BurmaNet News, January 26, 2007

[Editor]

January 26, 2007 Issue # 3129


INSIDE BURMA
AP: Myanmar junta frees hundreds of customs officials detained in
anti-corruption drive
Irrawaddy: The great poet is dead but not forgiven
DVB: Top Thai commander visits Burma
Mizzima: 7th Brigade cease-fire talks "against Karen interests" – KNU CC

HEALTH / AIDS
Irrawaddy: Experts call for improved health care along Burma’s borders

REGIONAL
Mizzima: No match fixing with the Philippines: MFF

INTERNATIONAL
Mizzima: UK to continue to seek UNSC resolution on Burma
Economist: Let's not upset the generals
Narinjara: Supporters of six ethnic groups exempted from material support
provisions

OPINION / OTHER
Irrawaddy: ICG defends its briefing on humanitarian aid in Burma

____________________________________
INSIDE BURMA

January 26, Associated Press
Myanmar junta frees hundreds of customs officials detained in
anti-corruption drive

Myanmar released about 370 of its customs officials Friday, after they
were detained last year as part of the ruling military junta's
anti-corruption campaign, a detainee's relative said.

The Bureau of Special Investigation began its crackdown on corruption at
the Customs Department in May last year, arresting more than 500
officials, including its chief.

"About 370 customs officials were brought from Yangon's Insein prison,
where they had been held for interrogation, and were dumped at the Customs
House," said a woman whose husband was among those released.

"During interrogation, my husband was asked how much in bribes he had
taken since he joined the Customs Department.

I am not sure if my husband will get his job back," said the woman, who
asked that her name not be used in order avoid further official attention.

In October, the junta gave prison sentences ranging from seven to 66 years
to more than 100 people mostly Customs Department staff for bribery and
corruption, among other charges.

Customs Department Director General Khin Maung Lin was given a 66-year
sentence.

Authorities warned the released customs officials to refrain from
corruption and told them to return to work on Monday.

The Customs Department detentions represented one of the biggest
crackdowns since then-prime minister and military intelligence chief Gen.
Khin Nyunt was removed from office, and his intelligence network
dismantled in 2004.

Khin Nyunt was accused of being responsible for "a major corruption
scandal involving his subordinates" and was given a 44-year suspended
sentence, which he is serving under house arrest.

It is generally believed, however, that Khin Nyunt was purged for having
political differences with senior junta members.

Officials throughout the bureaucracy believed loyal to him especially in
the military intelligence service were removed, and in many cases
prosecuted.

Corruption and bribery are endemic in Myanmar, although the junta has
declared it is striving for clean government. Several government
ministries opened telephone hot lines last year for the public to make
complaints about corruption or other abuses by ministries' employees.

____________________________________

January 26, Irrawaddy
The great poet is dead but not forgiven - Aung Zaw

Burma’s poet laureate Tin Moe is dead, and Burmese people at home and
abroad are still sending condolences and holding ceremonies in Thailand,
Japan, South Korea, Europe and California, where he died last Monday.

In Burma, artists, writesr, poets, film directors and literary masters,
including Ludu Daw Amar and others, expressed sadness and sorrow—except
for the military rulers.

The regime still wants to distance itself from Burma’s “revolutionary
poet” who stalwartly sided with Burma’s democratic movement and detained
opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Colleagues said the regime’s newspapers won’t publish an obituary for Tin
Moe, who died at age 74. The news of the poet's death first reached Burma
through Burmese shortwave radio stations based in the West.

Though Tin Moe is greatly adored and loved by the Burmese people, the poet
is disliked by the regime. Since he left for exile in 1999, his name was
banned in the local press.

In fact, as Tin Moe publicly supported the democracy movement in 1988, the
military government imposed strict regulations on him, prohibiting his
books from being republished even though his poems had been previously
taught in government-approved school textbooks.

Friends and colleagues who want to write about him can sometimes mention
“a poet,” but they are never allowed to reprint his poems.

After learning of his death, the regime quickly sent special branch
officers to Tin Moe’s house in Insein, a suburb of Rangoon, where he spent
his days with his wife and children. The house is still occupied by one of
his daughters.

Since the day of his death, friends and admirers have visited the house,
often followed by military and police officers who take photographs and
keep a list of visitors in an effort to intimidate. But people continue to
come.

