Burma: Need for Aid Trumps Political Goals

After the destruction wreaked in Burma by Cyclone Nargis, the United States made the wise decision to set aside its political disagreements with the government of Burma to make every effort to ensure that humanitarian assistance reached those in need. As a result of this decision, the U.S. has been remarkably generous, donating almost $38 million to the relief effort, while playing an instrumental role in transporting goods into Burma, now having flown over 150 flights with emergency goods into the country on U.S. planes.

The U.S. has also backed diplomatic efforts to engage the Burmese government on humanitarian issues, and supports the Tripartite Core Group (the cyclone response group comprised of representatives from the government of Burma, the United Nations, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations). The TCG, as it is known, has provided unprecedented opportunities for international engagement with Burmese officials. It is also carrying out a comprehensive, village-by-village assessment of the cyclone damage – the first study of its kind in Burma for decades (the regime dislikes statistical surveys and studies that could highlight the impact of their mismanagement). These steps represent real progress – not just for those Burmese who need assistance – but in the ability to establish a substantive dialogue between the reclusive government of Burma and the rest of the world.

Of course, news on the humanitarian front is not all good – for each step forward, there are complications. International staff are now allowed into the worst-affected areas of the delta, but can only stay for 72 hours. New restrictive guidelines have been issued to NGOs, but there are real questions as to how strictly they will be implemented. A similar move to issue guidelines to NGOs in 2006 was never fully implemented, allowing agencies to work under acceptable conditions. More aid is reaching cyclone victims every day, but everyone agrees that the response is still a shadow of what is really needed.

In the past week, Refugees International has begun to receive indications from U.S. government officials that their patience with the slow progress on humanitarian issues in Burma is beginning to wear thin, begging the question of how much longer the U.S. will be willing to accept the isolation of humanitarian issues from their concerns about political oppression. At a Refugees International-sponsored briefing on Thursday, a House Foreign Affairs staff member asked a panel of agencies that are operational in Burma if the renewal of US sanctions against Burma in July would hamper their operations. After receiving a unanimous yes from the panelists, he expressed concern over this impact, but also indicated that the bill would have to go forward anyway.

Similarly, discussions with administration officials in the past week have revealed frustration that the humanitarian agenda is “overshadowing U.S. political goals” in Burma. When discussing the overall humanitarian response, an official said that the pendulum had swung as far towards the humanitarian agenda as it was going to go; he indicated that we would see more of a return to pre-cyclone Burma policies in the upcoming months.

What does all of this mean for the humanitarian community working on Burma? Clearly, there is a growing need for the community to be much more proactive in describing its successes so that political actors continue to see the value in the relief effort. There also needs to be a unified presentation of the setbacks and difficulties, so that the U.S., working with the Tripartite Core Group, can press the Burmese government on issues of concern to the humanitarian community.

After pushing so hard over the past month to gain concessions from the Burmese government, which has resulted in improvements in humanitarian access, now is not the time to abandon this approach. There are more agencies providing more assistance inside the country now than at any time in the past decade. As long as these programs are reaching vulnerable cyclone survivors, the U.S. should stay the humanitarian course, while working with its allies around the world to press the Burmese government on the issues of political freedoms and human rights that are a global concern.

--Joel Charny

Visit our website to learn more about our work in Burma.

Burma: Refugees Stagnant in Malaysia

It’s been a year since I went on mission to Malaysia and sadly the situation for refugees in the country has not gotten any better.

While the Burmese refugee population in Malaysia continues to grow, they remain largely invisible to the outside world. Tucked in between the tall skyscrapers of Kuala Lumpur are apartment buildings crowded with Burmese refugees who are too afraid to leave their homes, to take public buses, to use a pay phone in case they are stopped and arrested by Rela, a volunteer immigration force that harasses and targets illegal migrants, including refugees.

This recent article describes the conditions that refugees in Malaysia must endure:

"The Rela raids happen all the time; as I write this, a raid is going on in Ampang, Lembah Jaya, with refugees trapped in their homes, afraid that Rela personnel patrolling outside will bang on their doors. They SMS their fear."

Burmese in Malaysia have fled abuses including rape and forced labor in their own country only to be picked up as illegal migrants and placed in overcrowded detention centers where canings are a common form of punishment. As the situation inside Burma continues to deteriorate, particularly following the recent cyclone, more and more Burmese will make the long and dangerous journey to seek refuge in Malaysia, where there are better job opportunities than in Thailand or Bangladesh, countries that directly border Burma.

Even though many of the Burmese in Malaysia are recognized by the United Nations Refugee Agency as having legitimate claims to asylum, the government has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and does not officially recognize refugees or the documents they carry. Burmese refugees in Malaysia are therefore left in a limbo state – they cannot access public services likehospitals or schools for fear of arrest and detention but they also cannot return home until conditions improve in Burma.

As long as the Malaysian government refuses to recognize the vulnerability of the refugees within its borders, women and children will continue to be put into detention centers and handed over to traffickers. The international community must highlight the situation in Malaysia and pressure the government to improve its treatment of refugees.

--Camilla Olson

The President’s Corner: The Right to Disaster Aid and Health Care in Burma

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I recently reread this seminal document, both to prepare for the celebration of its signing in December and to see how the Declaration applies to the tragedy in Burma.

Although Cyclone Nargis killed over 100,000 people and displaced more than 1.5 million, according to international estimates, the reclusive, repressive military government in Burma is refusing to allow adequate amounts of international assistance to enter the country. As a result, starvation, disease and exposure threaten to drive the death toll much higher.

