Burma/Myanmar Day
National Reconciliation and Foreign
Assistance –
The Future of The People Is Our Challenge
by Mr Hervé Jouanjean
Deputy Director General (External Relations)
European Commission
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Distinguished Panellists and Participants,
A warm welcome to all of you on behalf of the European Commission, and
many thanks to all of you who have travelled from afar in order to attend our meeting
on Burma/Myanmar.
With my introductory remarks, I would like to raise a few questions and set
the scene concerning the humanitarian imperatives, hoping to stimulate our
discussions.
As many of you will remember, we organized the first Burma/Myanmar Day
here in
At that time, the focus of our discussion was the question of how to find
and formulate possible answers to the political situation.
Over the past years, the processes in the country have been quite slow,
and rather disruptive.
- We had to witness Depayin
incident.
- We saw the marginalisation of the main legal party and Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi.
- We saw the launch of the so-called “Myanmar Road Map” and a change at
the helm of government.
What we did not witness was a move towards a genuinely democratic regime.
Moreover and unfortunately, there has been change of the regime’s mind towards
a truly representative and inclusive democratic process.
The Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General has been treated in an
unacceptable manner and was unable to pursue his mandate.
The UN Human Rights Commission’s Special Rapporteur was unwelcome in the
country for a disturbingly long period.
Furthermore, developments on the ground give no hope for an effective and
comprehensive respect for human rights.
Therefore, our perception of government and governance in Burma/Myanmar remains
unchanged.
The situation does not justify that we abandon our critical views
vis-à-vis the military regime. On the contrary, we had to further strengthen the
sanctions part of our Common Position.
******
As the EU was strengthening its sanctions against the military regime it
also recognised that it did not mean to hurt the ordinary people of
Burma/Myanmar. This is why Article 5 of the Common Position not only confirms
the EU’s commitment to continue providing
humanitarian assistance but also open assistance for longer term development in
sectors such as health, education and livelihoods.
This is the aspect of the EU’s policy towards
Burma/Myanmar we would like to discuss here today.
******
Most of you know the country first hand and from active involvement.
Most of you are familiar with the situation of the people, and will
therefore agree that the slow – if any – movement of the political process is not
the only reality.
There are many more realities – be they economic, social or humanitarian
-- which we all need to take into account when looking for an adequate response
in view if the rather disastrous performance of the Government in economic and
social management of the country.
Other speakers will develop the various aspects in detail.
I may limit myself therefore to a few thoughts concerning the challenges of
a possible response, keeping two main principles in mind:
· not loosing sight of the need to induce and
support political transition,
· first and foremost to help and empower the people
of Burma/Myanmar.
******
The overall political picture shows a government, which for decades has
isolated itself and the country. In its desire to convey its criticism, the
international community has compounded that isolation. The population has been
the permanent victim of the situation.
At the same time, Burma/Myanmar enjoys fairly stable political and
economic relationships in the immediate neighbourhood in particular with
ASEAN has been - at least in public diplomacy – a faithful supporter of a
soft approach towards Burma/Myanmar. More recently though, old members of ASEAN
are becoming more critical notably with the prospect of Burma/Myanmar taking
over the chair of the organisation in 2006.
While welcoming this new attitude of some ASEAN members, we do not know
to what extent ASEAN is prepared to challenge its own unity on the Burmese
question and how effective ASEAN pressure on the military regime can be if
Burma/Myanmar continues to enjoy the comfort zone provided by
******
At the same time, unfortunately, a large part of the Burma/Myanmar’s
population is not in any comfort zone. The social and economic data – as far as
they are available and trustworthy – shows a picture of widespread poverty and
dire need. Even official figures confirm these facts.
In particular, people in mountainous border and ceasefire areas – mostly
ethnic minority groups – live under appalling conditions. They have been cut
off from development by five decades of civil war.
Natural resources are being exploited at an unsustainable pace,
regardless of environmental damage. Very few people benefit, but many suffer.
The influx of refugees into neighbouring
- We do not know how long such
military campaigns against innocent civilians will continue.
- We do not know when conditions
for the return of refugees and internally displaced persons will be met.
- But we do acknowledge and agree
that refugees and displaced persons deserve our continued support.
******
The economic picture is not rosy either, in stark contrast to a region
that impresses us all with its economic dynamism and results in the fight
against poverty.
The main reasons for the weak economic fundamentals are “home made”, such
as inadequate economic policies, multiple exchange rates or the unpredictable
export policy for rice.
In addition, external reasons have aggravated the situation, like the
high oil price and the sanctions, which the
Only the regime and a few people who are able to secure rents from
various protected businesses are currently benefiting.
The government’s focus on infrastructural development and agricultural
production – still too often involving inadmissible labour practices – ignores largely
the needs of the most vulnerable people and their economic and social
development.
By almost all developmental standards, Burma/Myanmar trails behind its
ASEAN fellows. One figure says it all: 60 percent of the population lives below
the poverty line or at subsistence level.
