United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs, House of Representatives 

INTERNATIONAL 

ORGANIZATIONS 

Assistance Programs 

Constrained in Burma 

April 2007 

 

GAO-07-457 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

April 2007

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Assistance Programs Constrained In 

Highlights of GAO-07-457, a report to the Burma 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of 

Representatives 

The United Nations and other international organizations have undertaken 

numerous efforts aimed at addressing Burma’s most pressing problems, 

which include forced labor, harsh prison conditions, ethnic conflict, an 

HIV/AIDS epidemic, and poverty. The International Labor Organization 

(ILO) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have sought

to monitor forced labor and prison conditions in Burma by allowing victims 

to voice their complaints without interference from the regime. The UN 

High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and ICRC seek to assist 

populations in conflict areas near Burma’s border with Thailand. 

International organizations also attempt to provide food to vulnerable 

populations, promote local economic development, improve health 

conditions, and strengthen the Burmese educational system. For example, 

several UN entities provide assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, 

tuberculosis, and drug abuse, as well as to improve reproductive health. 

Burma’s military regime has blocked or impeded activities undertaken by 

many international organizations in Burma over the past 3 years. In 2004,

the regime distanced itself from these organizations and began adopting 

increasingly restrictive policies. In 2006, it published formal guidelines to 

restrict international activities in Burma. These guidelines, which have yet to 

be fully implemented, contain provisions that UN officials consider to be 

unacceptable. The regime’s restrictions have had the greatest impact on 

international efforts to monitor prison conditions, investigate claims of 

forced labor, and assist victims of ethnic conflict. The regime has blocked 

ICRC efforts to monitor prison conditions and, until recently, ILO efforts to 

address forced labor. The regime has also restricted UNHCR and ICRC 

efforts to assist populations living in areas affected by ethnic conflict. To a 

lesser degree, the regime has impeded UN food, development, and health 

programs by restricting their ability to (1) move food and international staff 

freely within the country and (2) conduct research needed to determine the 

nature and scope of some of Burma’s problems. Despite these restrictions, 

several international organization officials told us they are still able to 

achieve meaningful results in their efforts to mitigate some of Burma’s 

humanitarian, health, and development problems. 

We asked the Department of State and officials of international 

organizations to comment on a draft of this report. State commented that 

the draft report was thorough, accurate, and balanced. The United Nations’ 

country team for Burma did not dispute our specific findings regarding the 

regime’s restrictions but expressed concern that that we had not noted that 

it had achieved “a significant opening of humanitarian space on the ground.” 

We believe that this statement is not consistent with information provided to 

us earlier by UN officials, who stated that conditions in Burma had 

deteriorated since the 2004 purge within the regime. Other comments and 

our responses to them are contained in appendixes II, III, and IV. 

Burma is one of the world’s most 

impoverished and isolated 

countries. The United Nations (UN) 

and other international 

organizations have become

important sources of outside

assistance to the country. In recent

years, UN entities have increased

their funding for activities aimed at 

addressing Burma’s problems. 

However, Burma’s military regime

has imposed restrictions on

international organizations’

activities in Burma. GAO (1) 

identified principal efforts of the 

United Nations and other

international organizations to 

address Burma’s problems and (2) 

described the impact of the 

regime’s recent actions on these 

efforts. We reviewed UN, U.S., and 

Burmese official documents and 

interviewed UN, U.S., Burmese, and

nongovernmental organization 

officials in the United States and

Burma. We also visited UN project 

sites in Burma. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-457.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Thomas Melito 

at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 4

International Organizations Are Undertaking Wide Range of Efforts 

to Address Burma’s Problems 11 

Burmese Military Regime Has Blocked or Impeded Activities of 

Many International Organizations 16 

Concluding Observations 26 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 26 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 29 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of State 31 

Appendix III Comments from the UN Country Team 33 

Appendix IV Comments from UNAIDS 39 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 41 

Figures 

Figure 1: Burma 7 

Figure 2: Reported UN Expenditures in Burma, 2002-2005 10 

Figure 3: Participants in a UNDP-Sponsored Small Banking Project 

near Bassein 15 

Page i GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Abbreviations 

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization 

ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross 

ILO International Labor Organization 

UN United Nations 

UNAIDS Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

UNCT United Nations Country Team 

UNDP United Nations Development Program 

UNFPA United Nations Population Fund 

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund 

UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 

WFP World Food Program 

WHO World Health Organization 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-07-457 International Organizations
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

April 6, 2007

The Honorable Tom Lantos 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

House of Representatives 

Burma is one of the world’s most impoverished and isolated countries.1

With a per capita national income level below those of neighboring 

Bangladesh and Laos, Burma suffers from high infant and maternal 

mortality rates, epidemic-level HIV/AIDS infections, and widespread 

production of illegal drugs. Burma’s isolation is largely the result of 

policies pursued by a succession of authoritarian military regimes that 

have ruled the country since 1962. According to the U.S. government, 

these regimes are responsible for Burma’s mismanaged economy, human 

rights abuses, use of forced labor, human trafficking, and military 

campaigns against ethnic minority groups. During Burma’s last election in

1990, Burmese citizens voted to oust the regime in favor of the National 

League for Democracy, led by Aung San Suu Kyi.2

 However, the regime 

confined her and many other League members, and continued to rule 

despite international condemnation of its actions. The regime’s repressive 

policies have prompted the United States and other Western nations to 

end their foreign aid programs to Burma and enact a range of sanctions. 

In 2006, the Burmese regime announced new restrictions on international

organizations operating in Burma. These organizations have become 

important sources of outside assistance to Burma’s approximately 54 

million people as Burma has become increasingly isolated.3 They include 

 1

Since 1989, Burma’s military rulers have promoted “Myanmar” as the name for the country

of Burma. In accordance with U.S. government policy, this report refers to the country as 

Burma and not as “Myanmar.” 

2

Aung San Suu Kyi was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. 

3

The United States helps fund some UN programs in Burma and also funds Burmese 

democracy programs and humanitarian aid to Burmese refugees outside of the country. 

About $11 million was appropriated for these activities, as well as additional activities 

related to Burma, for fiscal year 2006 in the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and 

Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-102. 

Page 1 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
the United Nations (UN), the International Committee of the Red Cross 

(ICRC), and various international nongovernmental organizations. The 

regime’s actions have raised concerns regarding the extent to which these 

organizations will be able to continue their assistance efforts. 

In this report, we (1) identify the principal efforts of the UN and other 

international organizations to address Burma’s problems and (2) describe 

the impact of the regime’s recent actions on the activities of these 

international organizations. To address these issues, we examined 

documents relating to programs conducted in Burma by the UN Country 

Team (which includes 10 UN entities located in that country) and the 

restrictions imposed on them by the Burmese regime.4

 In New York and 

Washington, D.C., we met with officials of the U.S. Departments of State 

(State) and the Treasury, the United Nations, the World Bank, and the 

International Monetary Fund. We also met with the Burmese UN mission 

in New York. In Rangoon, Burma, we met with officials of UN entities, 

ICRC, and several international nongovernmental organizations who asked 

that we not identify their organizations in this report. In addition, we met 

with officials of the U.S. embassy and of the leading democratic 

organization in Burma. In and near Rangoon and Bassein, Burma, we met 

with recipients of UN assistance. We also traveled to Nay Pyi Taw 

(Burma’s newly built capital) to meet with officials from the Burmese 

Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development and the 

Ministry of Health. In Bangkok, Thailand, we met with officials from three 

additional UN entities that operate programs in Burma from Thailand,5 as 

well as with representatives of other donor nations. 