Last week, I called the Burmese government’s refusal to allow adequate amounts of aid and the workers to distribute into the country a “crime against humanity” that could trigger forced aid deliveries under a UN Security Council Resolution. Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister of France, and Gareth Evans, who heads the International Crisis Group, have made similar arguments. But no matter how persuasive the arguments of forced humanitarian intervention under the UN doctrine of “Responsibility To Protect,” use of that doctrine wasn’t rigorously considered by the Security Council because both China and Russia oppose such consideration. In addition, some humanitarian organizations argue that forcible distribution of aid would carry more risks than benefits, perhaps endangering any possibility of setting up a workable, though late, emergency response.

What other human rights conventions apply to post-Cyclone Burma? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t address disaster response, and it presents health as one aspect of the right to an adequate standard of living. Article 25 says: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care…”

In 1966 the UN General Assembly adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 12 says that “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” It goes to on to say that signatories should control epidemics and “assure all medical service” needed. Unfortunately, Burma is not a signatory to the Covenant. Neither is the U.S., for that matter.

However, a recent analysis by the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response and the Center for Public health and Human Rights at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health points out that many of Burma’s neighbors are signatories and, therefore, obligated to help. In addition, the centers concluded that “international guidelines on human rights and natural disasters cite the right of all affected populations to evacuation and other life saving measures, to protection against negative impacts of natural hazards, and to access to adequate food, water, shelter, sanitation, and health services.”

The rub, of course, is that many countries are willing to give more aid than the Burmese generals are willing to receive. There are signs that the Burmese resistance is slowly melting. A number of U.S. and UN aid flights are getting through. China, India and Thailand have sent medical teams. Burma allowed John Holmes, the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator to tour some of the devastated areas and has invited UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to visit the country. Most important, Burma appears willing to work with a group of Asian countries to set up a naval relief effort, perhaps with the support of the U.S., France and other countries with naval vessels in the area.

These are important developments, but they are evolving slowly more than two weeks after the cyclone. The costs of delay will be measured in terms of lives lost. Human rights conventions may not call for an urgent response, but human rights principles certainly do.

Ken Bacon

Burma: What You Can Do To Help

Cyclone Nargis has captured the attention of the world and focused it squarely on Burma. Just one month ago, Refugees International was engaged in an advocacy campaign to convince policy-makers here in the US that we should engage in humanitarian assistance work in Burma. Now, rather than debating the pros and cons of aid to the country, the US is rushing to work with anyone who has access to it. It provides us with the long-term opportunity to diminish US skittishness over the work of aid organizations in Burma by allowing US funders, and specifically Congress, to observe the operating environment and see the importance of providing aid to the people of Burma.

While the media is focused on the inability of agencies to get visas for their staff, and get shipments of needed goods into Burma, there is little attention given to the organizations who are on the ground, what they are accomplishing and what they could do with more funding. At a humanitarian coordination meeting last week, a number of agencies began to describe the capacity that already exists on the ground. Here are a few examples (by no means exhaustive) of who’s doing what:

Adventist Development and Relief Agency
170 staff inside Burma
Distributing 250 metric tons of rice

CARE
500 staff inside Burma
Carrying out needs assessments throughout the Rangoon area

World Concern
200 staff inside Burma
Providing medical response in the delta

Save the Children
500 staff inside Burma
Procuring goods locally and pushing further into the delta every day

World Vision
600 staff inside Burma
Doing rice, water and fuel distribution, and conducting assessments in the delta

PACT
430 staff inside Burma
Using local networks and partnerships with other organizations to deliver aid

More attention needs to be focused on increasing the resources that are going to these actors. While the world groans over what is not being done in Burma, and it is appalling, there needs to be a greater focus on what is being done and how to support it. Hopefully, as the weeks progress and the media need stories of hope, the important work of these NGOs will become more visible.

--Joel Charny

President’s Corner: Our Responsibility to Help Burma’s Cyclone Victims

The arrival in Burma of one U.S. cargo plane carrying relief supplies and an American admiral is good news for survivors of the May 2nd cyclone and great PR for the U.S., but it shouldn’t obscure the totally inadequate world response to a humanitarian disaster.

A week and a half after the Cyclone Nargis, which killed more than 100,000 people by some estimates, displaced more than 1.5 million, and created conditions that could lead to the death of thousands of survivors, very little aid has reached the storm victims.

Burma’s military regime--paranoid, xenophobic, and heartless—deserves most of the blame for the lack of response; the generals have erected barriers to flows of humanitarian aid and the workers needed to distribute it. Yesterday, UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon said: "I want to register my deep concern and immense frustration at the unacceptably slow response to this grave humanitarian crisis." But for 10 days the world has stood by, bemoaning and criticizing the regime's disregard for life, but doing little to help.

In a column in the The Washington Post yesterday (5/12), Fred Hiatt blames the United Nations for “bowing to Burma’s sovereignty as the nation’s junta allows more than a million victims of Cyclone Nargis to face starvation, dehydration, cholera and other miseries, rather than allow outsiders to offer aid on the scale that’s needed.”

In 2005, the UN adopted a doctrine called “the responsibility to protect,” that gives the UN the right to intervene to protect civilians from mass atrocities caused by “genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” If a regime’s refusal to provide medical assistance, food, clean water and other aid to more than a million people doesn’t constitute a crime against humanity, what does?

