Episode #256: Funding Freedom
The US Congress works in two cycles, according to Michael Haack: authorization, when they formally approve new bills; and appropriation, when they allocate the money to enact them. “The Burma Act authorized things, but it did not appropriate around that authorization,” he explains. “Now finally, a year and a half later, due to a lot of partisan issues that have nothing to do with Burma, we see an appropriations bill that was modeled after the authorizations in the Burma Act.”
This is Haack’s fifth appearance on the podcast. Previously, he has addressed sanctions on Myanmar’s oil and gas enterprises, explained the passage of the Burma Act in the NDAA (the National Defense Authorization Act), and discussed his overall advocacy for Myanmar; he also joined a panel about the lack of international support for Myanmar’s democracy movement since the military coup. In this episode, he revisits the Burma Act, explaining the long delay in funding, while also clarifying what can be expected in the foreseeable future.
Haack begins by explaining the significance and historical context of the NDAA, which has been a crucial piece of legislation since the early 1960s. Initially crafted to authorize U.S. military spending during the Cold War, the NDAA consistently garners broad support because most legislators are eager to demonstrate their commitment to national defense. Haack notes that some people misconstrued the inclusion of the Burma Act in the NDAA (slightly modified from the original bill that was passed by the House of Representatives) as an attempt to involve the U.S. more deeply in Myanmar, even to the point of deploying troops. But he explains that over time, the NDAA has evolved beyond its original purpose of setting the military budget: it is now a legislative vehicle for (mainly) foreign policy initiatives that struggle to pass on their own. By incorporating them into a “must-pass” bill, they are more likely to be enacted. The Burma Act is one such piece of legislation.
Haack points to a notable increase in funds that have been dedicated to Myanmar, from $136 million in the previous fiscal year to $167 million this year. While many feel that the sum is still insufficient given Myanmar's extensive needs, Haack sees a silver lining. “At the end of the day, this is a positive thing. To increase funding in this environment is a big deal! And targeting the money going over the border is also a really big deal,” he adds, referencing the $75 million of humanitarian aid that is designated to be delivered via Thailand and India. Moreover, he notes that the overall foreign aid budget was cut by 6% (led by a faction of right-wing Republicans advocating for substantial reductions across the board), so the slight increase in Myanmar aid is actually a very positive development. “It's something to celebrate,” he acknowledges, adding that it’s also the first time that US policy has allocated money for military defectors. “Combined with the [good] news from the ground, there's almost no way you're not going to see an expansion in US aid toward Myanmar, and that's something I'd be super excited about.”
Haack credits the increase not only to lobbying efforts and grassroots campaigning, but also to the overall legislative impact of the Burma Act, which helps ensure continued funding by establishing a financial commitment. Beyond that, he also describes a coordinated effort by a diverse array of stakeholders to influence appropriations decisions in the House of Representatives, particularly with regards to non-lethal aid to Burma. For example, he describes how influential individuals and groups from Texas, including those from Representative Kay Granger's district and other states with members on the Appropriations Committee, actively lobbied for specific funding outcomes.
As for the Senate, the dynamic there is quite different. He explains that the original intent of the institution was modeled on the British House of Lords. Senators were elected by their state legislatures, the idea being that they would do the country’s work somewhat shielded from temporary or ill-considered swings in local, popular sentiment; senators were not directly elected by the people until 1913. And still today, the Senate functions in ways that are somewhat insulated from direct, public influence, certainly more so than representatives in the House, in spite of the fact that Senators are now elected by the people. In the specific case of aid to Burma, Haack highlights how Senator McConnell, who has traditionally supported robust aid to Burma, was initially reluctant to advance the relevant bill. He had concerns that the legislation’s language was too critical of Aung San Suu Kyi, and he also perceived Burma as “his” issue within the Republican Party and was loathe to support legislate that he was not one of the prime movers of, or that had elements in it he did not agree with. This situation illustrates the Senate's “old-school”-style politics, where the personal interests, desires and prerogatives of individual senators can stall the legislative process.
