New Mandala

6 responses so far ↓

• 1 Johpa // Apr 20, 2008 at 10:24 am

  I am sorry to hear that at leading “think tanks” there is the appearance of narrow mindedness relative to “narratives”. In my local city in the US we have monthly meetings of our “Burma Roundtable” which includes leading figures of the official national US Campaign for Burma, leading activists involved along the borders, leaders of the local refugee resettlement agencies, as well as many people, on a rotating basis, working extended terms with NGOs within Burma. The purpose of these monthly meetings is to allow all people involved with Burmese issues to keep abreast of the others and to offer mutual support wherever and whenever possible. Perhaps these think tanks and Harvard Yard grads need to spend more time with the troops to see that such narrow minded narratives is indeed a discourse of the elites within elite settings but its not necessarily the most common form of discussion amongst the truly interested parties.

• 2 jonfernquest // Apr 20, 2008 at 5:41 pm

  “The problem is that the political struggle is stuck, while the Burmese people suffer in isolation.”

  This statement may is the best summary I’ve seen of the situation.

  Try hanging out in some hospital lobbies and interviewing people there about their loved one’s dieing. Usually you don’t even get a diagnosis because medical tests are only available in expensive private hospitals.

  That such an innocuous call for debate leads to such a fascist like response on the part of someone who is supposed to be open to democratic debate is a good indicator of what to expect in the future. How can “compromise” not be part of any future solution.

  Given that the current government has a lineage that goes back in time several decades, **many people have their livelihoods caught up in this web of commerce and subsistence**, just like the activists have their livelihoods caught up in the web of funding provided by Soros and Maureen Aung-Thwin, a status-quo difficult to uproot. A revolution that jerks the current status-quo out by its roots and replaces it by some foreign derived one? Good luck.

  When someone challenges you, that’s a call for thinking and debate, not violent self-righteous declarations.

• 3 Stephen // Apr 21, 2008 at 1:05 pm

  This Refugees International blog is reminiscent of the December 2006 International Crisis Group report Myanmar: New Threats to Humanitarian Aid. Whereas the RI blog states “political solidarity groups prefer rather to rely on emotional appeals and misinformation about the operating environment for humanitarian organizations inside the country” the Crisis Group report states “some parliamentarians and advocacy groups abroad have stepped up efforts to restrict and micro-manage aid flows.” Both are limited insofar as they don’t include much input from local people regarding the aid processes which affect them. I recommend checking out the related Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG) report Development by Decree: The politics of poverty and control in Karen State, which suggests “International assistance to development work inside Burma is surely needed to address the country’s deplorable humanitarian situation. However, the ethical argument for providing foreign aid is unsound where such assistance is harmful to the population it aims to benefit and undermines their own efforts to ameliorate their situation.“

• 4 Sheela // Apr 24, 2008 at 2:06 am

  With regard to Stephen’s comment- What makes KHRG’s views correct as compared to Crisis Group or RI? I see the latter two as neutral vs. KHRG which works closely with the Burmese Karen liberation movement and is allied with the cross-border aid groups.
  And while KHRG probably did seek input from local people regarding the aid process, the areas where KHRG works are often the ones where international aid organizations don’t have any access, so the people whose opinion was sought in this matter may not even be receiving international assistance so as to be able to say whether it is good or harmful.
  I see no reason to disregard the views of organizations which don’t have a stake here (both Crisis Group and RI are non-operational agencies) in favor of the opinion of KHRG which clearly is a party with interests in this debate.

• 5 Stephen // Apr 24, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  Sheela, while I think the points you raise are relevant, I don’t think that it is so much “KHRG’s views” which should be taken into account, but those of the villagers quoted at length in the KHRG report. Their views should really be taken as far more authoritative than KHRG’s, Crisis Group’s or RI’s. Also, the KHRG report does contain statements by villagers living in areas where there are projects being implemented by both international agencies as well as SPDC-controlled organisations who report receiving funding from international agencies. Perhaps, it would be most beneficial for those interested to read all three reports in full and then assess the varied views (both local and otherwise) contained therein.

• 6 sheela // Apr 25, 2008 at 5:34 am

  Stephen- I hear what you are saying, however, I would prefer to stick to the ICG, RI reports. When an organization is clearly not neutral it’s difficult to consider its findings credible. There are several Thailand-based organizations that collect data from Burmese villagers by asking them very leading questions and then interpreting it the way they want to make their case.
  It would be useful if the international humanitarian agencies working inside Burma shared their data, complete with statements from villagers they are assisting, so that one could get both sides of the story.
  I encourage anyone critical of aid inside Burma to form that opinion after traveling there - both the Rangoon way and cross-border.

Leave a Comment