Humanitarian Gap in War: Burma Conflict Update by Dave Eubank
The Free Burma Rangers was started in 1997, in response to a Burma Army offensive that displaced over five hundred thousand people. Since then, it has grown to include many different ethnic groups across Burma and the world. FBR is made up of Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, animists, Yezidis, agnostics, and atheists. We are not a religious organization, yet we are all united in love for the FBR mission of bringing help, hope, and love to people of all faiths and ethnicities in conflict areas, shining a light on the actions of oppressors, standing with the oppressed, and supporting leaders and organizations committed to liberty, justice, and reconciliation. I am a follower of Jesus, and I have felt Him change my heart and help me do what would otherwise be impossible. I am thankful to all who have helped us by their love, actions, support, and prayers. We believe love is from God and is the most powerful force in the world, and we try to serve others in love.
While we work in conflict zones, FBR is not a militia, and most of our team members are unarmed. Our role is to give humanitarian help and get the news out in those conflict areas. We are not an attacking force, but we abide by this rule: an FBR member cannot leave someone who is in danger or run away if the people they are with cannot run away. Self-defense is a basic human right, and each individual team member decides whether or not to use weapons for protection, but cannot abandon anyone, no matter the situation. We have over 150 relief teams in Burma, with each team composed of four to six people, as well as teams in Iraq and Syria and missions into Sudan, Ukraine, and Tajikistan. We have lost 79 of our team members, and over 200 have been wounded as they helped others. I have been wounded five times during relief missions in Burma and Iraq.
Although Burma is our longest-standing and primary mission area, the mission to help the people of Iraq under attack by ISIS brought to a point all the lessons we learned in over twenty years of Free Burma Ranger service in Burma. Lessons about love, courage, commitment, practical service, and faith were reinforced under fire while new lessons, relationships, and battlefields taught us new ways to live, serve, forgive, and love. Further invitations to Ukraine, Sudan, and Tajikistan opened new opportunities for learning, service, and practice.
War is not a natural disaster; it is man-made, and there are always sides. Elie Wiesel, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, said, “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted…that place must—at that moment—become the center of the universe.” To provide relief in war means you have to work with or through one of the sides. Entering a conflict zone to help puts you in the domain of one of the factions. The
ability to provide humanitarian relief is dependent on one of those factions and there is no neutral space in combat. Insisting on neutrality will only aid the oppressor or whoever is in control.
ISIS and the Burma Army do not offer an option of neutrality—you are either for or against them. This is a challenge for the humanitarian community. How do we help people when no one’s playing by the rules? One report analyzing the difficulties of the humanitarian response in the Battle of Mosul, by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, said:
"The humanitarian response took place not only within the highly charged geopolitical landscape of Iraq, but also within the context of a rapidly shifting global environment for humanitarian actors. In the past three years, nearly 1,000 health workers have been killed in conflict settings, at times deliberately, an alarming figure that has raised serious questions about whether traditional notions of humanitarian action remain tenable.”
Humanitarian aid cannot always be effectively founded on the principle of neutrality. This is not new and has always been the case. While I was working in Burma, a U.S. government official once said to me, “You should not be with the armed ethnic groups, or at the front lines in Burma. That is not the humanitarian way. When we were in Bosnia,
we had a clear separation. A U.S. battalion provided security on the hill above while we distributed food in the valley below.”
I replied, “That is good. Please send that U.S. battalion to stop the Burma Army from attacking the Karen, and we will all gladly provide humanitarian assistance in safety.”
There are many approaches to take when we are faced with humanitarian needs in war zones. But any role taken is dependent on one military or the other to make access and relief work possible. Under international humanitarian law, combatants have a responsibility and duty to allow humanitarian access to vulnerable civilian populations, but, as noted in the Johns Hopkins report, many combatants do not do this. In some cases, combatants actively target humanitarian workers. This is true of all the areas we have worked: humanitarian organizations are targeted, and individuals providing relief are at risk of death, injury, or capture. War is deadly and unpredictable, especially on the front lines, so most relief organizations try to stay away from these fronts. They have certain lines they will not cross, including being armed or going to the front lines. This is partly to fulfill their duty to care for staff who are not trained for front-line environments or because there are liability concerns. They do life-giving and lifesaving work and serve a crucial role, but not at the front. This means that, in war, there is a gap between the front lines and the humanitarian relief available to those in need. Fully recognizing the moral and physical dangers and desiring to always act in love, FBR serves in these humanitarian gaps.
It is important to recognize that whether there is assistance or not, people will do their best to help themselves. Often, as is the case in Burma, families and villagers have only each other to rely on when they are attacked. Their tenacity, foresight, teamwork, love, courage, generosity, and resilience are the main reasons they survive. Each individual and organization must decide what their role is in helping these people and what lines they will not cross. Any choice made incurs a cost. For those who will not work at the front lines or defend others, this means people they could have helped may suffer or die. For those who decide to go into this gap, this means they risk their lives and risk becoming part of the conflict in bad ways. There are no simple solutions, and both choices are fraught with moral and mortal danger. The response to every conflict, relief mission, and action must be weighed. For us, that means seeking advice and having discussions about the best ways to meet needs as well as honesty about our motives—and it means prayer, asking God what to do. Finally, our actions must always be motivated by love.