However, Haack notes that significant grassroots efforts, particularly from Baptist churches in Kentucky, were crucial in overcoming even this institutional barrier. “It's in the Baptists’ self-interest to support Burma these days: lots of white people have stopped going to church, and so the refugees fill the pews. Is that a bad reason to be interested in Burma? I would say no, it's actually a sustainable reason, it’s caring about people in your community.” Ultimately, because of this local pressure, McConnell finally allowed the bill to be included in the NDAA, exemplifying the adage that "all politics is local," meaning politicians ultimately must respond to pressure from their constituents if they want to hold onto their seats. “It's important to think about the self-interests aligning,” says Haack
Indeed, this mindset informs Haack's approach when identifying potential loci of support for Burma across the country. “I genuinely think the perfect narrative to sell Myanmar to Congress is that, ‘Hey, you've got a bunch of people in your state who care about it for this or that reason, and it's in your interest to support it, either because they're human rights activists, or because they're all meditators, [whatever].’ … When you take the local angle, you actually get it away from the big problem of trying to find this ‘perfect narrative’ to sell Myanmar. None of them really fit! It’s much better to actually go with a local angle.”
Looking at the last fiscal year, Haack notes that the US spent $230 million on Burma, which is almost $100 million above what was officially allocated. To explain this positive discrepancy, Haack explains that aid is not simply transferred to a centralized “Myanmar bank account.” In other words, that $130 million represents the floor, not the ceiling, of funding that can get directed to the issue of Myanmar by the US government.
Beyond the monies earmarked specifically for Burma, there is a network of implementing partners and cross-border logistics, primarily coordinated through organizations that blend on-ground staff with accountants in various countries, with different agencies all vying for the same large pools of funds allocated more generally for different sectors and departments.
Haack points out that there are also political dynamics at play that affect the allocation of foreign aid monies; in particular, he makes reference to the ongoing tension between the Executive and Congressional branches over who controls foreign policy more. While the direction of the country’s foreign policy is set by the Executive, Congress, through their control of the budget, often asserts its authority by demanding accountability and adjustments in foreign aid practices. This, in turn, pressures the Executive branch to adapt, which may require that federal agencies increase (or decrease) their spending in a given area.
A common question is when authorized and appropriated monies actually reach the ground. Haack explains that it is complicated, emphasizing that U.S. funding for Myanmar-related programs does not follow a straightforward, easily trackable path. Instead, he describes the process as akin to two continuously spinning, interlocking wheels: the Congressional budget approval process, which includes the monies earmarked for Myanmar, and the process of implementing and tracking specific budgetary allocations. Historically, the dispersal of funds, which largely occurs through major contractors and sub-contractors, has followed the practice of direct cash distributions established by organizations like the International Republican Institute (IRI), and other such large donor organizations that support democracy worldwide by strengthening civil society and promoting free and fair electoral processes. However, this has been changing due to advancements in financial tracking technologies and growing scrutiny over financial management. In short, as for many Burma-related questions these days, there is simply no clear and easy answer that question as to timeline. “The US does all kinds of things, from just of giving out money to the UN, to working with local partners, to working with US-based institutions,” he says. “When you really start getting into it, it's very weird, like, the US funds NGOs that do media training, so that people learn narratives that they then tell reporters that then end up in the Washington Post and then inform US policy. But then at the same time people started to try and look around it to other sources. The feedback loop is interesting.”
Haack is cautiously hopeful that US funding for Burma will continue to increase—albeit with the caveat that if Donald Trump is elected, foreign aid might be cut across the board. Haack also speaks to the US’s gradual shift from a Burma policy that had been almost entirely centered around the person of Aung San Suu Kyi, to one that now relies increasingly on the voices of Myanmar’s ethnic minority communities that have settled in the US. “That opens the possibility of a really different way of looking at the conflict, and I think one that is more realistic,” he says. “Whatever you think about Suu Kyi, she's literally one of something like 56 million people. We have the basis to drive a US-Myanmar policy that's much more realistic and much more robust, and the expansion does show that the US is paying attention to Myanmar. People might notice it's reemerged in the news once again around what's happened in Myawaddy.”
At the end of the day, despite the many challenges that generating support for a proactive Burma policy in the US has faced, Haack sees signs of hope. “There's a lot of reasons to be optimistic. The Burma movement at this stage should just be focused on building constituencies. Grassroots power matters.”