With the virtually insignificant public expenditure on health and education,
families and local communities are carrying the burden, financially and
otherwise. The widespread absence of the rule of law aggravates the situation.
I quote health and education as two areas of outstanding challenge, given
their crucial role for social development. In addition, families in
Burma/Myanmar place traditionally a very high value on education – today the
vast majority cannot realise these aspirations, because of an inadequate basic
education system.
If we, as international donors, want to assist the Burmese population in
facing these immense development challenges, there is no choice but to engage
in some form of policy discussions with the Government. Only through a dialogue
on sector policies will donors jointly be able to influence decisions on policy
which have a direct bearing on the long term situation of the population.
Engaging in a policy dialogue with the Government sounds ambitious and it
is ambitious and controversial, but it is probably also our best opportunity to
make an impact on the lives of ordinary Burmese.
It will not be easy and it is for sure not something which can be
undertaken by one organisation alone. All donors inside Burma/Myanmar will need
to ensure that we share information, coordinate our policies and work together
in our dialogue with the government.
There are positive models for such a dialogue to build on. In the UN-led
Expanded Theme Group on HIV/Aids, the government joined the debate with the UN,
the international donors and the implementing partners.
Another model has been implemented in the Wa and
Kokang areas where opium production should come to a final
halt over the next months.
Whether these examples can be used in other areas of assistance, such as
education or illegal logging, will much depend on the Myanmar Government’s
readiness to engage in sectoral debates.
On the European Union’s side, there is a clear basis for engaging in a sectoral policy dialogue.
Our Common Position – in its Article 5 – stipulates, “the EU will
continue to engage with the government of
The European Commission would like to see other international agencies
follow.
******
At the same time, we are also aware of the need to engage at community
and local level.
There is some degree of breathing space, mostly for service-delivery
groups, but much less for advocacy organisations.
Clearly, Burma/Myanmar is still far away from having a flourishing civil
society, but these small signals of community level activities encourage us to
look into opportunities to support them.
This is particularly valid for the ethnic groups and groups in remote and
border areas where the precarious cessation of hostilities will not translate
into genuine social development.
Supporting these vulnerable communities could therefore possibly
contribute to national reconciliation.
Again, it will depend on the government whether the UN agencies and
international NGOs can increase their operations in remote and
conflict-affected regions of the country.
At this point I would like to take the opportunity to highlight the
important role played by the international organisations.
We have seen an improved working environment for the UN agencies in
recent years, and I can only commend the commitment and performance of every single
UN agency and their staff working in Burma/Myanmar, which has led to this
improvement.
In addition, Burma/Myanmar has had access to multilateral funding for the
first time in decades, since the Global Fund approved funding a national
programme in the fight against Aids, malaria and tuberculosis.
Nobody can question the usefulness of these programmes, when looking at
the level of child mortality in Burma/Myanmar, caused by easily preventable
diseases.
International organisations, the European Union, individual countries and
NGOs are all cooperating to ensure their successful implementation. We hope
that this excellent cooperation will continue.
*****
This brings me back to the aim of the meeting today.
I would like to invite our meeting to reflect on a comprehensive approach
to the considerable humanitarian and development challenges that face the
people of Burma/Myanmar.
An approach that mirrors not only our political
values, but also the needs of the country and its people - today and tomorrow.
The future of the people of Burma/Myanmar is our challenge.
In the past, one has often called approaches either “soft” or “tough”. Alternatively,
we have heard about some sort of “flexible” or “constructive engagement”.
Today, I see no need to invent a new qualifier. Instead, I propose to ask
simply a few questions when checking response strategies and foreign
assistance:
· Does foreign assistance help address the
fundamental needs of the people in the country, and is it likely to decrease
their vulnerability?
· Does such assistance contribute to empowering
people and communities, do we therefore contribute to lifting the isolation of
the citizens, and can we – in some way and with much patience – help achieve
national reconciliation?
· Finally, can we, through our assistance
promote a process of gradual change?
These questions are not exhaustive, and I am looking for your views.
As the European Commission is in the process of drafting an assistance
strategy, your constructive input is very welcome.
The needs are endless, and any responsible donor will have to make hard
choices.
In this respect, I would like to refer to the Independent Report, which
you have seen in the preparation for our meeting.
You will be hearing a more detailed presentation of the report by Prof.
Taylor and Mr Pedersen in a short while.
There has been quite some discussion about this report; let me underline that
the Commission requested and financed this report - but the report’s conclusions
and recommendations are the authors’ own and should be seen as an input to an
on-going debate.
This should, however, not be a purely academic debate.
Whether we adopt a needs-based or rights-based approach, the result is
the same: we see those in need as being entitled to
assistance. And our humanitarian values challenge us to help the people of Burma/Myanmar
to enjoy a life in peace and prosperity, as well as the political, social and
cultural rights, as stipulated in the respective international covenants.
I am looking forward to interesting presentations and inspiring
discussion.
Thank you very much for your attention.