The webinar discussed the post-coup realities of humanitarian assistance in Myanmar from in-country realities, and bilateral and regional viewpoints. The webinar also addressed basic social service needs multiplying country-wide related to the coup and further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Myanmar Studies Programme Webinar
On Tuesday, 2 November 2021, the ISEAS Myanmar Studies Programme convened a webinar under Chatham House Rule inviting Ms May Sabe Phyu, Director of the Gender Equality Network Myanmar which is a coalition of over 130 organisations, Ms Adelina Kamal, the Executive Director of the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance (AHA Centre) from 2017 to 2021, and Ms Debbie Stothard, the founder of Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN-Burma). At the webinar, which attracted the interest of 115 attendees, the speakers analysed the implications of the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar, evaluated responses from regional and international actors, and discussed what constitutes effective humanitarian assistance for communities across Myanmar.
Ms Moe Thuzar, co-coordinator of the ISEAS Myanmar Studies Programme moderated the webinar which discussed, among others, the impact of Myanmar military’s disproportionate use of violence on various communities across the country, and the efforts (and limitations of these efforts) by various members of the international community and ASEAN to deliver and coordinate the humanitarian assistance. Key discussion points centred on three broad questions.
1. Humanitarian needs of various communities across Myanmar, and views on the ASEAN efforts for humanitarian assistance to Myanmar
- Women and Youth are key stakeholders in countering violence.
- The State Administration Council (SAC) regime has politicised the crisis and weaponised aid delivery. Many polarised and marginalised communities are often overlooked in aid delivery, as efforts to deliver aid to these communities face threats of retribution from the military. Though the Myanmar Red Cross is the focal agency for coordinating aid delivery on-ground in Myanmar, it does not have the capacity to reach areas and communities in need, much less the “forgotten” communities.
- Agricultural communities face more challenges, as security concerns at the local level, and the overall political and economic uncertainties following the Feb 2021 coup have translated into farmers missing the monsoon season for planting or harvesting next year’s crops. Much of the current year’s paddy yield would now go unharvested, likely contributing to food shortages/insecurity. Supply lines have also been attacked, compounding existing food shortage concerns.
- At the same time, thousands have sought refuge in the jungle, fleeing from renewed fighting/clashes with the SAC security forces. Women, children, the sick and the elderly are particularly vulnerable. Many are also still languishing in Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps, and in need of practical needs for survival, such as medicine, clean water, food and other gender-specific needs.
- ASEAN had a number of initiatives for Myanmar in the past decades mainly for natural disasters. Myanmar is among the top three for natural disasters. ASEAN’s response to Cyclone Nargis in 2008 was the largest humanitarian response and ASEAN had an on-ground presence in Myanmar for two years up to 2010.
- However, the nature of the humanitarian disasters is quite different. Nargis was a natural disaster and responders could estimate the extent of the recovery process required. The 2021 coup’s humanitarian aftermath is a man-made crisis, and thus presents more challenges for estimating the resources to allocate for recovery needs. What has erupted in Myanmar after February 2021 has gone beyond humanitarian bounds and constitutes a political and human rights crisis. ASEAN thus needs to consider the long-term nature and commitment required to assist Myanmar’s humanitarian and other needs caused by the coup.
- The average year when a refugee can leave the camp is 17 years. Myanmar crisis may likely become a forgotten crisis as the world’s attention will inevitably become distracted by emerging crises or pressing issues in other parts of the world.
- In the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis in May 2008, the then Government of Myanmar limited cash assistance and in-kind assistance, but eventually conceded to the ultimatum posed by ASEAN to agree to an external humanitarian intervention. The authorities then gave access to humanitarian agencies and actors without discrimination, and ASEAN even earned the trust of the people of Myanmar. The situation is very different today; ASEAN no longer enjoys access to deliver humanitarian assistance, and there seems to be little trust in ASEAN on the part of either the Myanmar people or even the current military regime.
2. The needs of displaced communities/people fleeing conflict across borders (to India, to Thailand) and the situation they face in conflict areas while ensuring the safety of humanitarian actors on the ground, as well as the effective coordination and delivery of aid.