We conducted our work from May 2006 through February 2007 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. More 

details on our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I. 

 4

UN entities with offices in Burma are the Food and Agriculture Organization, International

Labor Organization, UN Children’s Fund, UN Development Program, Joint United Nations

Program on HIV/AIDS, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UN Office on Drugs and 

Crime, UN Population Fund, World Health Organization, and World Food Program. 

5

The three UN entities that operate programs in Burma from Thailand are the UN

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Inter-Agency Project on Human 

Trafficking in the Greater Mekong Sub-Region; and the UN Industrial Development

Organization. 

Page 2 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
The United Nations and other international organizations have undertaken 

numerous efforts to address some of Burma’s most pressing problems. 

These efforts include programs aimed at mitigating the effects of prison 

conditions, forced labor, and conflicts in Burma’s ethnic areas. ICRC has 

attempted to monitor prison conditions in Burma, while the International 

Labor Organization (ILO) has sought to allow victims of forced labor to 

file complaints without interference from the regime. The UN High 

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and ICRC have worked to assist the 

population in conflict areas near Burma’s border with Thailand. 

International organizations are also attempting to provide food to 

vulnerable populations, promote local economic development, improve 

health conditions, and strengthen the Burmese educational system. For 

example, two UN entities have provided food and agricultural support to 

vulnerable populations, while the UN Development Program has created

village- and township-level community development and small banking 

groups. Several UN entities have provided assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, 

malaria, and tuberculosis, as well as to improve reproductive health and

combat the manufacture and use of dangerous drugs. The UN Children’s 

Fund is working to address health and educational problems affecting 

Burmese children. 

Results in Brief 

Burma’s military regime has blocked or impeded activities undertaken by 

many international organizations in Burma over the past 3 years. After 

ousting the former Prime Minister in 2004, the regime distanced itself from 

the international organizations and began adopting increasingly restrictive 

policies. In 2006, it published formal guidelines to restrict international 

activities in Burma. These guidelines, which have yet to be fully 

implemented, contain provisions that UN officials consider to be 

unacceptable. The regime’s increased restrictions have had the greatest 

impact on international efforts focused on prison conditions, forced labor, 

and ethnic conflict. The regime has blocked ICRC efforts to monitor 

prison conditions and frustrated ILO efforts to monitor forced labor for 

four years before signing an agreement with ILO in February 2007. The 

regime also significantly restricted UNHCR and ICRC efforts to assist 

populations living in areas affected by ethnic conflict. To a lesser degree, 

the regime has also impeded UN food, development, and health programs 

by restricting their ability to (1) move food and international staff freely 

within the country and (2) conduct research needed to determine the 

nature and scope of some of Burma’s problems. Despite these restrictions, 

several international organization officials told us they are still able to 

achieve meaningful results in their efforts to mitigate some of Burma’s 

humanitarian, health, and development problems. 

Page 3 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of 

State and cognizant UN and ICRC officials. We received written comments 

from State, the UN Country Team in Burma, and the Joint UN Programme

on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), which are reprinted in appendixes II, III, and IV, 

along with our responses to specific points. State commented that the 

draft report was thorough, accurate, and balanced and that it would 

continue to encourage the regime to lift its unnecessary and unreasonable 

restrictions on international organizations. The UN Country Team agreed 

that international agencies are able to achieve meaningful results in Burma 

despite what it termed “a difficult and complex environment.” However, 

while it did not dispute our specific findings about the regime’s 

restrictions, the UN Country Team expressed concern that our draft report 

did not note that the United Nations and its partners had achieved “a 

significant opening of humanitarian space on the ground” over the past 

decade. This statement is in contrast to information UN officials had 

provided earlier stating that conditions had deteriorated since the 2004 

purge within the regime. The UN Country Team also noted that on 

February 26, 2007, ILO and Burma had signed an agreement establishing a 

complaints mechanism for victims of forced labor. We have updated our 

report to reflect this change, which took place after we submitted our 

draft report for comment. The UN Country Team also said our report did 

not adequately reflect the nature of the UN entities’ work and the 

differences in their mandates. We believe we fairly describe the entities’ 

work in our first objective. While our draft report noted that UNDP has a 

restricted mandate prohibiting it from working with the government, we 

added language stating that other UN entities’ mandates do not have 

similar restrictions. UNAIDS commented that it appreciated our 

recognition of progress despite difficulties but added that the draft report 

could contain more evidence of this progress. We believe we fairly 

described UNAIDS’ work in our draft report. 

Military regimes have ruled Burma for most of the past 45 years. The 

current regime took power in 1988. In Burma’s last election in 1990, 

Burmese citizens voted to oust the regime in favor of the National League 

for Democracy. The regime confined the League’s leader (Aung San Suu

Kyi) and many of the League’s members, and continued to rule Burma 

despite international condemnation. As of September 2006, the regime was 

holding more than 1,100 political prisoners under conditions that State has 

described as “harsh.” Amnesty International reported that the regime has

Background 

Page 4 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
subjected Burmese political prisoners to torture and ill-treatment that has 

resulted in the deaths of some prisoners.6

 The regime has also condoned

the use of forced labor and taken military action against ethnic groups 

living in areas within Burma. According to the U.S. government, Burmese 

campaigns against ethnic minorities in conflict regions may have displaced 

as many as 500,000 persons. Due in part to the country’s widespread 

violations of human rights, The Fund for Peace ranked Burma among the 

world’s top 20 most unstable countries,7

 while Transparency International 

ranked Burma 1.9 on a corruption scale ranging from 0 (highly corrupt) to 

10 (highly clean).8

Burma is also one of the world’s most impoverished countries. In 2006, the 

UN Development Program (UNDP) ranked Burma 130 out of 177 countries 

in its annual human development index based on economic and social 

indicators.9

 The U.S. government has ranked Burma’s per capita gross 

domestic product 186 out of 229 countries and territories—below those of 

neighboring Bangladesh and Laos. Both infant and maternal mortality 

rates are high in Burma. Humanitarian needs are particularly acute in the 

border areas that have been afflicted for many years by conflict and 

instability, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. 

HIV/AIDS has become a generalized epidemic, with approximately 1.3 

percent of the population suffering from the virus. According to UN 

officials, the quality of education in Burma has been declining from 

formerly high levels. Low educational attainment is depriving many 

Burmese children of a good start in life and significantly lowering their 

income opportunities and productivity as adults, according to the United 

Nations. The weak education system also has long-term implications for 

the country’s ability to develop. According to the most recent World Bank 

data available to the public, the regime spent less during 2001 and 2003 on 

health and education in terms of percentage of gross domestic product 

than Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Laos, which are other low-income 

nations in the region. Burma has also emerged as a leading opium and 

 6

See Amnesty International, Myanmar’s Political Prisoners: A Growing Legacy of 

Injustice (June 2005), which can be viewed at

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa160192005. 

7

Foreign Policy and The Fund for Peace, 2006 Failed State Index. 

8

Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2006. 

9

UNDP’s indicators include life expectancy, literacy rates, and per capita income. 

Page 5 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
methamphetamine producer and a source of human trafficking, according

to the U.S. government. 