Several letters, articles and poems have been written in Burma to honor
the death of Tin Moe—knowing full well the regime will not allow any of
them to be printed. Artists and poets who composed poems about Tin Moe
send them through the Internet to friends in exile and foreign-based
Burmese publications, including The Irrawaddy. [The Irrawaddy is running a
special section of his poetry in its Burmese language version.]

Nevertheless, in spite of the regime’s silence and censorship, close
colleagues, writers and many of his readers will hold private ceremonies
this weekend in Burma.

In fact, names and stories of exiled artists, writers, and journalists are
rarely allowed to be mentioned in Burma’s local press. The names of Tin
Moe and other exiled writers only appear in the regime’s mouthpiece
publications when authorities want to condemn or attack them. As always,
they are branded “enemies of the state,” “traitor” and “unpatriotic.”

Among all exiled artists, Tin Moe was highly regarded for his selfless
devotion to the democracy movement since 1988. Tin Moe was also close to
Khin Kyi, the mother of Suu Kyi.

Interestingly, Tin Moe never shied away from supporting Suu Kyi though
there were some Burmese writers who later criticized the Nobel Peace Prize
winner and left her party, the National League for Democracy.

Undaunted, Tin Moe backed Suu Kyi wholeheartedly and while in exile wrote
several poems about her. It is understandable the regime hates him.

Tin Moe died gracefully, and the nation lost a great national poet who
deserves to be honored in his homeland, but the military leaders clearly
are afraid of a poet and his poems.

____________________________________


January 26, Democratic Voice of Burma
Top Thai commander visits Burma

The supreme commander of the Thai military, Boonsang Niumpradit, flew to
Burma for the day today to discuss cooperation between the two countries
on anti-narcotics efforts.

According to Thai government statements, Boonsang also planned to discuss
information sharing agreements with the Burmese military.

The trip was designed, “to introduce [Boonsang] to [Burma’s] military
leaders after assuming the supreme commandership which is the traditional
practice performed by military leaders of the member countries of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations,” government statements said.

Several members of Thailand’s recently installed military government have
been critical of the Burmese government in the past for failing to curb
the flow of illicit drugs across its borders, including Thai prime
minister Surayud Chulanont.

But official Thai statements said today the two countries had a history of
cooperation on drugs issues.

“. . . during the past years the relationship between Thailand and [Burma]
has been positive and varied joint border committees of the two countries
have successfully dealt with solving border problems,” the statements
said.

____________________________________


January 26, Mizzima News
7th Brigade cease-fire talks "against Karen interests" -- KNU CC -
Than Htike Oo

The Central Committee of the Karen National Union has dismissed a Karen
faction's attempts to reach a ceasefire agreement with the Burmese
military junta, as "against Karen interests".

The KNU Central Committee in an internal circular on Thursday, which was
leaked to the media, denounced the cease-fire talks between a group of
their leaders led by the commander of The 7th Brigade and the junta.

"They are going to ally with SPDC to go into developmental business. It is
not the right way, especially without the permission of the Central
Committee. Moreover, it is against the interest of the Karen ethnic
nationalities," said Pado Mann Shar, spokesperson for the Karen rebels.

The war of statements, between the Central Committee and the faction,
followed soon after the Karen delegation led by the Commander of the 7th
Brigade, Brigadier-General Htain Maung of the Karen National Liberation
Army (KNLA), the armed wing of the KNU, went to Rangoon to meet high
ranking officials of the military junta to negotiate peace.

The ceasefire hungry faction released a statement on January 24, which
said that they would go ahead with the talks with the junta and would not
tolerate any attempt to derail it.

"It cannot be called talks with the 7th Brigade, it is only an attempt by
its commander", Mann Sharr said.

"Actually, we did not release this as a statement. It was only for members
of the Central Committee. But dishonest people leaked it," he said.

Officials of the other faction were not available for comment at the time
of reporting. However, sources in the 7th Brigade described the ceasefire
talks as, "so far, so good" and talked about plans to go to Rangoon again
in the near future for further discussions.

Sources close to the military junta said that the possibility of a
ceasefire agreement with the KNU faction was high, which the junta views
as a political success.

Meanwhile, fire fighting broke out between KNLA's No. 16 and 17 battalions
on January 14, and the situation is tense.

Twelve Burma Army troops including two officers were killed and nine
injured in the skirmish, KNU claimed.