Shortly after the cyclone struck, Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister of France, called on the UN to invoke the responsibility to protect by authorizing the UN to bring food and workers to Burma over the government’s opposition. According to news reports, China and Russia, both of whom have the power to veto UN Security Council resolutions, blocked the action.

That shouldn’t be the end of the story. I think that France, the U.S. and other countries with planes, helicopters and ships in the region should begin airdrops and possibly airlifts of food and medicine into the Burma, whether or not the regime agrees. Yes, there is a risk that the Burmese military would oppose humanitarian flights, but forceful efforts to interfere with relief deliveries would turn the responsibility to protect into a right to protect.

Negotiations with the regime by the UN and others have opened windows for small shipments of aid, such as the U.S. plane that landed Monday, but the slow trickle of humanitarian goods falls far short of what is necessary, and the aid is arriving more than a week after it was needed. Obviously, a decision by the regime to allow adequate aid to enter the country is the best solution to the current crisis, but it doesn't seem likely that the junta will lower obstacles to assistance in time, either because it's afraid of an increased foreign presence or because it's indifferent to the suffering of its people. There is considerable evidence to support the indifference theory; according to reports in the British press, the regime has continued to export rice to Bangladesh while cyclone victims face possible starvation.

Imposition of the responsibility to protect is not an easy decision. Although the first steps to pressure a sovereign nation to protect its own people are political, diplomatic and economic, the doctrine does allow for military action as a last resort and under carefully defined conditions. But as the death toll threatens to rise in the face of continued government obstruction to international relief efforts, I think it is fair to ask: Does sovereignty mean that a government has the right to let its own people die in large numbers and have we already waited too long to act?

--Ken Bacon

For more of RI's work in Burma please visit: www.refugeesinternational.org/Burma

Burma: Humanitarianism on the rocks?

The following is an Alertnet blog post by Joel Charny, Refugees International’s vice-president who visited Burma to look at the growing lack of aid there.

Burma is a place of widespread misery. The indicators are alarming: one in 10 children don't see their fifth birthday, the highest rate outside Africa except for Afghanistan; malaria, a preventable disease, is the country's biggest killer; HIV rates are the highest in Southeast Asia.

Poverty, political persecution and human rights abuses have forced hundreds of thousands to flee their homes. There are an estimated 2 million Burmese in Thailand alone. Thousands of others cross the western border into Bangladesh and India. Although some find their way into refugee camps, the majority live an underground existence due to policies in all these countries aimed at discouraging asylum seekers.

The challenge of responding to the overall humanitarian needs of the Burmese people is immense. Yet I came away from a recent mission to Burma more inspired than depressed, inspired particularly by the Burmese, who are working within the constraints of an oppressive political system - sometimes with international support - to address the chronic deprivation that plagues their country. I met a Buddhist monk and a Christian aid worker, who are collaborating on education programs in eastern Burma, and I heard about an international organization working with informal groups of AIDS sufferers on health promotion and treatment. I concluded that donor governments were missing opportunities to support independent humanitarian work inside the country.

The obstacles to humanitarian action are formidable. The generals who run Burma are deeply suspicious of the motivations of the United Nations agencies and international non-governmental organizations. They block independent access to areas of conflict along the eastern border. They impose travel restrictions on international staff and, in the aftermath of the September 2007 popular protests, they have delayed granting and renewing visas, especially for personnel from countries perceived as hostile to their interests. In December they expelled the U.N. resident coordinator for issuing a statement linking the protests to poverty.

Outside the country humanitarian action is also circumscribed. The Thai government refuses to allow Burmese with refugee status to leave their camps and work legally. The United States has led the effort to resettle thousands of Burmese in third countries, but the camp populations have remained static amid reports that Burmese in Thailand are buying their way into the camps to fill slots vacated by resettled individuals, compromising the camps as places for refugee protection. Cross-border operations from Thailand, which provide health care and education in zones off-limits to Rangoon-based agencies, are the only way to reach several hundred thousand conflict-affected people, but the operations involve collaboration with armed groups and international staff presence is limited.

Despite these obstacles, independent humanitarian work is possible. The geographic scope of international aid organizations inside Burma has increased significantly in recent years. These programs rely heavily on local staff, who face fewer restrictions on their ability to travel and monitor work, and on partnerships with village-level groups, such as temple and church associations, small-scale credit schemes, groups of health promoters, and other informal, often unregistered entities.

Donors have been slow to respond to these developments. The United States, for example, directs the bulk of its aid to the refugee and cross-border operations, and places severe limitations on the amount and type of funding provided inside the country to convey its abhorrence of Burma's military government. Overall funding is so limited compared to the need that it forces the border-based and Rangoon-based organizations into an unseemly competition for a limited pot of resources, which helps feed rivalries and resentments between the two groups.

The recent policy adjustments of Britain's Department for International Development are very welcome in this context. It has committed to doubling its overall contribution to Burma over the next three years, from £9 million to £18 million, but as important is its commitment to approaching Burma holistically, assessing the entire situation as an interlocking set of humanitarian problems. DFID will allocate funds using humanitarian criteria, supporting programs where the need is greatest and organizations are able to respond to the need independently.

U.N. agencies and international non-governmental organizations need to make a conscious effort to find common ground on an overarching analysis of Burma's humanitarian problems and ways to address them in the current political environment. Organizations committed to the humanitarian principles of humanity, independence, and impartiality, whether they are based in Rangoon or along the Thai-Burma border, should come together to make a sustained case for increased aid. There is a strong incentive for the agencies to do so, because their ability to make a united case will encourage donors to commit additional resources. This in turn will increase the likelihood that more of the urgent needs of the Burmese people will actually be met.

