The [him] moderator agrees with Mr Parker who writes: "On the other side of the humanitarian coin, if groups insist that the UN be subject to strict oversight, they must be also. This should apply to cross-border aid groups and indeed any group working on Burma. There also needs to be acknowledgement that internal and cross-border humanitarian intervention can be complimentary. There are still cross-border advocators (sic) that suggest that no aid should enter Burma through official channels, arguing that it is possible to reach the same populations cross-border. Given the current situation, all evidence suggests that this is absurd."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Analysis -- Bridging Burma's humanitarian divide
Clive Parker
Democratic Voice of Burma
16 May 2007

When the Global Fund pulled nearly US $100 million out of Burma in August
2005, the ideological divide on aid seemed more like a chasm.

But, following a difficult period of recriminations from both sides,
campaign groups, human rights organisations and cross-border relief
agencies seem increasingly able to sit in the same room with aid agencies
working inside Burma to discuss differences of opinion.

At the end of January, the US--based Center for Public Health and Human
Rights at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health organised a
ground-breaking meeting on infectious diseases in Burma held in Bangkok
where representatives from across the ideological spectrum discussed key
humanitarian issues.

Last Friday, Charles Petrie, UN chief humanitarian coordinator in Burma,
and Richard Horsey, the International Labour Organization's representative
in Rangoon, returned from a two-week tour of Europe meeting campaign
groups, politicians and other stakeholders on Burma.

Petrie told DVB on Wednesday, "The purpose of the trip was to try to
generate a better understanding of the situation in the country . . . [or]
at least reduce the needless friction."

Sitting in the same room together is a start, the question is: Can
differences be resolved so that humanitarian, human rights and political
organisations can work together to tackle Burma's myriad problems?

The main points of friction remain cross-border versus internal
intervention, the effectiveness of humanitarian aid delivered from inside,
transparency and the relationship between the junta and international
humanitarian agencies based in Burma. The UN insists it has to 'engage'
with the government to get things done but faces accusations that it fails
to push the envelope and its programs may even benefit the junta
financially.

Many of these issues were discussed when Petrie and Horsey met with
campaign groups including the Norwegian Burma Committee and Burma Campaign
Netherlands over the past few weeks, talks Petrie said he hoped would
"help ease their concerns."

There remains little love lost between the UN and Burma Campaign UK,
however. Following a meeting at the British House of Commons in London on
May 2 that included the British Department for International Development,
which has recently allowed its funding to be used for cross-border relief,
BCUK representative Mark Farmaner was scathing.

"I don't see how Charles [Petrie] is trying to bridge the divide," he told
DVB earlier this week. "He talks to people, but selectively, where he
thinks he might bring people round to his point of view."

BCUK released a report last year entitled "Pro-Aid, Pro-Sanctions,
Pro-Engagement" it said was aimed at dispelling accusations it is against
aid to Burma after it had -- along with other organisations -- been accused
of welcoming the Global Fund pullout.

Petrie said that both sides were "starting to develop a dialogue," adding
that there remain "very serious differences of opinion that need to be
addressed."

The same is true of the UN's troubled relationship with the Karen Human
Rights Group, which again flared up last month. Although the UN said it
agreed with the main thrust of a recent KHRG report, "Development by
Decree," an in-depth study at how junta "development" in Karen State has
resulted in the further repression of the population, Petrie said that
information on the UN was "incorrect or dated." KHRG disagreed as both
sides exchanged public statements.

A KHRG spokesperson told DVB at the end of April after the spat that it
"did not want to declare war on the UN," but that it took issue with the
"lack of discussion of alternative ways of delivering aid."

"Agencies that work through the SPDC have to be very careful." KHRG added,
referring to the effectiveness and transparency of aid operations.

The issue of accountability has plagued the UN in Burma, an issue that
Petrie says his office is currently addressing.

"We haven't reached what would be the best mechanism [for oversight]," he
said, adding that such a mechanism "should cover everybody . . . everyone
working with Burmese."

Possible mechanisms include that used in Somalia from the middle of the
1990s, a donor-managed oversight system that is still in place. The new
Three Diseases Fund, a body that essentially replaced The Global Fund, is
currently introducing its own mechanism.

The 3D approach focuses on regular, public updates along with quarterly
meetings of its board, which includes independent experts. The controller
of the fund, the UN Office for Project Services, only opened its premises
in Rangoon in April so the jury is still out on whether it can increase
transparency.

Although many accusations against the UN in Burma on corruption have
generally lacked solid evidence, an official audit of the UN Refugee
Agency's operations in Burma from 2003 and 2004 paints a worrying picture
of the world body.

The document -- which the UN released publicly in November last year but
which has largely gone unnoticed -- says that during the audit period, "the
UNHCR representation in [Burma], in following local tradition, procured
gifts for [Burmese] government officials . . . the overall amount expended
in 2004 was almost $5000."

Local tradition or not, this finding is unlikely to please campaign
groups. The audit awards the UNHCR office in Burma an "average rating,"
adding that "in order not to compromise the overall system of internal
control, timely corrective action by management is required." Clearly the
UN needs to drastically improve its oversight and appears to finally
realise this.

On the other side of the humanitarian coin, if groups insist that the UN
be subject to strict oversight, they must be also. This should apply to
cross-border aid groups and indeed any group working on Burma.

There also needs to be acknowledgement that internal and cross-border
humanitarian intervention can be complimentary. There are still
cross-border advocators that suggest that no aid should enter Burma
through official channels, arguing that it is possible to reach the same
populations cross-border. Given the current situation, all evidence
suggests that this is absurd.

In Arakan State a small amount of aid reaches one of Burma's most
vulnerable groups, the Rohingyas, through internal channels. But the
possibility of accessing Arakanese Muslims cross-border is currently
impossible - only one Free Burma Rangers team operates in Arakan and has
never been able to reach a single Rohingya.

Other populations are equally inaccessible from neighboring countries,
namely the roughly six million people in Rangoon and the whole ofIrrawaddy Division as well as much of the rest of Arakan.