|
||||||||
| Winning Hearts and Minds or Ensuring Impartial Aid | |||
|
While the war in Iraq may be nearing an end and the country's future remains uncertain, concerns for Iraq's civilians continue to mount. As coalition forces battle in the streets of Baghdad, the suffering and needs of Iraqi civilians intensify. Many of Basra's 1.7 million inhabitants have been getting by on little food and insufficient and dirty drinking water. This is an unsustainable and unacceptable situation. If it continues for much longer, it not only puts many civilian lives at risk, but could lead to a situation where coalition forces and their governments may be accused of possible violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions clearly forbid warring parties from using starvation as a weapon and they insist on free passage for humanitarian aid. Even when this is not the intention, the military reality in Iraq is increasingly likely to put the warring parties on a collision course with International Humanitarian Law. The situation around Basra could be just a taste of what will follow in Baghdad. The population of almost four million is already extremely vulnerable after a decade of UN sanctions, days or weeks of so-called "shock and awe" air attacks, dwindling food stocks, a communications breakdown and a fragile water supply system. In short, it is a humanitarian disaster in the making. Whatever the reputation of the Iraqi regime and its treatment of its own citizens, the US, UK and other coalition governments will face stern criticism at home and abroad if they are perceived to be in violation of the very corner-stone of International Humanitarian Law - the Geneva Conventions. Food riots Recent TV coverage of ill-prepared relief distribution in Southern Iraq brought home images of what amounted to food riots, benefiting only the youngest and the toughest. Some aid workers see these incidents as examples of what may happen when the needs of sick, thirsty or hungry civilians are dealt with as part of a military strategy of "winning hearts and minds," rather than being handled by experienced and independent relief agencies. "What we have seen over the last days in Southern Iraq is an illustration of exactly why the military should let experienced civilian humanitarian actors plan and carry out relief work," says Rick Augsburger, director of Emergency Programs of the US-based Church World Service (CWS) and co-chair of the Humanitarian Practice and Policy Committee of Interaction, a coalition of US relief agencies. In Amman, Jordan, UNICEF's Martin Dawes stresses that such chaotic scenes in Southern Iraq can happen when you have " distribution carried out with no proper assessment, and when you do not have experienced staff on the ground to ensure that food reaches those most in need." For Rick Augsburger, these events are more than just unfortunate incidents. "When the military can shift a quarter of a million people around the globe in a short time, you would think that if the care of the Iraqi people were a primary objective, they would also be able to begin the process to ensure the access and space humanitarian agencies need to assist people in an effective and impartial manner." Lack of respect for experience Rick Augsburger and his colleagues at Interaction are critical of the US administration's approach to and attitude on humanitarian assistance to Iraq. "What we have seen over the last weeks has been disrespect of experienced humanitarian structures on the part of the US," says Augsburger in reference to the manner in which the distinction between humanitarian and military operations is being deliberately blurred. The US administration has, for instance, set up an Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs (ORHA) within the Ministry of Defense. This is part of a US-led structure for planning and controlling future humanitarian operations in Iraq, and includes a Humanitarian Operations Center (HOC) currently based in Kuwait. The HOC office is staffed by US, Kuwaiti and British military staff. By doing this, the coalition forces and their governments have largely bypassed existing UN agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with decades of experience in Iraq and major emergencies across the world. Many relief agencies also fear that such a deliberate blend of military command and humanitarian aid poses a real threat to the principles of neutrality and needs-based distribution of aid, considered crucial for effective relief work. "This may create a destructive precedent, not only for Iraq but for humanitarian operations in areas of conflict all over the world," says Augsburger. Pushing for UN coordination Most major humanitarian agencies are now indicating that they are not ready to be quietly led by the US-led coalition's HOC and ORHA structures. Instead, they have thrown their weight behind the support for reinstating the UN and its Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) as the overall coordination body for current and future humanitarian operations in Iraq. "Not one of our members is ready to take ID-cards from the HOC in Kuwait. They are working for a mechanism embedded in existing UN and NGO structures," says Joel McClellan of the Geneva-based Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response. This is an alliance of nine of the world's largest and most experienced private humanitarian agencies, including Save the Children, Federation of Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the World Council of Churches/ACT International. These agencies insist on UN coordination rather than coordination by a body ultimately answerable to the US military in order to ensure impartiality and independence, Speaking from Jordan, Daniel Augstburger of the UN-OCHA in Iraq summed up: "The distribution of aid should be carried out by civilian organizations. Only such specialized UN or NGO organizations can guarantee the impartial distribution of essential supplies. Their independence and experience is exactly what permits them to assist civilians in conflict situations and to do that on a basis of neutrality and professional needs assessments." Insisting on a solid distinction between humanitarian
and military operations is becoming increasingly important. What
to the outside eye may seem to be largely a matter of lofty humanitarian
principles essentially boils down to concrete issues of access to
needy populations, as well as questions of safety for humanitarian
workers during and after the war in Iraq. |
|
||
 |
 |