--Joel Charny

Burma: Are solidarity and humanitarian response incompatible?

I am new to work on Burma, but in my eight weeks of involvement to date I am finding the world of Burma advocacy rigid and doctrinal. There is just one overarching narrative: the struggle of the Burmese democracy movement, led by Nobel Peace Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, against the repressive Burmese generals. It is a classic tale of good vs. evil, and thus perfect for political mobilization on behalf of a just cause.

The problem is that the political struggle is stuck, while the Burmese people suffer in isolation. Refugees International is presently attempting to interject humanitarian considerations into the discussion of how to respond to the current stalemate. Based on our recent assessment mission inside the country, we believe that it is possible for independent non-governmental organizations to address the needs of the 55 million people inside Burma without benefiting the generals. Many in the Burma solidarity movement disagree, believing that no independent work inside the country is possible and any aid provided merely gives comfort to the regime. Therefore, the only humanitarian assistance provided should be through cross-border operations from Thailand that reach only a tiny portion of the population in areas of eastern Burma, where ethnic minority armies are resisting the government.

There is certainly room for principled debate on these issues. But based on my experience with Burma advocacy so far, the political solidarity groups prefer rather to rely on emotional appeals and misinformation about the operating environment for humanitarian organizations inside the country.

I reach this tentative (and, I hope, incorrect) conclusion based on a panel discussion I attended last week at a leading think tank. It was a typical Washington Burma panel discussion with three like-minded individuals --- two Burmese activists, including one who had just received a high-profile award from First Lady Laura Bush at a gala event the previous evening, and a former National Security Council staffer --- who hold views that reinforce the overarching Burma narrative. In their formal presentations not one alluded to the humanitarian problems inside the country.

That was disappointing, but not surprising. But when I raised a question about the panel's views on assistance inside the country, I was stunned by the misrepresentations. As her first example of the operating environment being untenable, one panelist stated that the UN World Food Program had withdrawn from Burma. I had to immediately interrupt and state that this was untrue. In fact, not only is WFP still present, but it is considered the most effective UN agency in the country, providing food assistance through a variety of programs to more than a million people. It went downhill after that.

The Burma solidarity adherents often evoke "the courageous Burmese people" to support the aid embargo. This is an easy rhetorical device, and may sound plausible, but it is based on discussions with a narrow set of political actors, most of them outside the country. The Burmese I spoke to during my ten days in Burma were furious about the aid embargo, and equally angry about the nerve of people living in comfort in the United States claiming to speak on their behalf.

This is a debate among elites, in which ordinary Burmese play no role. Aid to Burma has become politicized, to the detriment of the Burmese people and humanitarian principle. The overarching goal of RI's Burma work is to change this situation. It's not going to be easy.

--Joel Charny

Burma: Lifting Constraints through Coordination

On March 20, Refugees International decided to hold an informal briefing on our recent mission to Burma for colleagues of fellow non-governmental organizations (NGOs). One of the main reasons we wanted to hold this briefing was because of the lack of information about the actual working conditions for non-governmental aid agencies and the UN inside the country. The briefing has reinforced the idea that more work needs to be done to share what’s going on inside the country.

When Refugees International was in Burma, we were surprised to see the broad range of work being done inside Burma, including basic health support in clinics around the country, feeding programs for the neediest, and NGO capacity-building programs that teach local organizations how to function more efficiently. We also saw efforts to train a new generation of civil society activists, to find ways to break the political logjam with indigenous solutions, and other, subtle political work that showed a much more vibrant civil society than Burma gets credit for.

Over the course of the talk here in Washington, we realized that many of the organizations around the table are in various stages of exploring the possibility of operating inside Burma. Some are interested in learning more about the operating environment, others have sent quick missions to examine the reality on the ground, some are moving ahead with Memoranda of Understanding with the government, and one agency has been operating in Burma for decades.

Unlike other issues within the NGO community, most if not all of the agencies around the table were relatively unaware of what others were doing. Despite the success of coordinating organizations like InterAction and informal coalitions around scores of issues, the U.S. offices of agencies working in Burma (or considering working in Burma) work in relative isolation from each other. In large part, this also reflects the isolation of actors inside of Burma, who often communicate informally, bilaterally and cautiously with each other.

Inside Burma, you don’t want to let someone know what you’re doing, because you don’t know who they’ll tell. And if your operations exceed the terms of your agreement with the government, letting others know what you’re doing could result in a curtailment of your work. Despite these obstacles, NGOs inside Burma have recently banded together to start discussing their concerns and to consider organizing a common agenda for discussions with the government.

In the US, there is a similar hesitation to speak out. Refugees International has heard from two organizations that tried to speak publicly about their work and their interest in seeing more humanitarian assistance inside Burma. They faced vehement opposition from other organizations, congressional staff, and the Administration who feel that any engagement with Burma constitutes collaboration with the enemy. Eventually, both organizations decided it was best to pursue their work quietly and drop the Washington-focused agenda.

The March 20 meeting makes us believe that mechanisms do need to be established here in the US to discuss Burma, to share information about how to best operate inside the country, and to pursue advocacy goals related to humanitarian assistance.

Burma: Meeting Humanitarian Needs

We set out to Burma amidst disturbing reports of increasing humanitarian need. In a country that spends less on health care and education for its people than almost any other country in the world, this cannot come as a surprise. But the increasing economic mismanagement inside the country is also producing great hunger and need. One study we read claims that over 70% of a family's income goes just towards feeding itself.