In our work at FBR, we have found we cannot be neutral, but the principle of impartiality is less negotiable: we help all we can as impartially as possible. We want to help all who are suffering if we can. At times we have treated, fed, prayed for, and shown love to wounded Burma Army soldiers, as well as to captured ISIS members. We provide aid equally to all who need it, regardless of religion, ethnicity, gender, age, or affiliation.
FBR feels called to help those at the front lines and in the humanitarian gaps. This puts us in danger and sometimes face-to-face with those who want to kill us. We are realistic about this and don’t enter danger naively, nor do we add to the burdens of the front-line soldiers. Rather, we are particularly equipped for this kind of operation due to our years of experience on the front lines. When face-to-face with those who would kill us or those we are trying to help, FBR or anyone who serves in this dangerous gap must decide if they will try to defend themselves or others when they or the people they are helping are attacked. This does not mean we are a paramilitary force; some of our members have the ability and competency to defend themselves and others. Whether or not one is armed is up to the individual, and if arms are chosen, they are strictly for defense.
The elections that were held in Burma in January of this year were neither free nor fair, and that's recognized in Burma and around the world. The military limited the areas where they actually allowed voting, and they controlled those areas completely. Min Aung Hlaing, the commanding general of the Myanmar military, stepped down from that role and became the president. The dictators still control Burma. We don't see any positive advance in the political situation.
The fighting has intensified, with increased support from China and Russia in the form of jet aircraft, transport planes used as bombers, helicopters, heavy weapons, mortars, missiles, and drones. Also, with forced conscription, the Burma military has been able to replace some of its losses. Because of this, the resistance has lost some territory and many lives. Despite the formidable enemy, the resistance still controls over half the country’s land area, while the Burma military controls the major cities and industry. The fighting fluctuates back and forth, with both sides gaining and then losing control of contested areas.
Most of the people killed in the conflict in Burma are villagers, not active combatants. This is because the villagers are easy to find and target, and it is part of the Burma military plan to systematically crush all opposition. This increases the likelihood of greater numbers of people fleeing to neighboring countries. It is the desire of people in Burma to stay in their homes and their farms and fields, which they own and have made productive over generations. However, when faced with the deadly threat of the Burma Army, many villagers will choose to flee the country. We hope that if we can provide more humanitarian assistance to the IDPs who wish to remain in their home, we can make their lives viable within Burma. This will require increased support in the form of food, medical supplies, clothing, shelter, transportation, communications, educational support, and agricultural help. Also, some form of protection from drone and airstrikes is needed.
The economic outlook in Burma is poor because of the ongoing fighting and the fact that the dictators take inordinate control of the economy in order to profit from it directly. These circumstances have led to the proliferation of cyber scam centers and narcotics trafficking under the auspices of the dictatorship, which bleed resources from the country. Adding to this is the extractive nature of China's involvement in Burma, with the gas pipeline that runs the length of the country, and with the attempt to control the rare earths, metals, and timber. Until there is some form of democracy in Burma, the economy will continue to struggle.
The U.S. has been a staunch supporter of democracy and has provided limited humanitarian assistance to help people in need. Within the US, there is some openness to providing more humanitarian assistance and to being part of the recognition of pro-democracy groups and supporting talks with the regime. China and Russia give direct military, economic, and political support to the regime. China especially has pressured some ethnic groups in northern Burma to withdraw from contested areas or cease fighting the Burma military. We have seen a great increase in the number of jet fighter attacks, bombings, and ever more accurate drones that are harder to jam as the result of direct support from Russia and China.
Cyber scam centers and narcotics trafficking have thrived under the dictatorship, some with the direct involvement of the Burma military, and some indirectly through proxy forces such as the DKBA. These scam centers stole 18 billion USD from the U.S. last year alone, and have grown from just a few to now over 150, mostly concentrated in Karen State, but also now expanding up into Shan State, Burma. These scam centers are run by Chinese criminal organizations in conjunction with local ethnic proxy forces and the Burma military. Narcotics trafficking is also a growing, widespread problem that is fueled by the war and facilitated by the Burma military.
We would like to see increased support for democracy and freedom in Burma. A free and democratic Burma would move towards resolving most of the security, political, economic, criminal, and environmental issues. More importantly, it's the right thing to do, to stand with people and help them be free. Currently, the Burma military is well-entrenched socially, religiously, and militarily, and is a serious adversary, regardless of outside support. With outside support, they are even stronger. It will be difficult for the ethnic and Burman pro-democracy groups to defeat them without their own outside support, of which there is none now. At the same time, the people are more united against the military, across Burman and ethnic lines, than ever before in history and have the resolve not to give up until there is change in Burma and a democracy of some sort. We are grateful for our partners within Burma, who enable us to work within the humanitarian gap.
Please pray for the people of Burma, that we would submit to the direction of the Lord, and that the hearts of the dictators would soften. We pray for multilateral talks between the ethnic armed groups and Burman groups, together with the military regime, moving toward a ceasefire, conflict resolution, an emerging federal democracy, and reconciliation. Finally, please pray for direct humanitarian assistance to the pro-democracy ethnic and Burman groups on the ground.
Thanks and God bless you,
Dave Eubank and the Free Burma Rangers
