This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 RANGOON 001202 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR EAP/MLS; PACOM FOR FPA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAID KHIV PGOV PHUM BM NGO
SUBJECT: POST-GLOBAL FUND HIV/AIDS OPTIONS IN BURMA 
 
REF: RANGOON 974 
 
¶1. (U) SUMMARY: The UK's Department for International 
Development (DFID) has contracted a consultant to meet with 
donors and key players to identify viable options to help 
fill the void created by the termination of the Global Fund 
(GF) in Burma.  Many donors wish to replace the Fund for 
HIV/AIDS in Myanmar (FHAM), which is partnered with the GOB, 
with a new mechanism that also addresses tuberculosis (TB) 
and malaria.  There seems to be general feeling among aid 
professionals that the UNDP and UNAIDS are not suitable 
agencies to manage a new mechanism.  The GOB apparently does 
not object to the concept of implementing the program through 
a "commercial contract."  There is also strong consensus 
among all donors that the GOB must relax its current tight 
restrictions on expatriates to allow work at project sites in 
the field.  END SUMMARY. 
 
SEARCHING FOR COMMON GROUND 
 
¶2. (U) The British Embassy invited representatives from 
selected Rangoon embassies to a briefing on October 19 by 
Paul Thornton, Director of Verulam Associates, Ltd., a UK 
consulting firm that specializes in institutional and 
organizational change management.  DFID hired this firm to 
meet with donors, UN agencies, International NGOs (INGOs), 
NGOs, medical professionals, and the GOB to review possible 
options to fill the gap left by the recent termination of the 
GF in Burma (reftel).  At the end of the review, the firm 
will present an "options paper" to DFID and UNDP on possible 
new mechanisms to address HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria in Burma. 
 
 
¶3. (U) Thornton met with donors in Bangkok before traveling 
to Rangoon.  He said the donors there -- which included DFID 
and the EU, Swedish, Norwegian, and Netherlands embassies -- 
supported a united, collaborative effort and were against a 
fragmented approach.  They want to address all three diseases 
with one organization and to keep the mechanism simple.  The 
donors want to replace the Fund for HIV/AIDS in Myanmar 
(FHAM), which is due to expire in June 2006, with a new 
mechanism. 
 
¶4. (U) In his meetings with INGOs in Burma, Thornton found 
them "surprisingly rigid."  They were critical of both the 
GOB and UN agencies.  They felt that the GOB lacked technical 
capacity and imposed too many restrictions and felt that the 
UN should not have tried to both monitor and disburse funds 
for the GF.  Thornton believed there was consensus (both 
among INGOs and with the GOB) that neither the UNDP nor 
UNAIDS should be the coordinating agency for the new 
mechanism.  He said there are a couple of other UN agencies 
that could be acceptable to the GOB.  (Note: The consultant 
would not name the two agencies, but the only other UN 
offices in Burma who could conceivably take a leading role 
are UNICEF and WHO.  End Note.)  The GOB also indicated a 
willingness to consider the option of a "commercial contract" 
with a private agency to deliver services to the Burmese 
people for all three diseases. 
 
EMBASSIES SPEAK UP 
 
¶5. (SBU) Several of the embassy representatives at the 
Rangoon session commented during the briefing. 
 
-- U.S.: Poloff reported that USAID funding for Burma was 
unaffected by the GF decision and that the United States is 
continuing to provide $2 million, primarily through 
Population Services International, for HIV/AIDS projects that 
are wholly independent of the GOB and government-linked NGOs. 
 Several embassy representatives were surprised to learn that 
USAID is funding ongoing HIV/AIDS activities in Burma. 
 
-- Japan: The representative from Japanese International 
Cooperation Agency (JICA) expressed Japan's willingness to 
participate in the new structure if a good mechanism is 
proposed.  He said that his government has no reservations 
about providing funding directly to the GOB. 
 
-- Australia: The Australian embassy representative for 
AusAID said that Australia feels safeguards against providing 
funds to the GOB and government-linked NGOs need to be 
"sensible."  Australia does not feel bound by the EU's 
position that it is necessary to obtain prior approval from 
the opposition NLD party before implementing new programs in 
Burma.  Australia noted that they would continue to focus on 
HIV/AIDS, as they do not have strong domestic funding support 
for TB or malaria. 
 
-- Thailand: Thailand prefers to deal with Burma on a 
bilateral rather than multilateral basis.  The Thais plan to 
help build the capacity of Burmese health personnel by taking 
them to Thailand for training courses in the relevant 
diseases, rather than joining an inter-regional program. 
 
HAVE ACCESS, WILL TRAVEL 
 
¶6. (U) Restrictions by the GOB on access to project sites 
were also discussed.  Thornton said that UNDP Resident 
Coordinator Charles Petrie had noticed an almost immediate 
easing in travel restrictions on UN agencies after the demise 
of GF, indicating that the GOB felt pressure to make 
concessions in response to the GF decision.  Thornton also 
said that the INGOs have asked the GOB, through the Ministry 
of Health (MOH), to permit their expatriates to live in the 
field for periods of up to one full year, instead of the 
occasional two-week visits that are currently allowed.  The 
GOB has not yet responded to the request.  The JICA 
representative noted that the MOH has said the current travel 
restrictions are only "temporary," but commented that 
"temporary" could mean up to 3 to 4 years. 
 
¶7. (U) COMMENT: We shall try to get a copy of the British 
Embassy's "options paper" that results from this consultancy 
and will report further developments as they occur.  Post 
will also continue to provide insight on any new proposals 
for combating HIV-AIDS, TB, and malaria in Burma.  We will 
also continue to remind other embassies, INGOs, and others 
involved in this issue about the need to ensure that funding 
is spent solely on fighting these diseases rather than 
enriching the GOB's coffers or those of its subsidiaries. 
END COMMENT. 
STOLTZ