The human suffering is real and there are real humanitarians on the ground carrying out life-saving work without collaborating with the government to do so. We were surprised to see the broad range of work being done inside Burma - from basic health support in clinics set up around the country, to feeding programs for the neediest, to NGO capacity-building programs that teach local organizations how to function more efficiently.

Burmese activists were happy to meet with us - in public - and discuss politics openly. NGOs discussed with us frankly about the challenges - and opportunities - that exist working inside the country. And, we found our hotel to be an accommodating space where we could place phone calls to NGOs from the lobby, openly announcing that we were calling from Refugees International. At no point did security stop us, question us, or even try to stop us from doing our work. It may be the rosy-hued glasses of a first visit to Burma, but talks with our colleagues on the ground reassured us that operating openly is not as much of a problem as it appears to those on the outside.

It is clear that working inside Burma does pose tremendous challenges. But, it is also clearer to us than ever that humanitarian work is greatly needed inside the country.

--Joel Charny

RI Guest Blogger: Eileen Shields-West on Burma Asylum Seekers

Refugees International Board Vice-Chair Eileen Shields-West recently finished a mission in Thailand focusing on the situation for Burmese refugees and how the impact of the ongoing conflict inside Burma affects the stability of neighboring countries.

When I traveled to Mae Sot on the Thai-Burma border, I was upset to see that so many Burmese who are fleeing persecution and fighting in Burma are forced to endure an incredibly difficult situation when they arrive in Thailand. There are140,000 official refugees in seven camps along the Thai-Burma border who make few demands, have little to do and wait for their fate to be decided. Then, there are all of the others who have not been able to register as refugees after crossing the border into Thailand. Even the 75-80 people who recently arrived here after the September crackdown by the Burmese junta have no clear path to asylum.

Standing in line also are thousands of “slip-holders” – 1,000 in Bangkok alone – who at one point were given a slip by the UNHCR, designating them as individuals seeking refugee status. They have never been processed by the Provincial Admissions Boards (PABs) – the agency that the Royal Thai Government put in control of registration and admission to the camps.

There are also thousands of “new entrants” who either recently fled across the border, or had been in Thailand for some time but were unable to enter the crowded camps. We were told that there were 3,000 “new entrants” alone in Mae La Camp which is situated just a few miles from the border and houses about 44,000 Karen refugees from the Karen State in Burma. These people are not entitled to food or shelter, usually sharing with relatives already in the camp, nor to participate in the large international re-settlement program now underway. The “unregistered” are also under constant threat of deportation by the Thai officials who run the camp. And I can only guess how many of the estimated 1.5 million migrant workers from Burma now in Thailand would opt to apply for refugee status if a system were in place.

All these people are in limbo, waiting for Godot, so to speak. One reason that the Thai Government gives for shutting down registration is that the camps are already cramped and that there is no more space. Critics counter that the Thai government is really concerned that if officials increase registration, more refugees will come into the country. But if they procrastinate, the problem will go away.

But one of the things that is clear from our mission to Thailand and the worsening situation in Burma is that the problem is not going to disappear. Something needs to be done. The Thai government needs to put in place a reliable registration system to recognize all those who are truly refugees so that they can receive identity documents, the rights that come with refugee status and the opportunity to be permanently resettled in a third country, if that is what they choose. This is particularly imperative now as more are coming across the border every day, fleeing the latest suppression in Burma. Otherwise, all of those “in limbo” will continue to live in a world of constant fear and uncertainty.

RI Guest Blogger: Eileen Shields-West on News from Burma

Refugees International Board Vice-Chair Eileen Shields-West just finished a mission in Thailand focusing on the situation for Burmese refugees and how the impact of the ongoing conflict inside Burma affects the stability of neighboring countries.

It is a picture of a solitary young monk behind bars. A boy of five or six years old, he is looking away, hands gripping the iron bars with an extremely sad look in his eyes. The picture ran in The Economist in late September, during the week of the major protests and fearsome crackdown in Rangoon, the capital of Burma. It was captioned: “No Way Out?"

Many of us, as we took the plane over here and looked through our briefing papers, were moved by this provocative and compelling picture. The picture told a thousand words and symbolized the cruelty of this latest round of suppression that even swept up young monks, or novices, as they are called, along with thousands of others, into detention centers.

At every opportunity, and this was especially the concern of fellow Board member Carol Ann Haake, we would ask for any information at all about the picture, about the boy and about the fate of all the children and adults who may have been swept up in the crackdown. It became an interest of all of us.

In most cases, we got disappointing but not unsurprising answers. The people we asked just did not know enough to fill in the blanks. We needed to know: What had happened to this young novice? How many other children had been rounded up and how many were still being detained?

Finally, we met John Glenn, head of the Assistance Association of Political Prisoners (AAPP), and former political prisoner himself who fled Burma for fear of arrest in 1988. He is now giving cash and encouragement to political activists still in the country. We sat with him outside, interviewing him in front of a bulletin board of pictures titled “Saffron Revolution.” And there it was -- a color photo of our novice behind bars.

So we asked: What do you know of this boy? Is he still being held? How many others, young like him, were rounded up? Glenn did not know. He turned to a colleague who also was not aware of how the organization had gotten the picture.

It was frustrating, but we did learn some things that we could work with. According to the AAPP list, there are 20 novices who were detained, the youngest is about five. (Novices can range in age from five years to eighteen. After that, when you put on the russet robes, you are called a monk.) Glenn added that the ICRC or the International Committee of the Red Cross has not been allowed to go into the detention centers to confirm numbers held and the conditions of detention.

