the camps. They are okay at camps in-country
ironically and they are used to the African model of famine and
camps in the desert and the food aid in there, not the politics
of who goes where and moving backwards and forwards.
Q139 Ann McKechin: Can I just say
it seems the FCO have a particular viewpoint about the cross-border
insurgent groups which you are relying on for cross-border work.
When you are talking about increasing capacity, I presume you
are talking about the insurgent groups which would be in effective
in providing this just across the border and the capacity that
is required to build that up. Is there a concern that the FCO
have about increasing support indirectly—obviously I am
not questioning the probity of it—to these groups?
Mr Hasan: I am not entirely convinced
now, no. The debates around the UK Government providing support
for cross-border assistance have been going on since I started
working in Burma. They started off by saying it is unaccountable,
it cannot be monitored. That argument has now been put to bed.
Then there was this issue about armed escorts and they could not
get involved in that. That argument has been put to bed because
we have been very open in sharing information. Then there were
the issues around "we'll get thrown out if it is seen that
we are supporting this". We have obviously challenged that
directly. [****] Now we have got this issue that there is no need
because there is already enough money there. At every single hurdle
something else seems to be put up which is incredibly frustrating
for us. My view with regards to DFID's policy on this is that
we have a very clear view on what they should be doing. If their
decision is fundamentally is, "We will not do it," be
clear in your policy and stand to it and be open about it. We
have had a very frustrating process of trying to answer questions
and challenge particular issues where when we win then something
else is thrown up in front of us. We are convinced that the approach
is as transparent as it can be physically made. We are always
looking at ways of increasing that transparency and accountability
and effectiveness, et cetera, both inside and cross-border. I
find it very difficult that we are talking two different things;
they have to be seen—
| 