The regime’s leadership and policies have undergone shifts since it took 

power. Beginning in 1989, the regime began signing cease-fire agreements 

with some of Burma’s ethnic groups. In 2002, it released the winner of the 

1990 election. In 2003, Burma’s newly appointed Prime Minister began

offering the United Nations expanded opportunities to address some of 

Burma’s problems. However, the regime subsequently renewed military 

activities against minorities along Burma’s border with Thailand, 

reconfined the winner of the 1990 election, and, after purging the Prime 

Minister from power in October 2004, issued new restrictions on 

international organizations in Burma. In November 2005, the regime 

announced that it was moving Burma’s capital from Rangoon to Nay Pyi 

Taw, which is more than 200 miles from the Rangoon headquarters offices 

of international organizations working in Burma (see fig. 1). 

Page 6 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Figure 1: Burma 

Page 7 GAO-07-457 International Organizations

Dhaka

Phnom Penh

Vientiane

Bangkok

CHINA

BURMA

THAILAND

CAMBODIA

BHUTAN

VIETNAM

LAOS

BANGLADESH

INDIA

Kayin 

State Ayeyarwady 

Division

Bago 

Division

Magway 

Division

 Mandalay 

Division

Sagaing 

Division

Tanintharyi 

Division

Yangon 

Division

Chin 

State

Kachin 

State

Kayah 

State

Mon 

State

Rakhine 

State

Shan 

State 

Sources: GAO analysis of UN and U.S. government data; Map Resources (map).

Mandalay Monywa

Nay Pyi Taw

Bassein Rangoon

Sittwe

Previous capital

New capital
The regime’s actions have prompted the United States to impose a variety

of sanctions. The United States has banned the importation of Burmese 

goods, the export of financial services and arms by U.S. persons to Burma,

and new U.S. investment in Burma. It has barred high-ranking Burmese 

officials from visiting the United States. The United States also proposed a 

UN Security Council resolution that would have called upon the regime to 

cease attacks on civilians in ethnic minority areas and begin a substantive 

political dialogue that would lead to a transition to democracy.10 In 

addition, it has supported UN resolutions on Burma, such as those passed 

by the UN General Assembly in response to the human rights situation in 

Burma. According to State, U.S. objectives for Burma include the release

of political prisoners, the start of a credible and inclusive national 

reconciliation process, the ending of forced labor and attacks on civilians, 

and increased access for UN organizations and nongovernmental 

organizations. 

While several other nations have imposed sanctions on Burma, China has 

strengthened its ties with that country. Australia, Canada, and the 

European Union have joined the United States in imposing some form of 

sanctions against the regime, according to State. In contrast, China has 

increased its commercial presence in Burma, emerged as Burma’s largest 

single source of imports (about 30 percent in 2005), and become a strong 

market for Burmese exports. In addition, the current Burmese Prime 

Minister visited Beijing in February 2006 and signed agreements with 

Chinese officials that will provide Burma with grants and concessionary 

loans. 

Burma has also become increasingly isolated from the World Bank, the 

Asian Development Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. The 

World Bank reported that it has not approved any new loans to Burma 

since 1987 and has no plans to resume its program. Burma is currently in

arrears to the World Bank and has not enacted economic and other 

reforms. The Asian Development Bank and the International Monetary 

Fund have not made new loans to Burma since the 1980s. 

The United Nations and several international organizations have become 

an important source of outside assistance to the country. UN entities 

informed us that they had spent about $218 million in Burma from 2002 

through 2005. In 2005, more than 70 percent of these funds were spent by 

 10The resolution was vetoed by China and Russia. 

Page 8 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
UNDP, the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food Program 

(WFP), as shown in figure 2.11 Of the remaining agencies, the UN World 

Health Organization (WHO) informed us it spent about $4.9 million in 

Burma during 2005, while UNHCR and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) 

informed us they had each spent about $4.3 million. The UN Office on 

Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the Food and Agriculture Organization 

(FAO) reported they had spent about $3 million and about $2 million, 

respectively, in Burma during the same year. ILO informed us it spent 

about $321,000 in Burma during 2005, while UNAIDS reported it spent 

about $691,000. 

 11UNDP and WFP reported significant increases in their spending in Burma in 2005. 

According to UNDP officials, UNDP funding increased to about $23 million in 2005 as a

result of the former Prime Minister’s decision to allow UNDP to expand into certain areas. 

According to WFP officials, WFP funding increased approximately $6 million between 2004 

and 2005 as it provided assistance to an increased number of families affected by the

regime’s 1999 plan to eradicate poppy production over a 15-year period. We did not assess 

the reliability of UN expenditure data because we used it for background purposes only. 

Page 9 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Figure 2: Reported UN Expenditures in Burma, 2002-2005 

U.S. dollars (in millions)

Year

Sources: UN organizations.

2002 2003 2004 2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Other UN entities

World Food Program

UN Children’s Fund

UN Development Program

43%

4%

36%

17%

36%

5%

36%

23%

40%

7%

29%

25%

27%

13%

27%

33%

Note: Percentages may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. 

The United States has provided financial support for some UN programs in 

Burma. For example, it has helped fund programs conducted in Burma by 

UNICEF. U.S. law requires that the United States withhold a proportionate 

share of its voluntary contributions to most UN organizations in

connection with their programs in Burma. For example, the United States

Page 10 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
has withheld a proportionate share of its voluntary contributions to UNDP 

because UNDP conducts programs in Burma.12

UNDP’s governing board has also limited the scope of UNDP’s mandate to 

conduct programs in Burma. UNDP’s governing board, which includes the 

United States, has directed UNDP to work directly with the Burmese 

people at the grass roots level and not through the regime. State has 

requested and obtained annual assurances from UNDP that UNDP’s 

Burma program is focused on the needs of the poor, does not provide any 

benefits to the regime, and works only through organizations that are 

independent of the regime.

13 Other UN entities are not restricted from 

working with the Burmese regime by their mandates. 

The United Nations and other international organizations have undertaken 

numerous efforts to address some of Burma’s most pressing problems. 

These efforts include programs aimed at addressing prison conditions, 

forced labor, and conflicts in Burma’s ethnic areas. International 

organizations are also attempting to provide food security to vulnerable 

populations, promote local economic development, detect and treat 

HIV/AIDS and other diseases, and strengthen the educational system. 

International 

Organizations Are 

Undertaking Wide 

Range of Efforts to 

Address Burma’s 

Problems 

 12Section 301 of chapter 3 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (Pub. L. 87-

195), states that “the President is authorized to make voluntary contributions on a grant 

basis to international organizations and to programs administered by such

organizations....” Section 307 of the act specifies that “none of the funds authorized to be 

appropriated by this chapter shall be available for the United States’ proportionate share 

for programs for Burma....” with the exception of contributions to UNICEF and the 

International Atomic Energy Agency. Under Section 307, State withheld more than $905,000

from its fiscal year 2004 voluntary contributions to UNDP in connection with programs in

Burma. 

13State has also obtained UNDP assurances that UNDP has consulted Burmese prodemocracy groups regarding its program in Burma. Congress included similar conditions in

a provision of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations

Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-113, § 108, 113 Stat. 1501, 

1501A-417 (1999). This provision, which is no longer in effect, specified that of the funds 

made available for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for voluntary contributions to UNDP, the 

United States would withhold “an amount equal to the amount” that UNDP spent in Burma 

unless State certified that all UNDP programs met the act’s conditions. 