- The COVID-19 responses in Yangon and Mandalay received media attention due to internet access in these urban centres. In other parts of Myanmar where internet access had been cut and where there are ongoing clashes with the military, the people’s needs and coping challenges have largely gone unreported.
- At the same time, Myanmar’s experience of a long-running civil war (for seven decades) has negative implications for human rights and humanitarian assistance. For example, areas that have experienced the brunt of intense conflict with junta forces, such as Kani Township in Myanmar’s Sagaing Region, require non-politicised humanitarian assistance.
- At the time of this panel discussion, over 500 clashes between the Myanmar military and the resistance forces have been reported. Around 3 million persons are in need of humanitarian assistance. Over a third of Kayah State’s population has been displaced. Around 972,000 refugees, including about 880,000 Rohingya, are living in limbo in Bangladesh, and along the Thai-Myanmar border.
- The Myanmar people have been practising a “people-to-people” approach to help one another on the ground. These on-ground responses are spontaneous and individually motivated, and thus more nimble, though not comparable to the more formalised external response in either scale or resources/funds available. However, the deteriorating conditions and instability in the country mean that the people-to-people approach is often the sole means of getting necessary assistance to communities and individuals.
- Myanmar diaspora communities are also assisting with fund-raising for humanitarian aid. Trust and social connections are essential in delivering such aid. Thus, localisation of aid through cross-border channels has proven effective in such cases.
- It is also crucial to correctly assess the current situation in Myanmar since well-intentioned interventions may end up causing unintended harm to communities. There is a need to bridge the gap in understanding between the political and humanitarian aspects of ASEAN’s response/interventions. ASEAN echoes the people-centred and problem-driven approach where the principles of “Do No Harm” and “No One Left Behind” are encouraged. This “Do No Harm” principle, which was practised during the 2008 Nargis response, is even more critical in the present day, as every action has political consequences.
3. The roles of regional and/or international actors in responding to Myanmar’s humanitarian needs arising from an event such as the coup.
- The reality of regional humanitarian responses, however, is that the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) and the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance (AHA Centre) are currently the only instruments that ASEAN has at its disposal for humanitarian assistance. These instruments were not designed to intervene in situations such as the current Myanmar crisis. ASEAN thus needs to be more creative in devising or discussing new instruments to meet current needs. It is also critical that all involved in such a response understand the limitations and the challenges.
- Following the people to people approach modus operandi, many local civil society actors and young people have been coordinating the delivery of food and other assistance to the communities in areas or localities where SAC security forces had responded brutally to protests. Diaspora efforts mentioned above, as well as networks such as ALTSEAN and the National Unity Government’s COVID-19 Task Force headed by Dr Cynthia Maung on the Thai-Myanmar border, have also tried to fill the gap of humanitarian needs on the ground.
- Myanmar’s seven-decade civil war situation had created comprehensive networks on the ground in the form of indigenous health and education service networks in East and Southeast Myanmar. Dr Cythia Maung’s clinic in Mae Tao has been serving over 100,000 patients annually including people crossing the border for their healthcare needs. ALTSEAN has also started an initiative on the intersecting impacts of COVID-19 and climate change. People on the ground understand that those solutions are necessary.
- Myanmar’s current health and social services infrastructure is already at breaking point. The Myanmar military has compounded this by destroying health checkpoints in the various ethnic regions. Therefore, immediate attention is needed on cross-border assistance. Human rights defenders have now become humanitarian workers.
- It is no longer sufficient to address the health and humanitarian needs in future responses. Building local economies independent of the massive interference imposed by the military regime is crucial for the future survival of communities.
- Anyone or entity wishing to assist the Myanmar people also needs to bear in mind that the situation seems more complex the further away from the grassroots. Viewed from the grassroot level and perspective, the people’s needs are simple and straightforward.
The discussion that followed the speaker’s remarks further probed questions into the importance of creativity in delivering aids, the importance of defining a ‘success’ criteria, specifics of ASEAN’s role in humanitarian assistance, overcoming the politicisation and weaponization of aid, specifics on Myanmar diaspora community’s support in the border areas, finding the local civil society networks trusted by the people on the ground, and accountability mechanisms including assurance of the aid delivery.