Glenn believes that during the crackdown the regime rounded up about 3,000 to 4,000 people. (The Burmese government has publicly said that about 3,000 were taken into custody.) His organization has only been able to confirm 150 releases, but says the regime is claiming to have let go 2,000. Also, according to Glenn, there are still 660 political prisoners in prison, while the regime is saying that 190 remain in jail.

Glenn told us that the September uprising was different from the one in 1988 when many activists quickly fled across the border. To his knowledge only thirteen have come into Thailand, explaining “Now they still survive in Burma and still want to continue their activities. Maybe they are still in hiding. It is difficult to know. We don’t know where they are – thousands of people.”

When we left the interview with Glenn, we felt we knew a bit more about the present situation inside Burma. But journalists and others we met registered a degree of healthy skepticism.

They say it is really hard to gauge what is happening within the country at this time. They’ve heard stories, too, about children being held and many people still behind bars, but they cannot corroborate most of them. For one thing, internet access was cut again this week when a small group of monks in Pakokku came out to protest once again, demanding lower fuel prices and the release of political prisoners. It has been down for three days now. They add that you have to question the picture itself – its origin and its reality. It could have been, for example, a novice monk looking through a gate instead of jail bars as feared.

This is Burma, they say. It is looking though a glass darkly. The secrecy, the suppression and the silence are all unbearable, but it is the condition under which people live there, making it more than difficult to tell the real story. It is a country which has shut itself off from the rest of the world (a “hermit kingdom,” a US official says) and only international pressure, especially from Burma’s fellow ASEAN countries, will make a difference.

In the meantime, though, the picture has done its job. It has helped to rivet attention on the victims -- young as well as old -- of the Burmese’ government’s latest actions and that is a good thing.

RI Guest Blogger: Michael Hawkins on Sacrifices for Democracy

Refugees International Board member Michael Hawkins is currently on mission in Thailand focusing on the situation for Burmese refugees there and how the impact of the ongoing conflict inside Burma affects the stability of neighboring countries.

After visiting what the Thailand government calls the "Temporary Shelter for Burmese" – a more than ten-year-old refugee camp of 44,000 Burmese -- and visiting with some newly displaced people from Burma it is apparent to me that these people have and are making huge sacrifices for democracy.

Imagine being persecuted, starved, imprisoned, beaten, raped, having your village destroyed and your life uprooted. After all of that, imagine having to leave your country and family members. This is what these refugees have faced, and yet most of them simply hope for the day that their country has democracy so they can return home to peace.

The recent peaceful demostrations by the monks and people in Rangoon was an effort to bring attention to the plight of the Burmese people and to encourage a move towards democracy. Certain monks and citizens who participated were targeted for arrest and have been forced to leave Myanmar. We had the honor of meeting with some of these courageous people and hearing their incredible and sobering stories. A young student and a monk told stories of peaceful marches which were brutally broken up by the Burmese police. They and their families were threatened and interrogated. In fear for their lives, they left everything, including spouses and children, to continue to be a voice for democracy and a peaceful country.

Three individuals we spoke with were in their 40’s and have been involved with the democracy struggle since 1988. One has spent 10 years and the other 15 years in prison as political prisoners in Burma. They were forced to spend more than half of their time in solitary confinement where they suffered mental and physical abuse. Another has not seen his family for eighteen years. Today, they all still work with the National League for Democracy, and are committed to working for peace and democracy in Burma in hopes of returning to their homeland. How much more must they sacrifice?

This day has said to me that we, as Americans, must value and celebrate our democracy and not take it for granted. More so, we must speak out for those still within Burma working for democracy and those forced to leave and become refugees. The very core of our freedom demands we speak up for our brothers and sisters who are sacrificing so much.

--Mike Hawkins

RI Guest Blogger: Michael Hawkins on Burmese Refugees in Thailand

Refugees International Board member Michael Hawkins is currently on mission in Thailand focusing on the situation for Burmese refugees there and how the impact of the ongoing conflict inside Burma affects the stability of neighboring countries.

Today we visited the refugee camp at Tham Hin. It’s about three hours west of Bangkok and ten miles off the main road on a bumpy dirt road with many parts of the road washed out. The camp is very isolated and in the middle of a national forest.

Approximately 10,000 Burmese refugees live in this very crowded camp in bamboo huts without electricity or running water. Latrines are holes in the ground under their huts.

People have lived in the camp for an average of eight years, and it feels like a small city. We met with a number of officials in the camp, including some who discussed the problems they are facing in trying to resettle Burmese refugees permanently overseas. The resettlement of these refugees is important because it provides them with a permanent living situation after so much time in limbo.

In the afternoon, we had a camp tour. There were little children everywhere, barefoot and scurrying about. People are mostly sitting around as there is no work in the camp for them. It’s a sad situation.

We met with some of the refugees who were pursuing resettlement and learned about the atrocities they experienced in Burma and their frustrations in trying to get resettled to the US, Australia, and Scandinavian countries. Some want to stay in the camp because they hope to return to Burma if things change or because they have family in the camp who are not eligible for resettlement. These people are truly caught up in red tape and stuck in a bad situation. This all begs the need for a peaceful resolution in Burma and greater awareness of the plight of these refugees.

--Mike Hawkins

From Violence to Silence in Burma

Things seem to be eerily quiet inside Burma after the recent violent crackdowns against monks and protesters. In addition to suppressing the media, it was reported today that the junta has shut down the Internet in Burma in order to prevent more negative images from slipping out.