Page 11 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
ICRC and ILO are attempting to address issues involving prison and forced 

labor conditions in Burma. ICRC has attempted to monitor prison 

conditions in Burma, while ILO has sought to allow victims of forced labor 

to file complaints without interference from the regime. 

ICRC and ILO Attempt to 

Monitor Prison and Labor 

Conditions 

ICRC has sought to improve Burmese prison conditions by meeting with 

inmates unaccompanied by Burmese officials. In accordance with its 

international mandate of visiting prisoners during situations of internal 

violence and their consequences, ICRC began visiting Burmese prisons in 

1999 following 13 years of negotiations with the regime. According to 

ICRC officials and documents, ICRC staff conducted about 450 prison 

visits between 1999 and 2005. ICRC staff informed us that while they do 

not allow regime officials to accompany them during prison visits, they 

have worked with regime ministries to improve prison health conditions 

and to help prisoners contact their families. According to ICRC, the prison 

visit program has helped improve prisoners’ physical and psychological

well-being. 

To address the problem of forced labor in Burma, ILO has recently 

succeeded in establishing an independent mechanism to handle 

complaints from victims of this practice. ILO is charged with defining 

international labor standards, including an internationally recognized ban 

on the use of forced labor.14 In 1998, an ILO inquiry reported that it had 

found “abundant evidence” of the “pervasive use of forced labour imposed

on the civilian population...by the authorities and the military” in Burma. 

Following negotiations with ILO, Burma agreed in 2002 to allow ILO to 

station a liaison officer for forced labor issues in Rangoon. In 2003, Burma 

agreed in principle to an ILO plan of action that called for the 

establishment of a non-Burmese facilitator for forced labor issues. This 

facilitator would receive and investigate complaints of forced labor 

provided in confidence and would then work with the regime to resolve 

the complaints while protecting the rights of the complainant.

 14The Forced Labour Convention, adopted on June 28, 1930 in Geneva, Switzerland,

prohibits the use of forced labor, as defined in the convention. The convention may be

found at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/31.htm. Burma ratified the convention in 

1955. 

Page 12 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
International organizations are also attempting to help populations in 

areas of Burma that have been marked by tension or conflict between 

regime forces and ethnic groups, according to officials of international 

organizations. These organizations include UNHCR and ICRC. 

UNHCR is currently working in two areas that have been subject to ethnic 

tensions. Near Burma’s border with Bangladesh, UNHCR is serving as the 

lead international agency in engaging the regime on protection issues 

affecting a large population of stateless Muslims, including more than 

200,000 former refugees who began returning to Burma from Bangladesh 

in 1993. According to UNHCR, it is coordinating the work of several other 

international organizations in providing needed support to this population.

UNHCR is also attempting to address the needs of persons living in three 

provinces near Burma’s southeastern border with Thailand, where military 

campaigns have displaced large numbers of villagers. As a result of these 

campaigns, many thousands of Karen, Karenni, and Mon ethnic groups 

have crossed the border into Thailand. A senior UNHCR official told us 

that UNHCR was granted access to these areas in 2004 as part of a 

contingency plan for the possible repatriation of these refugees. 

ICRC has also sought to assist and protect populations in conflict areas. 

ICRC officials informed us that ICRC teams travel to these areas to 

persuade fighting forces to avoid harming civilians and to help civilians 

who have already been harmed. The teams, which include medical 

personnel and interpreters, have operated from ICRC field offices. ICRC 

officials informed us that ICRC policy calls for the teams to travel freely in 

these areas without regime supervision. They stated that they do not notify 

authorities of each team’s activities, although they must ask for permission 

to establish field offices. 

UN and other international organizations have launched a wide range of 

assistance programs in Burma to address Burma’s many social and health

problems. These problems include food shortages, poverty, threats to 

public health, and a deficient and declining educational system. 

International organizations have sought to address food shortages in 

Burma, including those affecting displaced populations along Burma’s 

borders as well as other areas where malnutrition is increasingly 

prevalent. 

International 

Organizations Seek to Aid 

Populations in Conflict 

Areas 

International 

Organizations Aim to 

Address Burmese 

Development and Health 

Needs 

• WFP, the emergency food aid arm of the United Nations, has sought to 

provide food to vulnerable populations in Burma that suffer from hunger, 

Page 13 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
malnutrition, and poverty and have been adversely affected by regime 

policies. WFP delivers food assistance to northwestern Burmese Muslim 

populations and to families from mostly ethnic minority groups who lost 

their main livelihood under a regime ban on opium cultivation. WFP 

implements food assistance programs for students and landless workers, 

and provides nutrition support for mothers and young children. WFP 

implements its programs with cooperating partners such as other UN 

entities or nongovernmental organizations rather than the regime. WFP 

has also provided emergency food assistance to families affected by the 

2005 tsunami disaster and has responded to other localized food crises, 

such as floods and crop failures. 

• FAO helps developing countries improve and modernize practices in 

agriculture, livestock and fisheries, and forestry by providing technical 

cooperation, expertise, and information, and by bringing knowledge to the 

field. For example, in northwest Burma, FAO works with foreign donors to 

provide support for agricultural resource management and promotes seed

projects to improve food security for refugees returning from Bangladesh.

FAO has also provided technical assistance to strengthen Burma’s 

emergency preparedness for avian influenza and to aid tsunami-affected

areas. 

UNDP is currently operating several major programs at the grass roots 

level that seek to address poverty in Burma. These programs include 

projects aimed at strengthening the capacity of poor communities to 

address their basic needs, in part through the creation of community 

development groups. In 2005, UNDP expanded its operations to include a 

greater number of poor communities in selected remote townships. It was 

able to retain access to several formerly inaccessible townships after the 

ouster of the former Prime Minister who had invited UNDP to establish 

itself in them. It has also supported the creation of small banking networks 

that provide financial services to producers in selected poor villages, 

including the one pictured in figure 3. UNDP has also worked with other 

UN entities to secure funding from other international donors to establish 

a major campaign against the spread of AIDS and other infectious diseases 

in Burma. 

Page 14 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Figure 3: Participants in a UNDP-Sponsored Small Banking Project near Bassein

International organizations have also sought to address threats to public 

health in Burma. Several UN entities have provided assistance to combat 

HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis; to support the country capacity in 

both the human and animal sectors for avian and human influenza 

pandemic preparedness and response; and to improve reproductive health 

and combat the manufacture and use of dangerous drugs. 

Source: GAO.

• UNAIDS is a joint effort of 10 UN entities that aims to prevent new HIV 

infections, provide care for those already infected, and mitigate the impact

of the epidemic. Using available data on HIV/AIDS prevalence, UN entities

aim to promote condom usage; raise awareness on prevention methods; 

provide care, treatment, and support for people living with HIV/AIDS; and 

take other actions. 

• WHO, the UN authority on international health, provides technical 

cooperation on health matters to Burma and other member states. WHO’s 

priorities for Burma include preventing and controlling diseases such as 

HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis and vaccine-preventable diseases 

Page 15 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
such as polio, measles, and neonatal tetanus and tuberculosis; 

strengthening health systems; improving child, adolescent, and 

reproductive health; and strengthening Burma’s ability to address avian 

and human influenza. 

• UNFPA assists countries such as Burma in providing quality reproductive 

health and family planning services and formulates population policies 

that support sustainable development. UNFPA’s assistance to Burma has 

focused on reducing maternal mortality and preventing the spread of 

HIV/AIDS by improving reproductive health information and services and

by providing reproductive health commodities. 

