Examiation of Witnesses (Questions 140-148)
MR RAY
HASAN
12 JUNE 2007
Q140 John Bercow: Ray, forgive me
for saying so, but in the end although ministers tend not to be
immersed in the detail, for very good reasons, in our system of
government ministers must accept responsibility. Can I put it
to you that one of the difficulties here—if we are really
candid about it—is that in this very long-running argument
about whether to allow the delivery of British funds for cross-border
purposes we know, do we not, that it is not something on which
ministers themselves have heavily focused. There is a huge number
of other issues to deal with, being realistic about it Chairman,
and the fact of the matter is that privately officials were completely
against a change in policy, they lobbied vigorously, they put
up all of these different arguments at every turn. Frankly, in
the end they lost and ministers decided, for reasons which we
can go into if you wish, that actually it did make sense to lift
the cap. The problem is you have still got these career apparatchiks
on the ground who were not just indifferent to the change, they
absolutely did not want this change and resisted it at every turn
with a completely different set of arguments being put up at each
stage, and these are the people who are still there who having
lost that fight are thinking, "Oh Christ, we lost that fight,
damn it, ministers have announced the lifting of the cap despite
all our advice, we did not want it to happen, now what we have
got to do is try to ensure that the money does not go up,"
so it would be a good idea to increase the staff level in Rangoon,
shift the terms of trade and then say "Oh, terribly sorry,
we can't find any more money for cross-border work because we
are committed elsewhere." Is that not the game?
Mr Hasan: I certainly hope not.
I do not know. I do not think it is particularly fair to say.
I think that there are people within DFID that we have a very
good and honest relationship with and there are some that we do
not. I think there is a reality there. I think there are some
people that we work with who challenge on policy and there are
some people who do not. I would be very disappointed, given the
change in policy, if it is not followed up by a commitment to
increase funding on the displaced, and again I stress it needs
to be seen to be doing both inside and cross-border and obviously
the constraint here is the fact that the budget is so small and
we would first and foremost say we need to increase the funding.
If you are saying there is a lot we can do as a Government in
funding support inside the country, et cetera, then you need to
fund it. We would say that if you want to be as effective as possible
in meeting the needs of the most vulnerable in Burma, you need
to be doing it inside and also cross-border. We would be very
disappointed in that changing policy if there was not also a subsequent
increase in funding, [****]
Q141 Ann McKechin: There are also
other borders, the Chinese and Indian.
Mr Hasan: There are other borders
but then the issues of displacement are different there. You are
dealing primarily with ceasefire areas in a more stable environment.
There are of course challenges with regards to the state of affairs
of the people. [****]
Chairman: You wanted to give evidence
in private because presumably the Burmese authorities might react
if it was put on the public record more clearly what was going
on, but there are two things: what is the real attitude of the
Burmese authorities? I find it hard to believe that only we know
what you are up to. Can you put a finger on why you are so sensitive?
We have had the same argument from DFID and so forth. As I said
on Anne's intervention before, we might want to recommend that
there is plenty of need for more aid in all kinds of different
directions and we have focused on the area that you would like
to recommend. Somehow or other we cannot quite get hold of it;
everybody is nervous about how you spend money and how effective
it would be.
Q142 Ann McKechin: To be honest with
you, there are a lot of different opinions about where this aid
should be going, so it is not just DFID.
Mr Hasan: People have their own
agendas on what is the most appropriate thing that we should be
supporting. The Government is very, very difficult to work with.
There have been glimmers of opportunity in the past that do not
last particularly long. People have learned that and therefore
are not prepared to let information seep out in that way. When
I took over the post, Christian Aid's position was that it would
not share information on Burma in any circumstances. My personal
view is that is not helpful with regards to strengthening our
work and that we had to find ways to engage more broadly with
organisations inside, with organisations on the border, and with
the different initiatives that were going on globally. The reality
is that it does not take much for international NGOs to find it
impossible to work in Burma, so it is perfectly reasonable for
them to be incredibly cautious on what they do because their whole
operation is at risk. Is their work effective? To a degree, yes.
Is it important? Absolutely. I understand why they do not want
to share that information. [****] What you may think is innocuous
information can have incredibly damaging impacts on their ability
to work inside and from any other perspective. Cross-border is
obviously sensitive to the Royal Thai Government, we also have
to be aware of that. Our main responsibility is to the people
that we are working with through our partners, and their safety
is paramount. We have to try and find ways we can weigh that up
with our responsibility also to try and speak out to change the
situation inside as much as we can, and that is incredibly difficult.
I spend hours and hours thinking about what I should say in public
and what I should not say and it has been quite stressful, but
we have to find ways of doing that and, again, going back to one
of my main points, the role that the UK Government can play through
DFID is to provide a platform to bring people together in closed
environments to share the work that they are doing. We are happy
to do that. We are already doing that but there is resistance
that is built on the paranoia that has developed over a long time
of working there.
Q143 Sir Robert Smith: What gives
DFID that strength to be able to do that? Is it its standing?
Mr Hasan: To a degree it is interesting
because obviously their budgets are not that significant and from
a financial perspective they are not a particularly big player.
Q144 Ann McKechin: Why not the EU,
for example?
Mr Hasan: The EU are not particularly
doing it, they are not particularly active. DFID primarily in
my view through the previous Ambassador to Burma was very active
and at that time that coincided also—
Q145 Chairman: Was that John Jenkins
who is now in Vietnam?
Mr Hasan: No, Vicky Bowman, and
that coincided with the arrival of DFID staff in Rangoon as well
and therefore there was that blurring between the two. I have
just lost my train of thought—
Q146 Sir Robert Smith: You had been
emphasising how DFID have this role.
Mr Hasan: I am blaming my jetlag,
I literally got in from Beijing yesterday morning! I think the
reality is because through the previous Ambassador they were very
involved on the ground in pushing issues around engagement with
the regime, they have been therefore quite vocal. I think this
has primarily been true of the Foreign Office rather than DFID,
but as it has developed Rangoon has become a lot more involved,
so they are quite vocal and open inside the country. As a result
of that you have some of the other donor agencies that are looking
to DFID for advice and guidance on policy development, primarily
because they have not got anyone there at all, so you have particularly
Sweden, Australia and the Netherlands more recently looking towards
DFID for that policy direction. It is nothing to do with the funding
of programmes; it is to do with how do we move things forward.
I very much appreciate the work that DFID are trying to do in
finding new ways to take this forward; we just disagree with those
ways.
Q147 Sir Robert Smith: If you have
got concerns about DFID why are they necessarily the ones best
placed?
Mr Hasan: Because they are, for
whatever reason, listened to more than others in the donor community.
Not in-country—I do not think the regime care two hoots
about the UK Government, and the US have very tight sanctions
and it is not affecting them in any significant way, but within
the donor community DFID is listened to.
Q148 Chairman: Is there anything
you want to share with us that you have not shared with us?
Mr Hasan: To be honest, I could
go on for a lot longer but I think that is probably quite enough
from me.
Chairman: Thank you.
John Bercow: Thank you very much.
Chairman: I think it is a tricky
situation where we and DFID probably would want to be more effective
but I guess there is a nervousness how can we be sure if we put
more money into this that it really would be effective and make
a difference. Anyway your evidence has been extremely helpful.
We will now hear a slightly different form of evidence in the
next half an hour.
| 