____________________________________
HEALTH / AIDS

January 26, Irrawaddy
Experts call for improved health care along Burma’s borders - Sai Silp

International health experts meeting in Bangkok have called for greater
efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases prevalent in border
areas of Burma.

Chris Beyrer, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told
a concluding press conference on Friday that the current health problems
in border areas, exacerbated by a humanitarian crisis, had significant
implications for countries neighboring Burma.

The press briefing followed a two-day conference titled "Responding to
Infectious Diseases in the Border Regions of South and Southeast Asia,"
which was organized by The Human Rights Center at the University of
California Berkeley, the Center for Health and Human Rights at the Johns
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the Global Health Access
Program.

About 200 government medical experts, local NGOs, health workers,
representatives of health donors and researchers gathered to discuss and
share information on the health situation on Burma’s borders with
Thailand, Bangladesh, India and China. Discussion focused on HIV/AIDS,
malaria, avian influenza, anthrax, filariasis, Japanese encephalitis, as
well as the issues of drug use and human rights abuses that affect health,
such as rape and forced relocation by the military.

Beyrer said some ceasefire groups in Burma were producing
methamphetamines, causing “higher sexual disease risks and social problems
in neighboring Thailand."

Tom Lee, of the Global Health Access Program, told the conference that in
the India-Burma border regions of Nagaland, Mizoram and Manipur, about 8
percent of pregnant women suffered from HIV/AIDS, higher than anywhere in
India. Lack of information made prevention and treatment difficult, he
said.

Voravit Suwanvanichkij, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University, said
about 10 percent of ethnic people living in the border area between
Burma’s Karen State and Thailand’s Tak Province were suffering from
malaria because they had been forced to flee to the forests by the Burmese
military.

The situation along the Burmese-Chinese border was better than elsewhere,
he said, because China’s provincial Yunnan government and local Kachin
ethnic organization were working together systematically to combat
HIV/AIDS.

Speakers complained that restrictions imposed by the Burmese government,
and a lack of co-operation, hampered the work of aid groups in border
areas, making it difficult to assess the true situation. Local people were
being denied a basic human right by being denied access to medical
treatment, they said. "Everybody should have the right to access medical
services," said Beyrer.

The press conference concluded with a call for more surveillance and
information- collecting, collaboration and resources, with funding from
international donors and governments. Speakers called on the Burmese
government to open up the country to aid groups and researchers. The issue
should also be of concern to the UN Security Council and Asean, they
stressed.

____________________________________
REGIONAL

January 26, Mizzima News
No match fixing with the Philippines: MFF - Ngunte

The Burmese Football Federation has denied allegations of match fixing by
the Burmese football team in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) Football Championship, 2007.

The Burmese football team made an early exit from the tournament following
a goalless draw with football underdogs the Philippines in Bangkok last
Tuesday. The rumour of the Burmese team having fixed the match followed
its exit, among Burmese fans in and outside the country.

"What corruption? There is nothing. They (players) also wanted to win. It
was a draw because they were too eager to win. They are also feeling
sad
.It is bad to hear such speculation. It shouldn't be done," said an
official from the Myanmar Football Federation over telephone to Mizzima.

The ASEAN Football Championship 2007, being co-hosted by Thailand and
Singapore from January 12 to February 4, has Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar
and the Philippines as participants in group (A) while Singapore,
Indonesia, Vietnam and Laos make up group (B).
Burma had a good chance of reaching the last four to the semi-finals had
the team scored only one goal in the match which they drew with Malaysia
and the regional football power house Thailand but the goalless draw with
the Philippines invited a lot of criticism and speculation of match
fixing.

"They played selfishly unlike in the match with Thailand . That's why it
was goalless draw when it shouldn't have been so. It is a pity they had to
go back home early,' said Zin Maung, a football fan who bought tickets for
matches to watch the Burmese team.

"There were many weaknesses including substitution of players. It is
reasonable to hear this sort of speculation of match fixing because of the
Burmese team's goalless draw with the Philippines," he added.

The ASEAN Tiger Cup Tournament was renamed the ASEAN Football Championship
2007 as of 2004.

_____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

January 27, Mizzima News
UK to continue to seek UNSC resolution on Burma - Mungpi

The United Kingdom will lobby and continue to push for a Security Council
resolution on Burma, UK Foreign Office Minister Ian McCartney said.