Here are some of the other major developments since my last blog post:

After briefing the UN Security Council last week, the Secretary-General's Special Advisor on Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, traveled to Burma over the weekend, where he met with junta leaders, as well as Aung San Suu Kyi, the National League for Democracy leader who has been under house arrest for more than a decade. But despite Gambari's visit, the junta continued today to arrest more demonstrators.

This week, the UN Human Rights Council held a special session on the situation in Burma and passed a resolution yesterday strongly deploring the violence. Refugees International welcomes the resolution and urges the UN Security Council to follow suit and condemn the violence. In her address to the Human Rights Council, Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, urged action in order to prevent further violence and abuse. The council is pushing for Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, UN special rapporteur for human rights in Burma, to be allowed access to the country in order to investigate the human rights situation.

For now there do not seem to be any additional refugee flows out of Burma, according to UNHCR in Thailand. However, the Washington Post reported today that “dozens of Burmese were deported across the border Sunday after demonstrations backing the uprising in Rangoon.” And there is still concern that people who are currently in hiding could try to make their way to the border. Refugees International continues to urge the Thai government to allow Burmese to seek asylum.

The international community must also continue to support aid agencies as they provide assistance to vulnerable Burmese. WFP has finally been allowed to continue its food deliveries after the junta lifted its ban on the agency's movement during the demonstrations. However, humanitarian aid workers still warn that a food crisis is now looming in the country.

Japan has also said that it is considering reducing its humanitarian assistance to Burma, after the killing of a Japanese journalist during the protests last week. Japan is a major donor to Burma, a country that continues to be in desperate need of more international humanitarian support. This distressing news only reinforces our call that the U.S. and other governments put measures in place to assist vulnerable Burmese who are struggling to access food, health care and other necessities.

--Camilla Olson

Waiting For the Other Shoe To Drop in Burma

I’ve been trying to keep up with all of the press coverage of the monks protesting in Burma over the past week. The images alone have been striking - hundreds of monks flooding the streets of the capital Rangoon like a saffron colored river. At first, there was no public reaction from Burma’s ruling junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). The monks continued to march each day, their numbers growing from the hundreds to the tens of thousands, as scores of civilians joined in as well. Local people formed human chains around the monks to protect them from security forces. In the past few days however, analysts have speculated that the SPDC won’t allow the demonstrations to go on for much longer. And today, on the 9th day of protests led by the monks, the regime finally did react with tear gas and riot shields. Reports indicate that at least two monks and one civilian are dead, while several others have been injured and many arrested.

A lot of the news stories I’ve read describe how the demonstrations led by the monks echo the early days of the 1988 nationwide uprising, where 3000 civilians were killed after the regime ultimately suppressed the pro-democracy movement. Since that time, the political and humanitarian situation in Burma has certainly deteriorated further, particularly in the eastern part of the country, where ethnic Burmese groups continue to clash with military troops who forcibly displace civilians and use rape as a weapon of war.

The ongoing insecurity in eastern Burma, and the needs of the more than 500,000 displaced people, many of whom are hiding in the jungles without access to basic services like health care, must not be forgotten in the broader push by governments like the US to democratize Burma. While international political pressure is taking the form of increased sanctions, the US and other donors must also commit to aiding the most vulnerable populations in the country through humanitarian assistance - by cross-border assistance from Thailand, as well as an increase in humanitarian assistance to nongovernmental organizations and international agencies that are working in the country. This aid not only offers important assistance to people in need, it also supports the work of civil society and community based organizations that are able to function despite the SPDC's repressive policies.

As the protests continue, and NGOs in neighboring countries like Thailand prepare for possible refugee outflows from Burma, I find myself waiting for the other shoe to drop. Are today’s actions against the monks an indication of a larger crackdown to come? Or will all of the current scrutiny and international outcry actually make a dent in Burma’s ruling junta? While it is probably too soon for anyone to speculate on what the ultimate results of the protests in Burma will be, the growing international attention and the high level discussions such as the one taking place today at the United Nations Security Council are certainly a positive side effect.

-- Camilla Olson

Burmese Refugees in Malaysia

When I was on mission in Malaysia in April, we interviewed several different groups of Burmese refugees, including ethnic Mon, Kachin, Chin, Rakhine and Rohingya. All of these groups told us the same story - of refugees being arrested by immigration or police and the terrible conditions they have to endure in the detention centers. Young and old, men and women, and even those registered with the UN Refugee Agency - no refugee is safe from the threat of arrest in Malaysia.

Since our mission, the arrests have continued. Just this week, an appeal was made to stop the targeting of refugees in Malaysia. Refugees who are arrested and put into detention centers get little access to outside assistance. They are eventually deported to Thailand where they are picked up by traffickers and forced to pay for their release. If they cannot pay the traffickers then they are sold into forced labor.

Those refugees who have been able to avoid arrest live in constant fear of immigration raids carried out by a volunteer corps called RELA. The abuses carried out by RELA are well documented and calls have been made to disband the group, which would go a long way in improving the security situation for all refugees and migrants in Malaysia.

The most important thing however is that the protection needs of refugees in Malaysia become more widely known. There must be more international pressure on the government of Malaysia, which is a member of the UN Human Rights Council, to improve its treatment of these vulnerable people. Personal accounts like those featured in a new website called fifty refugees are an important step in this direction. The stories, gathered by a Malaysian national, powerfully illustrate the courage and resilience which sustains the refugees, despite the abuses they must face.

