Losing the forest for the trees?

In order to lay part of the groundwork towards answering the broader questions of the Role of ‘Mandates’ Study, this report delves into some of the elements characterising the humanitarian response in Myanmar, based on the experiences of six of the participating organisations, as well as a range of other stakeholders.

As in many contexts before, providing a humanitarian response in Myanmar means managing tensions. The question of whether the needs make the presence of humanitarian actors imperative, or whether such a presence essentially serves to provide legitimacy to the government has been endemic in the country for decades. At the same time, the legacy of past organisational approaches was mostly based on what organisations could do given the limited operational space available. Aid agencies negotiate their role in Myanmar against their 'mandate' or mission and values and within the parameters set by the government. By honing in on what can be controlled, agencies tend to focus purely on the ‘technical’ side of aid delivery, instead of addressing the critical policy and ethical issues related to the identity of humanitarian action. An organisation can focus solely on its geographic areas of intervention without having a comprehensive outlook of the broader socio-political dynamics across the country. Similarly, an individual can ensure that he or she fulfils the details of their job description without recognising the larger networks of relationships. There are risks, however, in applying technical solutions to what is frequently purely political dilemmas, the main one being aid without impact. The often-unintended political consequences of humanitarian action may go unrecognised, and the space available for weighing and acknowledging the need for compromise may shrink. 

The overly strong focus on the tree also comes at the risk of losing the forest. Ultimately, there appears to be an over-fragmentation of approaches in response to contextual constraints in Myanmar. International NGOs tend to focus on their own individual sphere of influence – be it geographical or technical – to navigate the context. For some, protection activities drift towards services and assistance instead of being used as the underpinning notion of rights; quiet advocacy or even self-censorship become the norm as organisations wish to protect their own humanitarian space; bottom-up community-based interventions around peace and reconciliation remain disconnected from broader political processes. As seen in other contexts however, not least in Sri Lanka, it is as about collective behaviour as much as an individual one. With mounting evidence regarding war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Myanmar authorities, it will no longer be acceptable to hide behind a tree. All INGOs will be called to account for their actions or inactions both individually and collectively. In asking themselves existential questions and in reviewing their approaches, INGOs have an opportunity to leverage their individual role as per their mission to collectively better assist and protect all people in need – and ultimately answer the question of what it means to be an international actor in Myanmar.