Ian McCartney, Minister of Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs of UK
told a group of Burmese ethnic Chin and Kachin delegations that his
government is committed to continue lobbying the issue of Burma to the
international community, during a meeting on Wednesday.

Representatives of Chin and Kachin ethnic groups, who met Ian McCartney on
Wednesday, said the Minister showed great interest in the issues of Burma
and is willing to lobby regional countries including China, Russia, and
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Cheery Zahau, coordinator of the Women's League of Chinland, an umbrella
ethnic Chin women's group, who was in the delegation told Mizzima, "He
[the Minister] told us that they [British government] will be strong in
their stand to get a Security Council resolution on Burma and will lobby
the Chinese and Russian governments in their capacity."

The ethnic delegations also highlighted the situation of forced labour,
forced relocation, widespread rape and violations of religious freedom in
Chin and Kachin states of Burma to the Minister.

"We also highlighted religious persecution by the Burmese regime, and also
the need for humanitarian assistance in Burma," Zahau added.

The meeting of the delegations with the UK Foreign Office Minister came on
the heels of the launch of a new but comprehensive report of the Burmese
junta's plan to wipe out Christianity from Burma.

On January 23, the UK based Christian Solidarity Worldwide launched a new
report titled "Carrying the Cross: the military regime's campaign of
restriction, discrimination and persecution against Christians in Burma",
which reveals the junta's point by point plans to root-out Christians from
Burma.

The report cited a document, allegedly from the Burmese Ministry of
Religious Affairs, titled "Programme to destroy the Christian religion in
Burma," which contains point by point plans to drive away Christians with
its opening sentence, "There shall be no home where the Christian religion
is practiced."

"The report had a great impact as it is the first comprehensive report on
the persecution of Christians in Burma and it complements the reports of
persecutions of Muslims and the arrest of Buddhist monks," Benedict Roger,
author of the report and CSW's South Asia Advocacy Officer told Mizzima.

Following the launch of the report, British Members of Parliament tabled
an Early Day Motion calling on the United Nations to investigate
violations of religious freedom in Burma.

The Motion tabled by Stephen Crabb, MP of the Conservative Party was
co-sponsored by John Bercow MP of the Conservative Party, Alistair
Carmichael of Liberal Democratic Party, Steve Webb of Liberal Democratic
Party, David Drew of Labour Party and Jim Dobbin of Labour Party.

The motion calls for the United Nations Security Council "to pass a
binding resolution" requiring the Burmese junta to stop widespread
violation of human rights, including violations of religious freedom, and
to release all political prisoners.

It also urged the junta to open all parts of the country to unhindered
access for international humanitarian organizations, and engage in
meaningful tripartite dialogue with the National League for Democracy and
the ethnic nationalities.

"So far 39 members of parliament have signed it [Early Day Motion]. But we
hope that will continue to increase in the coming days," said Roger.

The Burmese ethnic delegations, who today are meeting a number of Burma
support NGOs, will continue to travel to Brussels on Monday to meet with
European Union officials.

_____________________________________

January 25, The Economist
Let's not upset the generals

A controversial vote shows how far the country's foreign policy has changed

Johannesburg: Less than a month after taking up its seat (for two years)
at the UN Security Council, South Africa created a stir with its very
first vote. It was the only country to side with China and Russia in
opposing a resolution calling on Myanmar's military rulers to improve
their appalling human-rights record. China's and Russia's knuckles are
regularly rapped over their own records in this respect, and the Chinese
have vested interests in the Burmese junta. So their veto was no surprise.
But South Africa's vote seemed odd for a country whose first democratic
president, Nelson Mandela, said it would regard human rights as “the light
that guides our foreign policy”. Archbishop Desmond Tutu declared that the
vote was a betrayal of South Africa's past.

The official explanation is that, although the situation in Myanmar is
bad, it does not pose a security risk, so it is beyond the Security
Council's mandate. The problem, South Africa argues, would be best tackled
in other UN bodies, such as the Human Rights Council. But South Africa's
vote may have had less to do with UN procedure and more to do with sending
some strong signals about its foreign priorities.

The vote presented a chance for South Africa to “nail its colours to the
mast”, says Garth Le Pere of the Institute for Global Dialogue, a local
research outfit. That means waving a flag for poor countries to redress
the perceived hegemony of the West. China has become a big trading partner
for Africa, and Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, made his first visit
to South Africa last year. South Africa is building closer links with
Brazil and India, and has defended Iran over its nuclear ambitions. It
also wants the poor world to have a louder voice in the Security Council,
the World Bank and the IMF.

