Memorandum submitted by Paul Sztumpf

 

The submission only makes reference to Karen State and its border area; it is based on personal observations and speaking to many Karens.

 

Recommendations:

1) More aid to IDPs is badly needed, to be delivered in partnership with CBOs, form both inside Burma and across the Thai /Burma border, but there needs to be far greater importance placed on good governance. In the long term, the governance should reach an internationally acceptable standard, in the mean time it could be improve by better partnership working. If there is no improvement to governance, then in the long term the aid may well do more harm than good. There is a need for a comprehensive assessment of the land mine problem and the program for clearing mines in non-combat areas.

 

The Politics of aid to IDP in Burma

2) The humanitarian needs of IDP's in Karen state and refugees on the Thai border are well documented. Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC), produce an annual report, Internal displacement in eastern Burma 2006 survey, which is both relatively comprehensive and accurate. The information is collected by the Committee for internally displaced Karen people (CIDKP) which has links to the Karen National Union (KNU) and the Karen office of relief and development, which is part of KNU, so the report is not independent or objective. In my opinion, the lack of objectivity and independence is only reflected in the conflict analysis and not the scale of the problem The report also has a major flaw, in that it does not give any meaningful focus to land mines, this is because the questionnaire used to compile the report dose not ask any questions about land mines, one does not have to spend much time on the border, to realise mines and the injuries from land mines are a big problem. A visit to Dr Cynthia's clinic, the Mae Tao Clinic, just outside Mae Sot will illustrate the scale of the problem.

Cross border aid to those in need is relatively poorly documented. This is because of the danger of making such information public and the fact that for years cross border aid has been under funded and totally inadequate. The vacuum left by this under funding has been partially filled by very small NGOs. Apart from TBBC efforts, aid is being distributed by a very wide array of NGOs, many of them are almost one-man bands. Characteristically, at times they may be just a few doctors who are sponsored by a very small number of churches, or schoolteachers helping with local school programmes. For years there has been a proliferation of NGO, Humanists, adventurers and Christian missionaries. Most are well intentioned, but often with there own agenda, targets, historically, there has been little coordination, although efforts are being made to improve matters. Almost all are under funded and secretive; - the border is a dangerous place!

 

3) Humanitarian aid to refuges in Thailand is quite different as this is predominantly delivered by TBBC, which is both well documented and well funded. TBBC has conducted some cross border aid predominantly through locally based Community Based Organisations (CBO), almost all (if not all) cross border aid has to have local guides and protectors, more often than not, armed. These normally have some links to armed groups such as KNU/KNLA, DKBA, or one of the smaller KNU derivatives.

4) The small NGOs operating on the border often have limited understanding of the Karen, something they recognise. To overcome these difficulties most work predominantly with a local partner, who often has another hat in a local CBO. This leads to local deals, which empowers those making the deals. It is difficult to see how this problem could be overcome, given that many of the small NGOs personnel are on tourist visas. There, local partners do not officially exist, have no bank accounts, or personal papers to speak of and have to make deals with the numerous Thai authorities. There are at least six different agencies of the Thai government keeping an eye on the situation. In other words this distorted empowerment and bad governance is due to lack of DFID (and other international) cross border aid. The small NGOs are only stepping in were TBBC cross border aid is clearly inadequate and help is so desperately needed, most are only too aware of their own shortcomings.

 

5) It would require a step change in both the amount of resources available to cross border aid and acceptance of the legitimate need of IDP in Burma by both the international community and the Thai government (and Burma government which is highly unlikely). The FCO and DFID should be working to create this step change, such a change would be in every ones interest except those that are being paid of or beneficiary's of the local deals. Only in those conditions could governance be raised to an acceptable high standard. The lack of good governance, creates an atmosphere of mistrust. SPDC think aid is being used by armed resistance groups, the local villagers thinks they are being used by both aid organisations and lead members of CBO who are making a living out of deals, and the CBO keeping a eye on each other.

 

6) In the mean time, partnership working would be an acceptable alternative, funding through TBBC, and distributed through local CBOs such as CIDKP, with enhanced governance (CIDKP governance has improved in resent years but more is needed). One holistic governance framework with joint ownership should be developed.

It should be understood that aid to IDPs in Burma, as needed as it is, nevertheless has a political effect, both at a macro and micro level. At the moment, Burma is ruled by a military dictatorship, with no real constitution. The system of taxation, forced labour and arbitrarily rule of law is based on the old style of governing which pre-dating British intervention in the 1860's with the senior General taking on the role of King.

However there is change in the air, driven by internal pressure from Burma's democracy movement, the struggle for their rights by ethnic minorities who make up 1/3 of the population and international pressure for democratic change. In Burma there are two proposed different constitutions. One by the ruling SPDC, which enshrines the military's hold on power but does introduce an element of democracy. (Even this is viewed my many in the military as too western and risky.) The other is proposed by the National Council of the Union of Burma, (NCUB) is democratic and adopts a federal structure.

 

7) This constitution is supported by the KNU. It is most probably true to say that cross border aid strengthens those who support the NCUB position.

Naturally the military know this, and that is why they punish the villagers who get the aid. They are also setting up different administrative areas in Karen state with varying government control, which they hope will support the SPDC constitution and introduce a divide and rule atmosphere.

At a micro level, it empowers those making the deals with the international NGOs, which are predominantly the educated Christians. To a large extent this also applies to TBBC, this is resented by many Karens who are not Christian and is one of the courses of the DKBA breaking with KNU. Inside the KNU it stifles democratic development, which is resented by many young activists. Naturally there are many social - political forces at play; - but aid is one of them.

 

8) All this is going on against a background of the very real struggle of the Karen people to keep their identity and to live as equal citizens in a federal Burma. There is one thing that unites all Karens on the border ;- the four guiding principle of Saw Ba U Gyi, former president of the KNU and a symbol of the Karen struggle. - One of them is;- "for us surrender is out of the question". - The Karen are a strong and proud people with more integrity than most, their love of food, music and having their photo taken should not be misinterpreted as weakness. The Karen will not surrender their identity to the Burmans. You must understand this, if you are to look at the IDP problem.