• UNODC operates several programs in Burma, including efforts to reduce 

demand for injecting drugs and the transmission of HIV among and from 

users of injecting drugs. Implementation of these programs is 

concentrated in areas near certain border areas where the prevalence of 

HIV and drug abuse is high. According to UNODC, it has supported almost 

2,400 individuals in accessing drug treatment and rehabilitation services, 

while about 12,000 youth accessed its youth development centers and 

more than 6,500 individuals accessed UNODC health care services. 

UNODC has other programs in Burma, including programs to help define 

alternative livelihoods for families who lost their main livelihood under a 

regime ban on opium cultivation. 

UNICEF also conducts a range of activities that include programs aimed at 

addressing deficiencies in Burma’s educational system and improving 

women and children’s health. Based on educational data to which it has 

access, UNICEF works with Burma’s Ministry of Education to promote 

comprehensive quality education in Burma. UNICEF has supported 

projects in early childhood development, quality basic education, life 

skills, and HIV/AIDS prevention education. It has also provided school 

supplies to children from poor families and supported local parent-teacher

associations and teachers in improving the learning environment for 

children. 

According to officials of international organizations, Burma’s regime has 

blocked or impeded activities undertaken by many international 

organizations following its ouster of the former Prime Minister in 2004. It 

has blocked international efforts to monitor prison conditions, and, until 

recently, forced labor cases. The regime has also significantly restricted 

international assistance to populations living in conflict areas, and, to a 

lesser degree, impeded food, development, and health programs. Despite 

these actions, many of the international officials we spoke with told us 

Burmese Military 

Regime Has Blocked 

or Impeded Activities 

of Many International 

Organizations 

Page 16 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
that they are still able to achieve meaningful results in their efforts to 

mitigate some of Burma’s many problems. 

The Burmese military regime became more restrictive regarding activities

of international organizations after it purged the former Prime Minister in 

October 2004, according to officials of international organizations now 

working in Burma. The regime formalized its restrictions on the 

international organizations in 2006 by publishing guidelines to govern their 

activities in Burma. The guidelines, if fully implemented, would further 

tighten regime controls over these activities and contain provisions that 

UN officials consider to be unacceptable. 

International organization officials informed us that the regime had 

become more restrictive of their activities since 2004. While the regime 

allowed UNDP to proceed with a previously agreed upon expansion of its 

programs into certain remote villages, international organization officials

told us that the regime had otherwise increased restrictions on 

international access to conflict areas. The regime has also begun 

pressuring some international organizations to work more closely with 

regime-sponsored political mobilization groups, such as the Union 

Solidarity Development Association. A senior UN official in Burma told us 

that since 2004 the regime has made the operating environment for UN 

organizations far more difficult than before. He noted that the regime had 

distanced itself from international organizations. Other officials told us 

that their organizations were unable to make contact with regime officials 

for months after October 2004. International organization staff also 

reported that a lack of coordination and consistency between regime 

ministry staff and between local commanders led to delays in international 

programs and approvals of needed agreements. 

The effect of the regime’s withdrawal has been compounded by its 

decision to distance itself physically from the international organizations. 

In 2006, the regime moved its officials to the new capital, Nay Pyi Taw, 

which is more than 200 miles inland from Rangoon. As a result, Rangoonbased international organization officials must now spend several hours 

traveling by car and airplane to meet with government officials who were 

formerly located in Rangoon. 

Regime Has Become More 

Restrictive Since 2004 

Page 17 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
The regime moved to formalize restrictions on the international 

organizations in February 2006, when the Burmese Ministry of National 

Planning and Economic Development published guidelines governing 

international organizations’ programs in Burma.15 A senior official of the 

Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development told us that the 

guidelines are intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the 

international organizations’ programs by improving coordination and 

eliminating duplicative programs. The official also stated that the 

guidelines would help address the tendency of some international 

humanitarian entities to become involved in what she referred to as 

“political matters.” The ministry disseminated differing English and 

Burmese language versions of the guidelines. A UN-provided translation of 

the Burmese language version revealed that it contains several restrictions 

not included in the English language version. A senior ministry official told 

us that the Burmese language version is intended to help Burmese local 

officials better understand the English language version of the guidelines. 

The provisions in the two versions of the guidelines would restrict several 

aspects of international organizations’ activities in Burma. For example, 

the guidelines would require the international organizations to

• agree that their international staff may only travel within Burma with 

permission from the subject area ministry and with a regime 

representative; 

• obtain prior approval of all international projects by subject area 

ministries and by the Ministry of National Planning and Economic 

Development; 

• avoid conducting or distributing any surveys not mentioned and approved

in the original project documentation;

• deposit all incoming funds in Burma’s national bank for subsequent 

withdrawal as “foreign exchange credits”; 

 15Burmese Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development, Guidelines for UN 

Agencies, International Organizations, NGO/INGOs on Cooperation Programs in 

Myanmar (February 2006). 

Page 18 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
• agree that their programs will “enhance and safeguard the national 

interest,” “prevent infringement of the sovereignty of the State,” and “be on 

the right track...to contributing to the socio-economic development of the 

Nation”; 

• coordinate their work with local and state coordinating committees that 

include representatives of the Union Solidarity Development Association 

and similar groups; and

• select their Burmese national staff from government-prepared lists of 

individuals.

The extent to which the regime will fully implement these guidelines is 

unclear. High-ranking officials of the Ministry of National Planning and 

Economic Development and the Ministry of Health told us that the 

guidelines are now in effect and are not being negotiated. UN officials, 

who have taken the lead in speaking for all international organizations 

regarding the guidelines, informed us that they continue to try to engage 

the regime in discussions regarding the guidelines. 

A senior UN official familiar with the full range of UN programs in Burma 

told us that the United Nations has informed regime officials that the last 

three of the above restrictions are not acceptable to the United Nations. 

According to this official, the United Nations cannot agree that its 

programs would support the regime’s definitions of the national interest 

because UN humanitarian assistance must be apolitical. For the same 

reason, he told us, the United Nations could not work with committees 

that include the Union Solidarity Development Association and similar 

organizations. Other international organization officials also informed us 

that they would not agree to allow the regime to select their Burmese staff 

members. 

According to ICRC officials, the regime has blocked ICRC monitoring of 

prison conditions. The regime has halted ICRC’s prison visit program by 

insisting that pro-regime staff observe ICRC meetings with prisoners. ICRC

staff told us that the regime appeared to have reassessed its view of ICRC 

and other international organizations in 2004. According to ICRC officials, 

in September 2005 the Burmese Ministry of Home Affairs suddenly 

demanded that representatives of the Union Solidarity Development 

Association accompany ICRC staff on all prison visits. ICRC refused the 

ministry’s demand, given ICRC’s policy of protecting the confidentiality of

Regime Has Blocked ICRC 

Initiative to Monitor Prison 

Conditions 

Page 19 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
its discussions with inmates. As a result, the ministry has denied ICRC 

access to Burmese prisons since the end of December 2005. 

The regime frustrated ILO efforts to conclude an agreement establishing 

an independent complaints process for forced labor victims for 4 years 

until signing an agreement with ILO in February 2007. In 2003, Burma 

agreed in principle to establish such a process. ILO relations with the 

regime deteriorated after October 2004. In the absence of a final 

agreement on the establishment of an independent complaints mechanism, 

the ILO liaison officer worked with regime officials to informally address 

complaints of forced labor. However, he stopped doing so after the regime 

began to arrest and prosecute complainants. Three individuals were 

sentenced to death for allegedly contacting ILO. In 2005, the Union 

Solidarity Development Association staged mass anti-ILO rallies, while the 

ILO liaison officer reported receiving 21 similarly worded death threats. 

