This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-457 
entitled 'International Organizations: Assistance Programs Constrained 
in Burma' which was released on April 19, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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. 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. 

Report to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

April 2007: 

International Organizations: 

Assistance Programs Constrained in Burma: 

GAO-07-457: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-457, a report to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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. 

What GAO Found: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

International Organizations Are Undertaking Wide Range of Efforts to 
Address Burma's Problems: 

Burmese Military Regime Has Blocked or Impeded Activities of Many 
International Organizations: 

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix III: Comments from the UN Country Team: 

Appendix IV: Comments from UNAIDS: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Burma7: 

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

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

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: 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 3] 
They include 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.[Footnote 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,[Footnote 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. 

Results in Brief: 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Background: 

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 subjected Burmese political prisoners to torture and ill- 
treatment that has resulted in the deaths of some prisoners.[Footnote 
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,[Footnote 7] while Transparency International ranked 
Burma 1.9 on a corruption scale ranging from 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 
(highly clean).[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 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). 

Figure 1: Burma: 

[See PDF for image] 

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

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 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 UNDP, the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food Program 
(WFP), as shown in figure 2.[Footnote 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. 

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

[See PDF for image] 

Sources: UN organizations. 

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

[End of figure] 

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 has withheld a proportionate share of its voluntary 
contributions to UNDP because UNDP conducts programs in Burma.[Footnote 
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.[Footnote 13] Other UN entities are not 
restricted from working with the Burmese regime by their mandates. 

International Organizations Are Undertaking Wide Range of Efforts to 
Address Burma's Problems: 

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. 

ICRC and ILO Attempt to Monitor Prison and Labor Conditions: 

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 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.[Footnote 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. 

International Organizations Seek to Aid Populations in Conflict Areas: 

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. 

International Organizations Aim to Address Burmese Development and 
Health Needs: 

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. 

* WFP, the emergency food aid arm of the United Nations, has sought to 
provide food to vulnerable populations in Burma that suffer from 
hunger, 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. 

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

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

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. 

* 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 
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. 

Burmese Military Regime Has Blocked or Impeded Activities of Many 
International Organizations: 

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 that they are still able 
to achieve meaningful results in their efforts to mitigate some of 
Burma's many problems. 

Regime Has Become More Restrictive Since 2004: 

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, Rangoon-based international organization officials must 
now spend several hours traveling by car and airplane to meet with 
government officials who were formerly located in Rangoon. 

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.[Footnote 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"; 

* 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. 

Regime Has Blocked ICRC Initiative to Monitor Prison Conditions: 

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 its discussions with inmates. As a result, the 
ministry has denied ICRC access to Burmese prisons since the end of 
December 2005. 

Burmese Regime Blocked ILO Efforts until Recently: 

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. 

Regime Has Restricted International Efforts in Certain Conflict Areas: 

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 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.[Footnote 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. 

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. 

Regime Has Impeded Other Assistance Programs: 

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. 

Regime's Travel Restrictions Have Hindered Programs: 

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 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 
Malaria[Footnote 17] 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.[Footnote 18] 

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. 

Regime Impeded Gathering and Sharing of Needed Health and Development 
Data: 

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. 

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. 

Despite Restrictions, International Organization Officials Stressed 
That Their Organizations Are Still Able to Achieve Meaningful Results: 

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 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. 

Concluding Observations: 

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. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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." 

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. 

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. 


Signed by: 

Thomas Melito: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

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 e-mail 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 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial 
Officer: 
Washington, D.C. 20520: 

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office 441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Mar 15 2007: 

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, 
"International Organizations: Human Rights Programs Blocked in Burma; 
Other Assistance Proceeds Despite Constraints," GAO Job Code 320417. 

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report. 

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact 
Aaron Cope, Bunna Desk Officer, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific 
Affairs at (202) 647-0056. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Bradford R. Higgins: 

cc: GAO - Cheryl Goodman: 
EAP - Christopher Hill: 
State/OIG - Mark Duda: 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

International Organizations: Human Rights Programs Blocked in Burma; 
Other Assistance Proceeds Despite Constraints GAO-07-457/GAO Code 
320417: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report 
International Organizations: Human Rights Programs Blocked in Burma; 
Other Assistance Proceeds Despite Constraints. 