To Resettle or Not

A new report on the resettlement of Burmese refugees from Thailand has just been released, commissioned by the Committee for Coordination of Services to Displaced Persons in Thailand (CCSDPT). Since 2005, more than 5,000 of the approximately 150,000 Burmese refugees living in camps in Thailand along the border with Burma have been resettled to countries including the United States. The report, entitled Planning for the Future: The Impact of Resettlement on the Remaining Camp Population, outlines the concern that with the increasing departure of the most skilled and educated refugee staff, there will follow a decline in the availability of camp services provided by local and international non-governmental organizations.

Many non-governmental and community based organizations employ skilled camp residents to work in their health and education programs. However, since resettlement has become an option for Burmese refugees, some of whom have been living in the camps for more than two decades, the trend has been for more educated refugees to leave the camps. This has left the organizations providing services with a lack of experienced local staff.

While I was on mission with a colleague in Thailand in April, the issues surrounding resettlement were being widely discussed, particularly because of the impending report. On the one hand, resettlement offers opportunities for refugees who have been stuck for years in overcrowded camps. On the other hand, with the departure of more skilled refugees, the important services that organizations provide for the camp residents who stay behind are under threat.

Another issue we found is that some countries are only taking those refugees who are the most skilled and educated because of their integration potential, rather than resettling vulnerable groups, including serious medical cases or those affected by sexual and gender based violence. Not only does this contribute to the strain that the departure of skilled staff is putting on camp services, it also means that vulnerable refugees who most need assistance fall through the cracks.

While it is not feasible to slow down the resettlement process or hinder refugees from applying for resettlement, one solution would be for the Thai government to allow camp residents the chance to seek work and training opportunities outside of the camps. If refugees could better provide for their families it might make resettlement to third countries less necessary. It would also increase the number of skilled staff and could mitigate the departure of refugees who work for local organizations. In addition, those resettlement countries that are picking and choosing who to resettle must begin resettling refugees based on need, as the United States is doing, rather than on how well they will adjust to their new homeland.

Choosing to resettle to a completely different country where the language and customs may be foreign to you is a difficult decision for any refugee to make. Resettlement is one of the three durable solutions for refugee populations. The other two solutions, which are normally preferred, are to help refugees return to their country of origin or integrate in their new community. However, in the case of Burmese refugees living in camps in Thailand, the ongoing violence and targeting of ethnic minorities in Burma means that none of the refugees will be returning home anytime soon. And until the Thai government allows more freedom of movement outside of the camps, local integration is not an option. Therefore, although it is causing disruptions in the services to camp residents, resettlement continues to be the best option for Burmese refugees in Thailand.

Trekking the Jungles of Malaysia

Before I left on mission, a friend told me to watch out for the leeches in the Malaysian jungles. But since my colleague and I were not traveling for eco-tourism reasons, I figured that I had little to worry about. The reason we came to Malaysia was mainly to look at the situation for the urban refugee population of ethnic Burmese in Kuala Lumpur. Little did I know that one week after arriving in Malaysia, I would be trekking up a path through the jungle with my colleague and two representatives from the Mon Burmese ethnic group.

We had been invited by the local Mon community organization to visit refugees working on a rubber tree plantation outside of Penang, about 4 hours north of Kuala Lumpur. After climbing up the path we came to a shelter with a tin roof, concrete floor, and one back wall. There we met a group of around twenty Mon refugees who worked on the rubber tree plantation. The refugees ranged in age from 16 to 41, all men. Most had arrived in Malaysia in the past few years, they had all had paid agents smuggle them into the country from eastern Burma. All had come to find work, but the reason they left Burma was because of the ongoing violence and human rights abuses in their home state.

They told us stories of active conflict in their villages, and of land confiscation and forced labor by the Burmese military. Clearly this group, like the majority of the refugees who have come to Malaysia from Burma, have legitimate asylum claims. But since Malaysia is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, they are not given any special protection or assistance by the government, and they are instead classified as illegal migrants.

UNHCR has been able to register a fair number of the Burmese refugees in Malaysia, particularly those who are seen as the most vulnerable, but the agency is dealing with a large backlog of cases and inadequate resources. Groups like the one that we met with slip through the cracks, mostly because they are living in the jungle in makeshift shelters, afraid to leave the plantation for fear of being arrested since they have no documents. Many of them are also not familiar with UNHCR or the work that the agency is doing in Malaysia.

While we were speaking with the group, the thick humidity in the air gave way to pouring rain. When it rains, the refugees cannot work in the plantation, and they do not get paid. They also may not get food that day, since they depend on their employer for this as well. There is no assistance from their employer for health care, they instead rely on a local Mon contact who helps the most serious cases travel to Kuala Lumpur for medical assistance. If they were to go to the local hospital they would most likely be arrested, since they do not have any proper documentation.

The police and immigration officials have conducted several raids of the jungle settlements, and the refugees told us that while their shelters are usually destroyed, most of them are able to escape being caught. When asked, most said that they would like to eventually move to the city and find work in a restaurant or factory. Without any documentation, however, leaving the plantation means that they risk being arrested, detained, and deported, like so many other Burmese refugees in Malaysia.

After the rain finally let up, we made our way back down the jungle path. The refugees were left to hope for clear skies so that they could go back to work again. Their situation will clearly not improve until the Malaysian government recognizes the Mon, as well as other ethnic groups who have fled Burma, as refugees. However, in the meantime, increased assistance through mobile registration and mobile health clinics could help.