John Virgoe in The Guardian

"The Way Forward in Burma",

1 November 2008
The Guardian

In the wake of Cyclone Nargis, we must respond to the suffering of
people who cannot wait for distant political change.

Megaphone moralising is not a policy and will not help the people of
Burma. The west has tried it for two decades, and it has failed.

Unfortunately some, like Benedict Rogers, would rather criticise those
who suggest a new direction than offer anything as practical as a
policy.

Contrary to his article, the International Crisis Group's new report
on Burma/Myanmar is very clear about where the blame lies for the
appalling situation:

Growing impoverishment and deteriorating social service structures
have pushed millions of households to the edge of survival, leaving
them acutely vulnerable to economic shocks or natural disasters.

If not addressed, the increasing levels of household insecurity will
lead to further human suffering, and could eventually escalate into a
major humanitarian crisis.

Government repression, corruption and mismanagement bear primary
responsibility for this situation.

Crisis Group does also say that the errors of western policy have
played a role, noting that in their attempt to defeat the regime by
isolating it, western governments have sacrificed opportunities to
promote economic reform, strengthen social services, empower local
communities and support disaster prevention and preparedness. After
cyclone Nargis, we see another such opportunity, and we hope the west
doesn't blow it again.

The truth is, the efforts to help Burma recover from Nargis are going
surprisingly well. In sharp contrast to their initial obstructionism,
the Burmese authorities are now cooperating with the international aid
effort. If western governments can continue to show generosity - and
resist the siren call of measures which punish the people for the
failings of their government - there is a chance to build on this
opening to address Burma's wider humanitarian and development crisis
and promote change in that country.

Nargis was the worst natural disaster in Burma's recorded history. It
devastated south-west Burma, leaving maybe 200,000 people dead and
800,000 displaced.

The world looked on aghast at the regime's initial response. As
always, the generals put security and political concerns first, and
their people's welfare last. They denied foreign aid workers visas,
and turned back local volunteers attempting to reach the affected
areas. They pressed ahead with a referendum on a new constitution,
designed to institutionalise military power.

But what happened next is an untold story. With the referendum out of
the way, and encouraged by skilful diplomacy by UN secretary-general
Ban Ki-Moon, the generals finally decided to open the door to foreign
aid.

Western governments mostly put aside their distaste for the Burmese
regime and made generous pledges of aid. And the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), long criticised for its lack of
action on Burma, stepped up to the plate, coordinating international
aid operations and helping overcome the regime's suspicions of western
agendas.

By July, UN humanitarian chief John Holmes could describe the relief
effort as "a normal international relief operation". While there are
still problems, the cooperation between the Burmese authorities and
the international community is unprecedented. Visas and travel permits
are quicker and easier to obtain than before; bureaucratic obstacles
have been removed; communication channels opened; and donors' demands
for an independent needs assessment met.

The biggest problem today is lack of funds: the initial generosity of
donors has not been maintained. The UN has asked for $482 million, but
received barely half that amount. It is essential that this shortfall
is met. But there is an opportunity to do much more than the
humanitarian minimum. For too long, Burma has been an aid orphan,
receiving twenty times less per capita aid than the average for least
developed countries - far less even than other pariah states like
Zimbabwe or North Korea.

Western policies have restricted aid to just a few sectors such as
disease or promoting democracy. And they have severely limited the
activities of agencies such as the World Bank or UNDP. Meanwhile, a
development crisis of major proportions has developed. According to
the UN, 90% of the population are living on less than 65 cents a day,
and more than a third of children under five are malnourished.
Educational levels are declining, and civilian institutions decaying:
not a promising basis for political reform.

Government repression and economic mismanagement bear primary
responsibility for this situation. But 20 years of sanctions and
restrictions on aid have made matters worse.

Such restrictions made sense 20 years ago, when it seemed possible
that the military could be pushed from power. They make no sense
today, when the repression of the 2007 monks' protests, and the
regime's determination to push ahead with its referendum in May, have
confirmed their imperviousness to external pressure.

It is not a question of "rewarding" the generals. It is simply a
matter of responding to the suffering of the people who cannot wait
for the distant prospect of political change.

Donors now need to meet the shortfall in funding for post-Nargis
recovery work and expand the scope of bilateral aid programmes beyond
the narrowly humanitarian, to include support for livelihoods, health
and education. The World Bank, Asian Development Bank and IMF should
be allowed to work in Burma - not to engage in large-scale lending,
but to provide technical assistance and support economic reform. And
we need to see an end to measures that prevent ordinary Burmese making
a living, such as economic sanctions in the garment, agricultural and
tourism sectors. In short, funding decisions for development projects
should be made like they would in any other least developed country.

Of course, donors will face challenges. Burma is a difficult place to
operate, with a restrictive and intrusive government and a level of
corruption rated second in the world by Transparency International.
But aid organisations with a presence on the ground have proved that,
despite the difficulties, it is possible to deliver assistance in an
effective and accountable way.

Aid restrictions have not succeeded in pushing the generals from
power. Given the desperate needs of the country, a fundamental rethink
is well overdue. Aid engagement offers a practical - as opposed to
purely symbolic - western policy on Burma.