Al Jazeera reported in late September that "hundreds of civil society groups" in Myanmar had sent an open letter to the Secretary-General calling for him to put a stop to UN agencies presenting credentials and signing agreements with coup leaders in control of the government. The letter noted that UN "agencies including the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), UN International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and UN International Organization for Migration (IOM) had signed new agreements with the regime and presented credentials to military appointees in August and September 2022.
It added that “the public ceremonies, which were arranged with photographs, were used as propaganda by the military junta in its ongoing attempts to assert their legitimacy”.
A recent op-ed in the Washington Post by Yanghee Lee voiced similar concerns, saying that 'U.N. agencies appear to have no coherent strategy for responding to the changing political and security dynamics amid the growing emergency." The author of the op-ed further says, "We know that the U.N. is sometimes compelled to work with the world’s worst violators of human rights. Yet its business-as-usual approach in Myanmar is actively undermining the legitimate institutions that are accepted by the Myanmar people themselves and represent the democratic future they are fighting for." The author continues, "The latest low point came when a group of U.N. representatives posed for smiling photos with Min Aung Hlaing and members of his murderous junta but failed to engage equally with the leaders of the democratic revolution. As a result, people in Myanmar don’t just feel let down. They feel betrayed."
On social media also UN agencies have been under fire:
"UN agencies in Myanmar are parodying themselves."
"I have little hope in the UN, as they are just the group with the peaceful title and the sweet words."
"Keep watch until all dead."
But UNICEF too has felt the heat:
A tweet by UNICEF Myanmar in UNICEF's global #NotATarget" series pointed to the deaths of 11 children in an air strike offered condolences to the parents and families and said, "Children must never be attacked." The tweet does not cite anyone as responsible for the attack, but just says that 'an investigation is under way.
A sampling of the many derisive replies that followed:
"Who did that? Me? You guys don't dare to address the one who committed such crimes. Is this how you are protecting and caring for children? What a shame?
"Shame on you!! Why wouldn't you dare to say who the culprit is?"
"Please show that you actually work for the innocent children and civilians, not for your projects and staffs."
"You can´t even say who did this cleaarly. You guys are saying words without action and now even with words, you cannot do it properly. What a SHAME!"
Some times I feel we can do more and better. It's a pity Unicef doesn't always want to call "a spade a spade!" Child Rights can't be preserved unless we can boldly condemn the guilty––we know that. We talk a lot about "not compromising with our principles," though . . .
ReplyDeleteDear Nuzhat, thank you so much for this piece. I share your concern. While needing to continue "service delivery" to people suffering under oppressive or even murderous regimes, the political/human rights position of the UN agencies needs to be made much more clear and be outspoken against tyranny .
ReplyDeleteOne would think that this would be easy for UNICEF since even dictators nominally say they are in support of child rights.
From my time in UNICEF, I remember comments from senior management to not speak out against the government XYZ as the representative would risk being PNGed. And that it would then take a long time to rebuild relationships. But if the "relationship" is with the wrong side, what is it worth? (And pragmatically, as we know, the effective relationships in terms of accessing and influencing decision makers in a given country are the local staff with the longstanding networks.
I think this question of "calling a spade a spade" needs broad discussion in the UN as increasing numbers of governments fall back into authoritarianism and dictatorship: how to maintain operations at the people level and at the same time uphold the UDHR and all the human rights conventions and call elites to account.
Warm regards, Gabriele (gabrielekoehler@posteo.de)
Dear Nuzhat and Dear Gabriele,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your deep and yet meaningful observation. I believe if we, as UNICEF, continue like this we will gradually lose people's trust, as they see and expect us to go beyond service and supply delivery. UNICEF as the main UN body responsible for safeguarding and promoting the Human Rights of children should not compromise the rights of the child; we should systematically and consistently talk and advocate about the rights of the child. in some areas, even we are compromising the word "right" and we replace "needs" ... Erasing the term rights from the human rights literature would be one of the entry points to turn a blind eye on the human rights and the inherent dignity of every child.
Thank you again.
Best regards,
Behnaz Andisheh (bandisheh@unicef.org)
SBC Officer - UNICEF