Following ILO expressions of concern about the situation, the regime 

released the imprisoned complainants, agreed to not prosecute 

complainants for the next 6 months, and began negotiating a new 

“understanding” with ILO to protect complainant rights. These 

negotiations deadlocked in October 2006 after regime officials objected to 

language in the draft understanding that would have allowed the liaison 

officer to employ a sufficiently large staff with the diplomatic and travel 

rights needed to meet with complainants in a timely and confidential 

manner. ILO and the regime subsequently agreed that necessary 

adjustments to the liaison officer’s staff capacity would be made “after due 

consultation,” and ILO announced on February 26, 2007, that it had 

reached an agreement with Burma to establish a complaints mechanism 

for victims of forced labor. Prior to the signing of this agreement, ILO had 

no project activities under way in Burma because of the regime’s policies.

According to officials of international organizations, the regime has 

impeded international efforts to address the needs of populations in 

conflict areas by restricting international access to those areas. It has 

limited UNHCR efforts along the Thai border, while halting or impeding 

efforts in conflict areas by ICRC and other organizations. 

A senior UN official familiar with the full range of UN activities in Burma 

informed us that the regime’s refusal to allow free access to conflict areas 

is one of the most important restrictions faced by international 

organizations in that country. The official contrasted the current regime’s 

Burmese Regime Blocked 

ILO Efforts until Recently 

Regime Has Restricted 

International Efforts in 

Certain Conflict Areas 

Page 20 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
policies with those of the former Prime Minister, who expanded 

opportunities for UNDP to work in previously closed parts of Burma. 

The current regime’s policies have particularly affected efforts by UNHCR 

to assist displaced persons in the southeast region near the border with 

Thailand. UNHCR officials told us that UNHCR operating conditions in the 

southeast region near the border had deteriorated sharply in 2005. 

Previously, according to UNHCR, the agency had been developing plans 

for the anticipated repatriation of thousands of refugees from the Thai side 

of the border, with the support of the Prime Minister in assessing the 

region’s capacity to support returning refugees.16 These conditions, along 

with the prospects for a political settlement between the regime and a 

Karen organization, changed after the Prime Minister’s removal. The 

regime’s Ministry of Interior initially ignored UNHCR’s efforts to restart 

discussions before reassigning UNHCR to a less influential ministry. More

importantly, the resumption of military operations in the area convinced 

UNHCR that conditions were no longer conducive to the return of 

refugees. 

The regime has also resisted UNHCR’s subsequent efforts to assist 

communities on the Burmese side of the border that have been affected by

the displacement of persons within the area. UNHCR officials told us that 

restrictions on UNHCR’s access to several areas have impeded the 

agency’s efforts to improve its fragmented understanding of the 

population’s needs and its capacity to address them. The regime, which 

denies that internally displaced persons are in the region, has not allowed

UNHCR to access certain border areas that it does not control. While 

UNHCR has been allowed to implement certain “quick impact” projects 

(such as the building of schools and bridges) in some 300 villages, UNHCR 

considers these projects to be only a first step toward fulfilling its 

protection objectives. Because regime officials closely monitor these 

projects, UNHCR staff cannot easily meet with villagers to improve 

UNHCR’s understanding of the problems facing internally displaced 

persons. A senior UNHCR official in Burma told us that UNHCR does not 

want to jeopardize its already limited access to the region or to put the 

local population at risk by holding public meetings on protection issues. 

 16Over 150,000 Burmese refugees live in camps along the border in Thailand, according to

officials of a nongovernmental organization that works on the Burma-Thailand border.

UNHCR and international organizations, such as the Thailand Burma Border Consortium,

assist these refugees. The consortium’s efforts in Thailand are partially funded by the

United States. 

Page 21 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
The regime has halted ICRC’s efforts to assist and protect civilians in 

conflict areas over the past 2-1/2 years. ICRC staff informed us that the 

regime began restricting ICRC’s access to conflict areas after October 

2004. ICRC staff also told us that regime authorities had begun demanding

that representatives of the Union Solidarity Development Association 

accompany ICRC teams in certain conflict areas. ICRC staff stated that 

allowing regime representatives to do so would compromise the 

independence of ICRC’s role in these areas. ICRC staff estimated that 

between 2002 and October 2006, regime actions reduced the scope of 

ICRC’s assistance and protection effort by 90 percent. The regime then 

ordered ICRC to close its five field offices in Burma, including those that 

served as bases for ICRC conflict area teams. ICRC stated that the 

closures will make it impossible for it to carry out most of its assistance 

and protection work for civilians in the conflict areas. According to State 

and ICRC officials, the regime has since allowed ICRC to reopen the field 

offices but has not allowed ICRC to resume humanitarian assistance 

programs out of the offices. The regime now insists that ICRC follow strict 

guidelines that do not allow space for independent movements by teams 

as in the past, according to a senior ICRC official in Burma. 

Several other international organizations reported similar difficulties in 

sensitive regions of Burma. FAO staff reported that local police had barred 

them from traveling to villages in Shan State to question people regarding

food supplies. UNICEF staff stated that they had difficulties accessing 

parts of the country. WHO also lacks access to populations in certain 

areas. A representative of an international nongovernmental organization

told us that the regime began strictly enforcing its ban on access to 

conflict areas after 2004.

Officials of international organizations informed us that the regime has 

also impeded international food, development, and health programs. They 

stated that it has done so by restricting their ability to (1) move food and 

international personnel freely within Burma and (2) gather data needed to 

understand the scope and nature of Burma’s problems. 

The regime’s policies on travel have hindered international organizations’ 

efforts to ship food to vulnerable populations within the country. For 

example, delays in obtaining transport permits for food commodities from 

the current regime have hindered WFP efforts to deliver food to vulnerable

populations. A senior WFP official told us that WFP has not always been 

able to deliver food on schedule because regime officials have required 3 

to 5 months to approve food shipments and because regional military 

Regime Has Impeded 

Other Assistance Programs 

Regime’s Travel Restrictions 

Have Hindered Programs 

Page 22 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
commanders have not always been available to approve food deliveries 

upon their arrival. As a result, he stated, WFP had been unable to deliver 

several months’ worth of food to students and their families in the 

northern parts of the Rakhine State during the 2005 school year. In 

addition, he informed us that WFP had been unable to deliver 20 percent 

to 30 percent of its planned food shipments during 2005. He added that the 

regime began to provide authorizations in a timelier manner in 2006. 

The regime’s time-consuming travel procedures have also impeded the

ability of international staff to move freely within the country to ensure the 

timely provision of assistance. According to UN officials, the Burmese 

regime typically requires non-Burmese staff of UN entities and other 

international organizations to obtain travel permits to visit project sites. 

Officials of eight of the nine UN entities that provide humanitarian, health,

and development assistance in Burma told us that the regime requires at 

least 3 to 4 weeks’ advance notice to authorize travel. An official of the 

remaining entity told us that it is required to provide 2 weeks’ notice. 