This is quite a change from the Mandela presidency, when a freshly
democratic South Africa, basking in its moral glory, promoted the
upholding of human rights as its guiding foreign-policy principle. Now
President Thabo Mbeki's priority is to put African interests and those of
the poor world, as he sees them, first. South Africa has been preoccupied
with building a stronger continent, including new structures such as the
African Union (AU), in the hope of reducing Africa's reliance on Western
help and its vulnerability—in Mr Mbeki's view—to Western meddling. South
Africa has sent peacekeepers or mediators to trouble spots across Africa,
from Sudan to Côte d'Ivoire, and may now send troops to Somalia. These
efforts have produced patchy results, but South Africa, once an
international pariah, has become a favourite mediator for addressing
Africa's myriad conflicts.

But the Myanmar vote is an awkward way to advance such worthy aims. Mr
Tutu argued that South Africa would not be the free country it is today if
others had taken similar views at the UN in the apartheid years. Its moral
reputation has already been tarnished by its failure to denounce Robert
Mugabe's dreadful regime in neighbouring Zimbabwe. South Africa will have
a chance next week to redeem itself, at least partly, when the AU decides
whether to let Sudan, whose government has overseen mass-murder in the
Darfur region, take the organisation's annual chair. South Africa is
expected to oppose the move, as it did last year. But from being a rare
African beacon for human rights, it has become more like most other
countries around the world—putting their own interests before principle.

____________________________________

January 25, Narinjara News
Supporters of six ethnic groups exempted from material support provisions

Supporters of six Burmese ethnic opposition groups will be exempt from the
U.S.'s material support provisions, as enshrined in anti-terrorism laws,
when they apply for refugee status and resettlement in the U.S., announced
the Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in a recent press
release.

The six Burmese ethnic opposition groups included in the exemption list
are the Karen National Union and their armed wing, the Karen National
Liberation Army; the Chin National Front and the armed group Chin National
Army; the Chin National League for Democracy; Kayan New Land Party; Arakan
Liberation Party; and the Karenni National Progressive Party.

Two other groups from Tibet and Cuba have also been included in this most
recent exemption -- the Tibetan Mustangs and Cuban Alzados. The material
support provisions are contained with the USA Patriot Act, which was first
passed after September 11, 2001, and bar any refugee or immigrant from
resettling in the United States if they have provided 'material' support,
such as shelter, food, supplies, or money, to any terrorist organization.
Although the Burmese groups listed in this exemption have not been
designated as terrorist organizations, broad wording of other clauses
within the anti-terrorism legislation has resulted in any armed group
opposing a ruling government being deemed a 'terrorist' group. Because of
this individuals who have provided such material support to these groups
have until now been excluded from settlement in the United States.

Michael Chertoff announced his decision, after consultations with the
Departments of State and Justice, and exercised his discretionary
authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to not apply the
material support to terrorism provisions to refugees and asylum seekers
who had supported the eight aforementioned groups. In addition to these
specified exemptions, he declared his intent to exercise his discretionary
authority to allow consideration of applications for refugee status,
asylum, or adjustment of status by those who had provided 'material
support' under duress. Chertoff also stated the federal government's
intention to seek legislation from Congress to further expand the
Department of Homeland Security's discretionary exemption authority.

The material support to terrorism exemption will not apply to individuals
who represent a public safety or national security risk to the United
States, the statement said.

Since the material support provisions came into effect, the refugee
registration process was stalled in many countries, leaving refugees and
asylum-seekers unsure of their future. This is the fourth material support
waiver that has been applied to Burmese refugees. In 2006, two waivers
were granted to Karen refugees in Thailand, while one was granted to Chin
refugees in Malaysia, Thailand, and India. This current waiver broadens
the number of people who may be offered exemption, as it not only includes
new opposition groups, but it doesn't limit the waiver to specific refugee
groups according to their current location.

"We are deeply committed to ensuring that those who deserve humanitarian
relief from our immigration system receive it, and that America continues
to be a beacon of hope and protection for the persecuted," Homeland
Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in his closing remarks.