We found that the draft report presents the challenges and 
opportunities facing international non-governmental organizations in 
Burma in a thorough, accurate, and balanced fashion. The State 
Department 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. 

The State Department expresses its appreciation for the GAO's collegial 
approach to producing this report and its openness to input and 
clarifications from the State Department. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the UN Country Team: 

UNITED NATIONS: 

NATIONS UNIES: 

Office Of The Resident Coordinator, Yangon, Union Of Myanmar Office Of 
The Humanitarian Coordinator. Yangon, Union Of Myanmar: 

Reference: 

5 March 2007: 

Dear Mr. Melito, 

On behalf of the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) in Myanmar, I would 
like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Office's draft 
report titled "Human Rights Programs Blocked in Burma; Other Assistance 
Proceeds Despite Constraints." While fully agreeing with the analysis 
reflected in the second half of the title (that United Nations and 
other international agencies are able to make progress in this country 
despite a difficult and complex operating environment), the Country 
Team is concerned that the full picture of what is being accomplished, 
including on the human rights front, is not necessarily captured in the 
draft report. 

The comments of the UNCT can be summarized as threefold: 1) the report 
does not adequately reflect the differences in UN agencies' mandates 
and the nature of their work; 2) the analysis fails to capture the fact 
that a significant opening of humanitarian space on the ground has been 
achieved by the United Nations and its partners in the past decade; and 
3) the report does not include a number of United Nations activities 
that contribute to the establishment of a protective environment for 
the nation's people, including some that specifically address human 
rights. Concerning this last point, there has been a significant 
development on the human rights front since the drafting of your 
report. Specifically, the International Labour Organisation has 
concluded on 26 February 2007 an agreement with the Government of 
Myanmar on the establishment of a complaints mechanism for victims of 
forced labour. 

With regard to the mandate issue, the report does not clarify which 
agencies are mandated to work with Government and those which are not. 
For example, it seems to single out the United Nations Childrens' Fund 
(UNICEF), saying it "assists the Burmese regime." In fact, several 
United Nations agencies provide technical support to Myanmar's social 
services structures, which are eroding due to lack of budgetary 
support, as is noted, and the lack of capacity of the younger 
generation of civil servants. These functions of United Nations 
agencies are in full compliance with the mandates set out for them by 
their Executive Boards, which are made up of United Nations member 
states. 

Only the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has a specific 
restriction, placed on it by its Executive Board, to not work with 
Government. Similarly, by implementing a Protracted Relief and Recovery 
Operation (PRRO) rather than a Country Programme, the World Food 
Programme (WFP) also does not work directly with Government. In 
addition, some of the descriptions of agencies' work seem to leave out 
important parts of their mandates. Though, for example, the United 
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is acknowledged as working in 
the HIV/AIDS sector, the organization is also involved in defining 
alternative livelihoods for ex-opium farmers, monitoring of the extent 
and patterns of opium poppy cultivation, and the socio-economic status 
of opium farmers. 

Regarding the issue of humanitarian space, a great deal has been 
achieved over the last three to four years in terms of geographical 
access, programmatic success, and operating space for the UN and non- 
governmental organizations (NGOs). In terms of geography, for example, 
ten years ago UNODC struggled to start its operations in the Wa 
regions. Now UNODC's projects reach about one third of the total Wa 
population (120,000 people), and its access opened the door for that of 
INGOs and other UN agencies. There are now more than 15 UN agencies and 
international NGOs operating in this very poor and needy area. 
Similarly, in 2004 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 
for the first time was allowed to start work in eastern border areas of 
possible refugee return, and its presence is opening the way for its 
NGO partners as well. This point about the UN expanding space for 
others is an important one, as in some cases the UN "umbrella" helps 
NGOs set up operations in a specific area. This said, clearly a number 
of INGOs have also been very effective in expanding humanitarian space. 