These officials said that the additional time it takes to apply for travel 

permits impedes the planning and monitoring of projects through field 

visits and reduces the scope of their activities. In August 2006, the acting 

UN Resident Coordinator informed the Minister of National Planning and 

Economic Development that with regard to internal travel, “Unnecessary 

and time-consuming procedures impede us from providing assistance in a

timely manner.” 

Moreover, the regime’s internal travel restrictions contributed to a major 

setback to international efforts to fight three diseases in Burma. The 

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria17 had agreed to 

provide $98.4 million over 5 years, beginning in 2005. However, in 2005 the 

fund terminated its program in Burma after the regime instituted new 

travel clearance procedures that would have impeded international staff 

travel to project sites. In announcing its decision to terminate the program, 

the fund cited the adverse impact that the new travel restrictions would 

have had on its ability to ensure that the program was properly managed.18

 17For more information on the Global Fund, see GAO, Global Health: The Global Fund to

Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria Is Responding to Challenges but Needs Better Information 

and Documentation for Performance-Based Funding, GAO-05-639 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 10, 2005). 

18Donors are working to establish an alternative trust fund that supports efforts to combat 

tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and malaria in Burma. 

Page 23 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Some UN international staff also reported they have been hindered by the 

regime’s requirement that they be accompanied by their regime 

counterparts when they travel in Burma, although others noted that the 

requirement has some benefits. One official said that counterparts had 

prevented her from meeting with project beneficiaries in private. Another 

stated that his organization has faced the challenge of finding government 

counterparts to accompany international staff when they need to travel. 

However, four UN officials noted that Burmese technical experts had 

facilitated their travel and access and provided input to their work. 

In addition, officials of three UN entities reported difficulties in obtaining 

permission for experts located outside Burma to visit sites in that country. 

These experts had been sought out to provide technical expertise on 

agricultural, HIV/AIDS, and educational projects. One organization in 

Thailand also reported delays in obtaining visas as the primary reason that 

it did not have active programs in Burma. 

International organization officials told us that the regime’s informal 

restrictions on surveys and data sharing have impeded their efforts to 

address Burma’s problems. According to UN officials, regime data 

concerning health and education in Burma is incomplete and unreliable.

UN officials noted that the regime has not conducted a census since 1983 

and expressed concern that the regime’s collection of statistics has 

deteriorated since 2004. WHO has reported with concern that Burma’s 

deteriorating statistics on health are not reliable and that Burma lacks a 

plan to develop a nationwide health information system. Officials working 

for other UN entities in Burma’s health sector expressed similar concerns.

UN officials also criticized Burmese statistics on education. One official

told us that the lack of solid and evidence-based research on education in 

Burma significantly impedes efforts to address educational problems. UN 

officials also expressed concern that the regime is deliberately providing 

inaccurate data to the public. 

The United Nations has stated that these data weaknesses have impeded

international organizations’ efforts to assess needs, conduct strategic 

planning, and implement programs in Burma. According to the United 

Nations, international organizations require a comprehensive 

understanding of the needs of the population to efficiently direct their 

resources. The United Nations has also noted that surveys would be 

valuable for identifying issues related to poverty alleviation, initiating 

activities that create longer-term benefits, and evaluating program 

performance. 

Regime Impeded Gathering and 

Sharing of Needed Health and 

Development Data 

Page 24 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
However, UN and other international officials told us that the Burmese 

regime has impeded their ability to conduct their own surveys and freely 

share the data they gather regarding the nature and scope of Burma’s 

problems. In its strategic framework for assistance to Burma, the United 

Nations has called upon the regime to allow a wider range of data to be 

collected, analyzed, and shared without alteration. According to one UN 

official, the regime has rejected project proposals that cite the terms 

“research” or “data collection.” UN health officials also told us that the 

regime had restricted the scope of their HIV/AIDS research and the health

data that they could share with the public. A WFP official told us that 

while his organization has not encountered any problems carrying out 

surveys and assessments in the regions in which it has been operating, it 

has encountered difficulty in carrying out national surveys on food needs. 

Representatives of several international nongovernmental organizations 

working in Burma also expressed concerns about regime restrictions on 

research and surveys by their staff. International organization officials also 

noted that the guidelines for international organizations contain the 

regime’s first formal restriction on research. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, UNDP said it recently completed 

two major research projects without encountering significant difficulties 

with the government. According to UNDP, its survey of over 18,000 

households represented a unique effort. Similarly, UNDP noted that its 

agricultural sector review provides an in-depth analysis of the inadequate

growth of Burma’s agriculture in recent decades that has contributed to 

declining real incomes and growing poverty in rural areas. 

Several international organization officials stressed that their 

organizations are still able to achieve meaningful results in their efforts to 

address Burma’s development, humanitarian, and health problems, despite 

the regime’s post-2004 restrictions. For example, UNDP reported that its 

banking projects for small businesses in selected poor villages had over 

180,000 active borrowers as of March 2006. UN officials working in the 

health sector told us that the Burmese regime had been increasingly 

cooperative in efforts to address HIV/AIDS prevalence and recently 

worked with several UN entities to develop a multisectoral plan that 

targets all victims of the disease in Burma. For example, UN officials told

us that UN entities provided home-based or community-based care and 

support on HIV/AIDS to over 5,000 people in 2005, a 175 percent increase 

over service provision in this area in 2004. UN officials also noted that they

launched a measles campaign after October 2006 after earlier government 

resistance. In addition, a WFP official told us that WFP operations have 

Despite Restrictions, 

International Organization 

Officials Stressed That 

Their Organizations Are 

Still Able to Achieve 

Meaningful Results 

Page 25 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
expanded over the last 3 years in Burma and have gained better access to 

certain areas. 

Programs that address health and development issues in Burma have 

generally been less constrained by the regime’s restrictions than the ILO 

and ICRC human rights efforts. Officials said that careful planning is the 

key to managing useful health and development projects within regime 

limits. Several officials also emphasized that restrictions have had the least 

effect on their organizations, which tend to work closely with the regime. 

For example, an FAO official told us that FAO generally has good relations 

with the technical ministries it cooperates with due to its close work with 

these ministries in providing technical assistance and supporting 

knowledge transfer. 

Due to restrictions imposed by the Burmese regime, international 

organizations are facing an increasingly uncertain future as they continue

their efforts to address Burma’s assistance needs. The recent actions of 

the Burmese regime indicate that it is now seeking to exert a greater 

degree of control over international activities in Burma than before. While 

the regime appears to have accepted international efforts to relieve

Burma’s development, health, and educational problems as necessary, it 

has also opted to regulate them more closely. The regime also appears to 

have become more insistent that international organizations cooperate 

with regime-sponsored political mobilization groups. Such actions can 

only further narrow the opportunities for international organizations to 

address Burma’s pressing human rights, humanitarian, and development 

problems. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of 

State and cognizant officials at the United Nations and ICRC. We received

written comments from State, the UN Country Team in Burma, and 

UNAIDS, which are reprinted in appendixes II, III, and IV, along with our 

responses to specific points. 

State said that the draft report presents the challenges and opportunities 

facing international nongovernmental organizations in Burma in a 

thorough, accurate, and balanced fashion. State added that it “will 

continue to encourage the Burmese regime, both directly and through 

various UN fora, to lift the unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions it 

has placed on organizations seeking to provide humanitarian assistance 

and to promote respect for human rights.” 