_____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

January 26, Irrawaddy
ICG defends its briefing on humanitarian aid in Burma - Yeni and Edward Blair

Discussion of International Crisis Group’s controversial December briefing
on humanitarian aid in Burma continued this month with a response by the
group’s president, Gareth Evans, to a critique issued by Open Society
Institute President Aryeh Neier last week.

This ‘presidential’ debate appears to turn on the reasons behind the
withdrawal from Burma in 2005 of the Global Fund, which had proposed a US
$98 million grant to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in the
country.

ICG blames US-based lobby organizations and others in
Washington—particularly Senator Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky, Michele
Bohana of the Institute for Asian Democracy, Chris Beyerer of Johns
Hopkins University and OSI itself—for trying to “restrict and micro-manage
aid flows” in an effort that ultimately “undermined sensitive negotiations
with the government over operational conditions,” the ICG briefing states.

Neier notes in his critique that the Global Fund official responsible for
green-lighting the withdrawal, the then chief of operations Brad Herbert,
was not interviewed for the ICG briefing, and indeed contradicted the
briefing’s assessment of the reasons behind the withdrawal. Evans
acknowledges that “it would—with the benefit of hindsight—have been
appropriate to seek out and record directly Herbert’s version of the
story” and says that an offer was made privately to OSI to amend the
briefing on the ICG Web site.

Evans supports ICG’s claim that Washington attempted to scuttle the Global
Fund by proposing “draft legislation [that] threatened to cut almost half
of US global funding to the UNDP [UN Development Programme], subject to
conditions on ensuring no funding to the government or government-related
NGOs that would have been extremely difficult for it to fulfil if it
continued as principal recipient of Global Fund funding.”

But having described in actual terms a Congressional threat to funding,
Evans later states that “at the relevant time the pressures on the Global
Fund and UNDP, including threats to portions of their core funding, were
certainly perceived as real by relevant participants.”

Evans’ rebuttal also attempts to broaden the scope of the briefing. “The
point
was to warn of threats to the delivery of humanitarian aid.” These
threats, “most seriously from the military government,” as the briefing
stated, but also from advocacy groups abroad, posed a grave threat because
“significant cutbacks on funding for humanitarian projects risk leaving
Myanmar in so debilitated a condition that no future government will be
able to deliver effective governance.”

Evans also counters another key objection raised by Neier about the use of
anonymous quotations in the briefing’s footnotes. Evans defends the
document’s sourcing style as standard “where there are interviews with
government officials, diplomats and international civil servants who are
not authorized to speak on the record, or others who believe their careers
or personal security would be jeopardized by so speaking.”

The ICG briefing, as Evans notes, devoted more pages to “Burmese
government restrictions on humanitarian space” than on “issues surrounding
international actors and the Global Fund. Evans’ response to Neier,
however, does the opposite.

“The Global Fund issue is given attention because it has been the most
significant withdrawal of an aid funding group from the country and the
one which raises most clearly the difficult dilemma of how far
legitimately-motivated political pressure should inhibit the delivery of
humanitarian assistance,” writes Evans.

He adds later: “In our judgment, the Global Fund withdrew hastily and
without making sufficient efforts to resolve the situation.” In Evans’
view, they should have known better. “Given that the Global Fund controls
a very significant share of global resources devoted to these diseases, it
has a particular responsibility to find flexible ways to work in sensitive
situations.”

While Neier defends OSI and other individuals and agencies who feel that
securing humanitarian space must never contribute to the government’s
ability to prolong and extend its abuse of the Burmese people, Evans
counters that a failure to reverse the growing humanitarian crisis will
ultimately endanger any government administration in Burma.

What both presidents fail to address directly, however, is the
undercurrent of hostility between humanitarians on the ground and the
dismissively termed “international actors” abroad.

“It is no coincidence,” the ICG briefing states, “that most agencies
working on human rights have had their access and activities seriously
curtailed, while more traditional development or humanitarian agencies
have been less affected.” It is the result, according to ICG, of a
perceived alliance between rights groups and the political agendas of
Western governments.

Insisting that oppressive governments be taken to task for creating the
humanitarian crisis ICG and Evans—and even those international
actors—despair of is not incidental to the issue of aid to Burma. It is
essential. Neither is it indicative of collaboration—perceived or
otherwise—between international advocates and Western political agendas.

Rather, it is placing responsibility for Burma’s present humanitarian
crisis squarely on the shoulders of the only indisputable threat to
humanitarian aid in Burma—the generals.