On the programmatic side, the example of HIV/AIDS shows how much can be 
achieved through persistent work by international agencies. In the mid- 
1990's, the Government did not acknowledge the severity of HIV in the 
country. Today, in contrast, international NGOs, the UN and its 
partners are providing anti-retroviral treatment to nearly 6,000 
patients, double the number from just 2005. More than 300,000 people 
benefited from HIV and health education. Since 2000, voluntary HIV 
counseling of pregnant women is now permitted in community based 
screening programmes involving community midwives, and in health 
clinics. This programme is now functional in 90 townships. There are 16 
outreach service delivery sites for drug users, as opposed to just one 
in 2001. The number of pregnant women accessing prevention of mother- 
to-child transmission services has more than tripled between 2003 and 
2005. Condom use in Myanmar is estimated to have expanded from 3 
million per year in 1996, to 40 million in 2005, more than a ten-fold 
increase. 

It is clearly the case that the HIV/AIDS sector, and communicable 
diseases more broadly, is an area where successful work can be done, 
and this has been recognized by international donors. It is very 
important to note that following the withdrawal of the Global Fund for 
HIV, TB and Malaria (which you mention on p23), six donors (the EC, UK, 
Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Australia) put together a new fund, 
with more flexible structures but a similar amount of money, to fund 
HIV, TB and malaria work in Myanmar in recognition both of the needs 
and of the fact that possibilities for meaningful progress do exist. In 
this regard, in FN 18 the report notes, incorrectly, that the World 
Health Organisation (WHO) "is working to establish an alternative multi-
donor trust fund" on HIV, TB and malaria. It is not a WHO Fund but a 
donor-created fund. Other examples of positive programmatic 
collaboration include the support UNICEF and WHO provide to the 
Government to successfully eradicate polio; the development of a 
national Avian influenza pandemic plan in collaboration with FAO, 
UNICEF and WHO; and the launching of the national measles campaign in 
January 2007. 

The third concern is the implication that there are no activities at 
all by international agencies (other than the initiatives by ICRC and 
ILO) that advance human rights in Myanmar. The United Nations agencies 
are working to create a protective environment for the people of 
Myanmar, both in the broader sense of having more offices on the ground 
(UNDID alone expanded its offices from 24 to 66 townships in the past 
two years) and working to provide health, education and livelihoods to 
the most vulnerable people in the country, but also in the more 
specific, human-rights context. 

* UNHCR's work in Northern Rakhine State since 1994 has been 
predominantly geared towards enhancing the legal status of former 
refugees, who also happen to be stateless. Since 2005 the agency's 
focus has expanded to cover the entire stateless population of the area 
- close to 800,000 persons - and to engage the Myanmar authorities in a 
policy dialogue on human rights issues, including non-discrimination 
and legal identity. 

* WFP has initiated protection workshops for all its field staff and 
partners, in which they learned that the serious protections gaps in 
Myanmar required concerted efforts by all relevant organizations but 
that support through formal and informal education related activities 
should be used the principal entry point through which protection 
issues could be addressed. This has shaped the orientation of WFP 
activities in 2007 - 09, where a heavy focus is placed on food for 
education and food for training activities. 

* Since 2004, UNICEF has also supported training workshops on child 
protection, juvenile justice, social work, anti-trafficking, commercial 
sexual exploitation of children, community-based psychosocial care and 
support, alternative care for orphans, family reunification of 
trafficked children, and child protection in emergencies - for 
community-based organizations, NGO's and technical counterparts. 
Training programmes for law-enforcement and social welfare officials 
including the police, administration, and social welfare officers and 
prison staff have focused on international juvenile justice standards, 
child rights, child-friendly and women- friendly procedures, and the 
promotion of a more protective environment and services for children. 

* On human trafficking, the United Nations Inter-Agency Project on 
Human Trafficking in the Greater Mekong Sub-Region (UNIAP) has made 
significant progress over the last years in raising awareness of 
trafficking issues among government officials and supporting the 
development of comprehensive anti-trafficking legislation, enacted in 
September 2005, that contains strong provisions for the protection of 
trafficking victims. Since then, training and awareness raising 
activities for both government and non-government service providers 
have included a specific focus on these provisions and have led to 
improved protection and immunity from prosecution for trafficking 
victims returning to the country. 