Concluding 

Observations 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 26 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
The UN Country Team said that it agreed with our analysis that UN and 

other international agencies are able to achieve meaningful results in 

Burma despite a difficult and complex environment. However, it 

expressed concern that our draft report did not note that a significant 

opening of humanitarian space on the ground has been achieved by the 

UN and its partners in the past decade. This statement is in contrast to 

information UN officials had provided earlier stating that conditions had 

deteriorated since the 2004 change in government. The team did not 

dispute our specific findings about restrictions faced. However, it noted a 

significant development for one organization—ILO. Following the 

completion of our draft report, ILO and Burma signed an agreement to 

establish a mechanism for victims of forced labor to file complaints on 

February 26, 2007. We have updated our report to reflect this change. 

The UN Country Team also said our report did not adequately reflect the 

nature of the UN entities’ work and the differences in their mandates. We 

believe we fairly describe the entities’ work in our first objective. While 

our draft report noted that UNDP has a restricted mandate prohibiting it 

from working with the government, we added language stating that other 

UN entities’ mandates do not have similar restrictions. 

UNAIDS commented that it appreciated our recognition of progress 

despite difficulties but added that the draft report could contain more 

evidence of this progress. We believe we fairly described UNAIDS’ work in 

our draft report. 

State, UN agencies, and ICRC submitted technical comments that we have 

incorporated into this report, as appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional 

committees, the Secretary of State, and other interested parties. We will 

also make copies available to others on request. In addition, this report 

will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 27 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-9601 or at melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Key contributors are listed in appendix V. 

Thomas Melito 

Thomas Melito 

Director, International Affairs and Trade 

Page 28 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To identify the principal efforts of United Nations (UN) and other 

international organizations in addressing Burma’s problems, we examined 

documents relating to programs conducted in Burma by the 10 UN entities 

located in that country. We also traveled to several locations in Burma, 

where we met with officials of the Food and Agriculture Organization, 

International Labor Organization, Joint United Nations Program on 

HIV/AIDS, UN Children’s Fund, UN Development Program, UN High 

Commissioner for Refugees, UN Office on Drugs and Crime, UN 

Population Fund, World Health Organization, World Food Program, and 

International Committee of the Red Cross. We also met with several 

international nongovernmental organizations (who asked that we not 

identify their organizations in this report). In addition, we met with 

Burmese staff working for the United Nations who are implementing three 

projects in or around Rangoon and two projects in villages a day’s travel 

by car and small boat outside of Rangoon and Bassein. In Thailand, we 

met with officials from the Inter-Agency Project on Human Trafficking in 

the Greater Mekong Sub-Region; UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Organization; UN High Commissioner for Refugees; UN Industrial 

Development Organization; and UN Office for Project Services. We 

conducted telephone interviews and videoconferences or exchanged email correspondences with officials at the headquarters of the 10 UN 

entities and the respective U.S. missions in Geneva, New York, Rome, and 

Vienna. We met with additional U.S. Department of State officials in 

Washington, D.C., Burma, and Thailand. We did not assess UN data on UN

expenditures in Burma because we only used these data as background 

information in our report. 

To describe the impact of the Burmese regime’s recent actions on the 

activities of international organizations in Burma, we reviewed the 

Guidelines for UN Agencies, International Organizations, and 

NGO/INGOs on Cooperation Programmes in Myanmar set forth by the 

Burmese Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development. We 

traveled to Nay Pyi Taw, the newly built Burmese capital, to discuss the 

regime’s restrictions on international organizations with senior officials 

from the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development and 

the Ministry of Health. In addition, we met with officials of the U.S. 

embassy and of the leading democratic organization in Burma, as well as 

with local recipients of UN assistance. We also spoke with a UN official 

from the Department of Political Affairs and met with the Burmese UN 

mission in New York. In Thailand, we met with representatives of the 

British and Dutch embassies to discuss aspects of their nations’ aid to 

Burma. In Washington, D.C., we met with officials of the U.S. Departments 

of State and the Treasury, individuals from several international 

Page 29 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

nongovernmental organizations, and individuals at the World Bank and 

International Monetary Fund. 

We conducted our work from May 2006 through February 2007 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Page 30 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Appendix II: Comments from the Department Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State 

of State 

Page 31 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 32 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Appendix III: Comments from the UN Country Appendix III: Comments from the UN Team 

Country Team 

See comment 1. 

See comment 2. 

Page 33 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Appendix III: Comments from the UN Country

Team 

See comment 3. 

Page 34 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Appendix III: Comments from the UN Country

Team 

See comment 4. 

Page 35 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Appendix III: Comments from the UN Country

Team 

See comment 5. 

Page 36 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Appendix III: Comments from the UN Country

Team 

The following are GAO’s comments on the UN Country Team’s letter dated 

March 5, 2007. 

1. The UN Country Team (UNCT) noted that the International Labor 

Organization and Burma had concluded an agreement establishing a 

forced labor complaints mechanism after we had submitted our draft 

report for comments. We have updated the text and title of our report 

to reflect this recent development. 

GAO Comments 

2. The UNCT commented that our draft report did not adequately reflect 

the differences in UN entities’ mandates, in that it did not clarify which 

entities are mandated to work with the regime and which are not. We 

disagree. Our draft report noted that UNDP’s governing board has 

restricted UNDP from working through the regime. We further 

clarified our report by adding a sentence noting that the mandates of 

other UN entities do not contain restrictions similar to those of UNDP. 

3. The UNCT commented that our draft report did not describe a 

significant opening of humanitarian space in Burma. The UNCT’s letter 

is not consistent with the information and assessments provided to us 

by UNCT members and NGO officials during our October 2006 

fieldwork in Burma. At the time, UNCT and NGO officials provided 

numerous examples of how Burmese restrictions had impeded their 

activities (including UNHCR’s recent efforts in the Thai border region) 

and a senior UN official in Burma informed us that the “humanitarian 

space” in Burma was dwindling. UNCT members reconfirmed much of 

this information in February 2007, when we asked them to review 

excerpts from our working draft report for accuracy and sensitivity. 

We then reflected many of their suggestions in our draft report, which 

we subsequently submitted to UN entities for official review and 

comment. The UNCT comments do not take issue with our findings 

concerning the range and nature of the regime’s restrictions (with the 

exception of the recent agreement reached between the government 

and the ILO). Moreover, they do not explain how those restrictions 

might have eased following our field work. 

4. The UNCT commented that our draft report did not address human 

rights activities by agencies other than ILO and ICRC. In assessing the 

effect of the regime’s restrictions on international human rights efforts, 

we focused on ILO and ICRC because their missions in Burma are 

primarily related to human rights. We did not focus on ancillary efforts 

by agencies whose primary mission is to address development and 

humanitarian concerns.

Page 37 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Appendix III: Comments from the UN Country

Team 

5. The UNCT letter states that we did not include the examples of 

successes in Burma that we requested in February 2007. We reviewed 

the information the UN organizations sent to us and believe we fairly 

summarized UN achievements in Burma. 

Page 38 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Appendix IV: Comments from UNAIDS Appendix IV: Comments from UNAIDS 

Page 39 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Appendix IV: Comments from UNAIDS 

Page 40 GAO-07-457 International Organizations
Appendix V: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 41 GAO-07-457

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov

In addition to the person named above, Cheryl Goodman (Assistant 

Director), Pierre Toureille, Lyric Clark, Barbara Shields, Debbie Chung, 

and Ian Hongola made key contributions to this report. Martin De Alteriis 

and Mary Moutsos provided technical assistance. 

International Organizations

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(320417) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER