Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
NGOs Face Tough Choices after Baghdad Blasts - NGOs - Global policy Forum NGOs Face Tough Choices after Baghdad Blasts
By Ruth Gidley
AlertNet
October 27, 2003NGOs said an attack on the Baghdad office of the doggedly neutral International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was a watershed event forcing humanitarians to acknowledge that no matter how carefully they distance themselves from Western military forces they are now a target. Calling it an even greater jolt than the August bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad that killed at least 24 people, they said it would further feed a climate of insecurity and doubt that has forced many agencies to withdraw their international staff or suspend operations altogether.
"The attacks on the U.N. were absolutely appalling, but if it's possible to imagine something even more distressing, it would have to be an attack on the ICRC," Brendan Paddy of Save the Children UK told AlertNet. He said he could see some logic -- albeit twisted – in attacking the United Nations. "There is no such justification for an attack on the ICRC. This is the embodiment of humanitarian impartiality, independence, and in the ICRC's case, neutrality." Most humanitarian organisations swear by the principles of impartiality and independence, meaning they provide aid equally to those in need and make a point of resisting any political, financial or military pressures. The ICRC goes a step further by stressing its neutrality -- refusing to take sides in any dispute -- to ensure access to all parties to conflict. Paddy said if the suicide bomber had survived the attack and been taken captive by U.S. forces, the ICRC still would have made checks to ensure the prisoner was being treated properly. "I'm not making that point hypothetically,” he said. “I bet they would have done it."
SUICIDE TACTICS
Brendan Paddy said bombing was more likely to be the work of an armed Islamic group than supporters of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "The use of suicide bombings isn't something that you would really expect from a pan-Arab, socialist, militaristic, largely secular culture,” he said. “That is something that is strongly associated -- at least in this part of the world -- with extreme Islamist armed groups. “Their objective is not to strike at people who are politically allied with the occupation. The objective is very clearly to undermine the governability and the liveability of Iraq. We're talking about people who seek to promote chaos and despair, for whatever political ends." Frustration in parts of Iraq at water and electricity shortages has led to attacks on aid agencies. Paddy said while such anger could be behind random shootings, stonings, arson or robberies, it could not explain the bombing attacks in Baghdad. "It's perfectly possible that the security problems are caused by a mixture of motivations,” he said. “That would include dissatisfaction with the delivery of basic services, criminality, Ba'athist holdouts and visiting jihadis. “But I don't think it's realistic to blame something like this on anything except an organised group with probably very clear political objectives.” Brendan Cox of Oxfam said different parts of the country had different types of security threats, and that angry crowds and armed robberies posed just as big a threat as targeted bombs. Since well before the U.S.-led campaign to oust Saddam Hussein's government, NGOs have taken great pains to distance themselves from invading or occupying forces.
'WE ARE THE BELLIGERENTS'
“Humanitarian organisations are used to dealing with conflicts where the belligerent forces are third parties, but all of the sudden, we are the belligerents,” said Alistair Dutton, emergencies officer for the British-based Catholic Fund for Overseas Development (CAFOD). Cox of Oxfam said the boundaries in Iraq between civilian humanitarian work and the occupying forces were more blurred than anywhere else the organisation works. He said Oxfam had made a sustained effort to distance itself from the military. The organisation does not use armed guards and asks the occupying forces not to use humanitarian flights or facilities. Other NGOs have taken similar steps. "We have been careful not to be seen as a partner of the occupying forces," Sophie Gabbenygard, emergencies officer for Norwegian Church Aid (NCA) said. NCA operates training programmes in Baghdad for children and young people, and is working with the U.N. Children's Fund on a water project in the southern city of Basra. But Brendan Paddy said the attack on the ICRC had undercut a debate over the separation of humanitarian assistance and military operations at a time when belligerent parties are often major aid donors. "(The ICRC was) set up specifically to work in conflicts, and the fact that that very fundamental role is not being respected sends a very clear message that all the concerns about distancing humanitarian agencies from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) are in a sense academic," he said. "I think the attack on the ICRC makes it very clear that we have irreconcilable differences with some of the armed actors in Iraq, that are not in the foreseeable future going to recognise our independence, our impartiality.”
STAY OR GO?
He said NGOs pondering whether to stay in Iraq would have to weigh how much they could realistically do to help local people with the need to protect staff. "I think it will be on those points that we take the decision, not some calculation about the political effect of any withdrawal, and whether or not we are welcome by some parties or others," he said. CAFOD's Dutton said he was horrified by not surprised by the attack on the ICRC. " If our government is the occupying power and we are distributing food, where is the distinction between those who wage war and those who distribute humanitarian goods?" he said. "Politicians have choose to coin the phrase humanitarian war and they have hijacked the language and therefore co-opted us arguably and certainly in the perceptions of Iraqis in what is overtly a political and military mandate,” Dutton told AlertNet. Paddy said: "We have to be aware of the perception of (our impartiality). But there isn't much sign that the perception is closely linked to the reality, so changing the reality -- if that were possible -- might have little or no impact on the perception. "If there really is a perception that providing the kind of services that the ICRC (does) implicates them with some broader Western agenda, it's very difficult to see how anything we could realistically do could change that." Nada Doumani, a spokeswoman in Baghdad, said the ICRC had yet to decide whether to pull out more international staff, but was determined to maintain its operations in Iraq. Many humanitarian agencies have already withdrawn international staff from Iraq, either shifting operations to neighbouring Jordan, Kuwait or Cyprus, or deciding not to continue or expand projects.
SCALING DOWN
Marc Joolen, operations coordinator for Iraq with Médecins sans Frontières in Belgium, told AlertNet that MSF would scale down its activities because of the new security concerns. The only other MSF sister organisation active in Iraq -- MSF Holland -- left the country a few weeks ago, after finalising its direct distribution programmes in Basra, Jolen said. "For the time being, we decided to concentrate on Baghdad," he said. NCA's Gabbenygard said her colleagues in Baghdad had heard the explosion while eating breakfast, but had so far decided to continue their work. She said the head office in Norway was in daily contact with colleagues in Iraq to assess security conditions. She said they had considered withdrawing several times, but had been persuaded to stay by staff in Iraq. "Of course they are being alert and cautious," she said. Gabbenygard said NCA had drawn up an evacuation plan, and the head office could call on staff to pull out even if those on the ground did not think security conditions warranted it. "We think the work we are doing is very important for the Iraqi people, who are struggling with so many problems,” she said. “If they can see some sort of solidarity from the outside world that is not connected to the occupation I think we’re doing something meaningful. But the balance has to be considered very frequently." Oxfam's international staff moved to Amman in August, leaving national staff in charge. Brendan Cox of Oxfam Great Britain said security was a huge problem not just for humanitarian organisations but for the Iraqi people as well. Cox said several projects would end in November. "When they end we'll be downsizing. That's down to the security situation." "It's security that's severely curtailing our work and stopping us from starting new projects." He said Oxfam was calling on the CPA to provide better security and for Iraqi people to be more involved in the reconstruction of their country.
With additional reporting by Katherine Heine, editing by Timothy Large
More Information on NGOs
More Information on NGOs in the Field
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