For your convenience, I have appended to this letter the full set of 
comments and suggestions made by the UNCT to the early draft you sent 
to us. At the time, your office had also asked us to provide examples 
of successes and we have done so. These do not seem to have made it 
into the report. It would be regrettable were they not to be included 
as it would provide a more nuanced, and possibly more accurate, 
assessment of "principal efforts by the United Nations and other 
international organizations to address Burma's problems". 

One of your colleagues mentioned that a UNCT response to the draft 
report would be appended to your final report. Were this to be the 
case, we have no objection to the inclusion of this response. 

Yours sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Charles Petrie: 
UN Humanitarian & Resident Coordinator in Myanmar: 
On behalf of the UN Country Team: 

cc: Ms. Cheryl Goodman, Assistant Director, GAO: 
Mr. Pierre Toureille, GAO: 
Mr. Lyric Clark, GAO:  

The following are GAO's comments on the UN Country Team's letter dated 
March 5, 2007. 

GAO Comments: 

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. 

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. 

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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from UNAIDS: 

UNAIDS: 
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS: 

Telephone: +41 22 791 3392: 

Reference: CRD/BW/MZ/Iw 

Mr Thomas Melito: 
Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington DC: 

USA: 

14 March 2007: 

Dear Mr Melito, 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the draft report 
of the US Government Accountability Office entitled "Human Rights 
Blocked in Burma; Other Assistance Proceeds Despite Constraints". We 
welcome this review of the ability of the United Nations to assist the 
people of Myanmar in need of health care and other assistance. The 
people of Myanmar have rights to information about HIV prevention and 
risk as well as to medical treatment and socio-economic care and 
support. UNAIDS works to help ordinary Myanmar people to obtain these 
rights. 

In this light, while appreciating the report's recognition of progress 
despite the difficulties, the report could reference more evidence of 
this progress and gain consequently in robustness. Specifically, 
important gains have been made in Myanmar on the area of AIDS, in 
particular since 2003. Some specific text has been provided in the 
joint letter from the UN Country Team dated 5 March, 2007 (attached). 
Further formal references to the following reports would add to the 
depth of your report. 

1) Fund for HIV/AIDS in Myanmar, Annual Progress Report 2005, UNAIDS, 
2007 (available on www.unaids.org). 

2) Response to HIV and AIDS in Myanmar: Progress Report 2005, Ministry 
of Health, Government of the Union of Myanmar, 2007. (Attached 
electronically and available on www.unaids.org). 

3) Joint Programme for HIV/AIDS in Myanmar Progress Report 2003-2004 
and Fund for HIV/AIDS in Myanmar Annual Progress Report 2005, UN 
Expanded Theme Group on AIDS, 2006 (available on www.unaids.org). 

We thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this report. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Michel Sidibe: 
Director: 
Department of Country and Regional Support: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

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

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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. 

FOOTNOTES 

[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. 

[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. 

[6] See Amnesty International, Myanmar's Political Prisoners: A Growing 
Legacy of Injustice (June 2005), which can be viewed at [Hyperlink, 
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. 

[10] The resolution was vetoed by China and Russia. 

[11] UNDP 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. 

[12] Section 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. 

[13] State has also obtained UNDP assurances that UNDP has consulted 
Burmese pro-democracy 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. 

[14] The 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 [Hyperlink, 
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/31.htm]. Burma ratified the 
convention in 1955. 

[15] Burmese Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development, 
Guidelines for UN Agencies, International Organizations, NGO/INGOs on 
Cooperation Programs in Myanmar (February 2006). 

[16] Over 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. 

[17] For 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). 

[18] Donors are working to establish an alternative trust fund that 
supports efforts to combat tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and malaria in 
Burma. 

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. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

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." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

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: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

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: 

Public Affairs: 

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: