The human-rights situation in Myanmar continues to deteriorate rapidly as attacks by the junta leave the most vulnerable at risk of uncertainty, displacement and death. Fear has overwhelmed local communities nationwide as survival becomes more difficult.
As the world comes to terms with the stark realities of Myanmar’s ongoing civil war, which includes incessant aerial and ground bombardments throughout the country, the international community has made a series of contentious decisions that go against the people’s will and risk putting them in more danger. Ongoing international and regional engagements with the junta are deeply concerning.
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the UN International Organization for Migration (IOM) have all signed new agreements with and presented credentials to the junta.
Most recently, Martin Griffiths, the head of OCHA, met with the junta in an appeal for aid access to areas affected by Cyclone Mocha in August. Last month, leaked documents revealed that UNICEF had signed an agreement with the regime worth US$3 million.
This raises some obvious questions: What evidence is there that the junta will use this money responsibly? The answer is zero, to which we ask, why is the international community giving millions of dollars to the perpetrators of the mass atrocities? What historical evidence do we have to observe that indicates the junta will suddenly use these funds to rectify their own crimes?
From civil-society organizations, the obvious answer to these questions is a loud and decisive “No.” The truth is local groups are outraged and astonished by this willingness to play diplomacy with one of the world’s most violent regimes.
Junta called to account
On October 17, more than 400 civil-society organizations called on member states of the UN General Assembly to take decisive action to hold the military junta accountable for atrocities in Myanmar.
Counterintuitively, many international relief organizations continue to work through the junta on matters related to humanitarian aid after presenting their credentials and signing memoranda of understanding (MoUs). Yet ironically, UN agencies are routinely denied pathways to deliver assistance or are severely restricted regarding where they can deliver aid.
Further, as indicated in a new report by the Karen Peace Support Network (KPSN), OCHA continues “to vastly underestimate the total number of IDPs [internally displaced persons] in southeast Burma.”
While the KPSN, the largest Karen civil-society network, comprising more than 30 organizations in Myanmar and Thailand, estimates there are at least 600,000 IDPs in Karen state since the coup, OCHA says there are fewer than 400,000 based on its reporting. Such discrepancies are the result of limited access from the UN, while local organizations such as the KPSN have a much more reliable reach.
This is further emphasized in the Special Advisory Council for Myanmar’s latest report, “How the UN is Failing Myanmar,” which states that “the UN is not providing development assistance to the network of actors that administer government functions in the vast territory held and administered by the resistance.”
Internally displaced persons
Since the February 2021 coup, widespread displacement has deprived millions of their basic rights to life and fundamental freedoms. Villages, once peaceful, have turned into battlefields as clinics, schools, places of worship, and even displacement sites have been targeted by a brutal regime that craves legitimacy and power at the cost of human lives.
Resistance forces remain steady and unwavering. But civilians often feel abandoned by global actors that have increasingly engaged with the military junta in recent months rather than heed their calls for accountability and humanitarian assistance.
According to the KPSN, in Karen state, within Karen National Union (KNU) administration areas, most affected civilians and IDPs still receive support through cross-border humanitarian aid delivered by local groups.
In reality, cross-border aid is the most secure method of providing life-saving assistance and is the most trusted by communities on the ground. Refugees and IDPs, including the most vulnerable, know they can rely on local actors to ensure humanitarian aid and that resources will reach them quickly, effectively and, perhaps most important, with dignity, as no deals have to be made with the junta.
It’s also important to note the competence and capacity of local groups. Ethnic, locally led organizations operating along the Thai-Myanmar border have more than three decades of proven experience providing relief in crisis situations.
Efficient delivery of aid
The question of whether they can effectively deliver aid, often posed by bureaucrats and diplomats, shouldn’t be a question at all. They have proved over and over again that they are more than capable but need the funds to ensure support remains consistent.
According to the Myanmar Humanitarian Response Plan, published in January, Yangon was listed as the area in Myanmar with the most people needing assistance, at 2.7 million, compared with conflict-affected areas such as Karen, Chin and Rakhine state, which saw an intended reach of fewer than 1 million.
And yet the report also declares that there are no IDPs in Yangon. Again, this raises the question of how these figures are being determined and where data are collected. Reports such as these lack transparency and credibility. Aid channeled through the junta, particularly through Yangon, where there is absolutely no urgency to redistribute it, risks legitimizing the very perpetrator of this humanitarian crisis: the military itself.
Further, cross-border aid must be taken seriously as a viable pathway of humanitarian assistance to reach those in need. As indicated in a recent Karen Women’s Organization (KWO) statement, a coordinated response by the international community should include sanctioning state-owned enterprises, Myanmar military companies that are joint ventures, such as Mytel, and Myanmar crony businesses with military business relationships.
Failure to impose these sanctions increases revenue, which pays for the bombs being dropped on civilian villages.
Despite problematic misconceptions that suggest local organizations lack capacity, the reality is that when the Myanmar Army attacks any given community, the local actors on the ground are daily responding to the needs of those affected by war.
Community-based organizations, such as the KWO, also follow up with displaced communities to reassess what they need most.
Considering how much trauma and loss affects IDPs daily, local groups go beyond material and monetary responses. On top of offering medical, psychosocial, health, and food relief for the horrors they have endured, civil society ensures that those who have lost everything feel heard.
Cross-border aid systems that are already in place ensure that emergency responses are immediate and safe through trusted relationships with networks along the border and inside conflict-affected communities, including ethnic revolution organizations, ethnic health organizations, the Border Emergency Response Team, and the Karen Emergency Relief Team, which uses joint funds to respond immediately.
Cross-border assistance is distributed through monetary and material support. Again, these processes are completed without any negotiation with the terrorist regime or at the expense of Myanmar’s economy, which has plunged since the coup. At least one-third of every dollar that goes into Myanmar benefits the junta.
Suppose the international community, including the UN, are serious about addressing the multiple crises unfolding in Myanmar. If true, they should work with civil-society organizations to ensure aid reaches the most vulnerable.
Otherwise, new questions of good conscience arise: How can an organization, or any entity, work in good faith with war criminals while simultaneously condemning them for their atrocities? Historically, we have seen that normalizing engagement with the junta only emboldens them to act with impunity.
Beyond statements of condemnation against the junta’s atrocities, those working on the ground in conflict-prone remote areas are more than capable of reacting to emergencies in real time. And unlike the agreements made with the junta, local groups do not need to shake hands with a dictator nor navigate insufferable red tape.
As it has for decades, aid that goes through local actors is guaranteed to reach the most vulnerable. And it’s about time the international community acknowledges this truth.