A day to commemorate (and celebrate) aid workers

Today. August 19th, is the second year of what is being called World Humanitarian Day. Who needs another international day you may well ask - there are so many at this stage that we can barely fit them into a full calendar year.

Like others, I was probably a bit cynical, or at least non-committal when WHD was introduced last year (you know it's got legs in the humanitarian world when we give it its very own acronym!). However, this year I have literally bought the tee-shirt and will probably take part in a quiet procession later on this evening in Geneva to remember colleagues who are no longer with us. Why the change of heart - maybe a gradual realization that we have more than enough cynicism in our 'business' and a to set aside one dignified day a year to remember slain colleagues is pretty decent actually when it boils down to it.



For me, unfortunately, this list of murdered colleagues, and colleagues who have died in the line of duty (to borrow a military metaphor) is too long. So today I will be especially thinking of Rita and the Jacaranda that grows in her honor in the DRC. I will be thinking back to my first mission with the ICRC when six colleagues were slain as they slept in Chechnya on 17th December 1996. And, some dear former colleagues will spring to mind from the long list of aid workers whose lives have been cut short as they tried to effect positive change in their homelands in places such as Iraq, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia and too many other locations. And, most recently, in Afghanistan, when ten aid workers were mercilessly executed - our Wayfarer-in-Chief, Bob McKerrow, has written a moving and personal account of this recent tragedy in his blog.

As long as WHD remembers those of all nationalities, expatriate or not, it will be worth commemorating. I posted the video here which has been put together for the day. It is especially gratifying to see a video that doesn't glorify 'disaster porn', that doesn't bastardize 'branding porn' and that focuses firmly on the principle of principles that binds us all together - Humanity.

/PC

Kabul Dreams do come true

You heard it here first, or possibly not, but still, HDEO is backing “Kabul Dreams” to hit the big time. In a country where music was banned, where the Taliban still hold sway in many parts, the alternativley bubbly and angsty brit-pop sound being pumped out by Siddique, Mujtaba and Sulaymon is a balm to the ears.

The fab three grew up away form Afghanistan, as refugees in Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Iran. When they returned with their families to their homeland they met up, started jamming together and naturally enough started singing in English, as bands from TaTu to Falco are wont to do.

Not only was English the lingua franca of pop, it also united the three lads, one of whom speaks Pashto, aother Uzbek and the last Dari.

I don’t know about you, but being in Ireland over the holidays meant the X-Factor was morbidly unavoidable. Seeing the talentless preening pampered prettyboys trot out drivelling inanities like “I dunno like I was just like pumped up for it like, to go for my dream and give it loads like” makes the work of Kabul Dreams all the more laudable.

Compare and contrast Joe McEldingleberry from Xfactor: “I don’t think I’d have a full facelift, but errrr… it’d depend on what it was. I think on my own terms I’d like to get a brace and get my teeth sorted out”…

…with Sulamon Qardash “We love our country and we want to change our young generation, we want to make something new”.

Or perhaps McEldingleberry: “I’d like to think I’d grow a bit taller but as they say, good things come in small packages”…

…with Qardash: “Playing rock music is a risk but we want to play in Afghanistan”. In fact they’ve only risked playing in cafés to expats, aid workers and government officals, and have had to cancel gigs at short notice due to insecurity and threats.

Kabul Dreams don’t just do covers. They weave Afghan rhythms into rock and roll for a sound that’s a bit like KulaShaker meets Oasis meets the Rembrants with a bit of Cream and even a bit of Van Morrison. The little bits I’ve heard are definitely happy pop with a good dollop of teenage angst.

I suppose I was predisposed to liking a band like this. There’s an echo of my beloved Stiff Little Fingers in there too. The Stiffs stayed on through the war, the Dreams have come back to help heal wounds.

“The reason we formed this band was to give a message to the Afghan youth, a message they can live together,” says Qardash. “One Afghan. That’s it.”

Have a listen on YouTube (and if you are impressed or curious you can join their Facebook page too).  Think about that tortured, holy, brutal land. Think of the ravished cities, the women dying in childbirth, the millions of shattered, shortened lives, the senseless sensless waste. Kabul Dreams are worth having.

/JL

Aid Workers increasingly targeted

Somewhere right now, fellow Red Cross colleagues, Gauthier Lefèvre and Laurent Maurice, are being held hostage in Darfur and Chad. The exact location is of course not known. Gauthier was kidnapped in western Darfur some 70 days ago on 22 October and Laurent taken in eastern Chad nearly 50 days ago on 09 November. Their abduction followed hot on the heels of the release of two other aid workers who had been taken hostage: Irish aid worker Sharon Commins and her Ugandan colleague Hilda Kawuki were released in mid-October after some four months in captivity. Two civilian workers of the UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur (UNAMID) are also still in the hands of their abductors since last August.

Aid workers now more at risk than UN peacekeepers

The most recent reliable statistics for 2009 cite 19 aid workers being killed in Sudan and dozens more kidnapped. In 2008, according to the Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG), some 260 aid workers were killed, kidnapped or seriously injured in violent attacks. This year's numbers are trending to surpass 2008's record breaking figures. The amount of murderous and hostage taking incidents of aid workers is indisputably surging with the annual average now three times higher than the previous nine years (when systematic documentation of this type of data was first seriously gathered). Interestingly, the figure of aid worker fatalities now exceeds that of UN Peacekeeping troops.

The traditional 'protection' afforded to humanitarians working in areas of conflict (or post-conflict) has its origins in universally accepted norms of war which have been most recently enshrined in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (and their related Protocols of 1977). The Conventions outline the obligation of 'beligerents' to provide protection to civilians and non-combatants and specifically points out their obligations towards facilitating security for people and assets (warehousing, telecommunications, vehicles etc.) engaged in humanitarian activities that are aimed at reducing the suffering of people not taking part in the conflict i.e. the non-combatants (which also includes injured or detained fighters and soldiers i.e. people who no longer pose a threat).

Military 'Heroes' and Humanitarian 'Do-gooders'

This legal and de facto protection has become increasingly eroded and is probably best demonstrated during the war in Iraq when humanitarian organizations were directly targeted (including the Red Cross head office in Baghdad) as they were wrongly perceived by the insurgency to be part and parcel of the occupying forces. What's more, the very work of aid agencies in places such as Afghanistan, Somalia or Sudan, which includes providing clean water, sewage treatment, effective medical care, infant nutrition programs and so on - is now often viewed as contrary to the 'war' aims of insurgency groups in whose interests it may be to maintain chaotic and dire conditions (as the contrary - the success of aid work - might indirectly reflect well on the central powers that be, or want to be).

There is another aspect which niggles slightly and that is the deafening silence that generally meets the news of aid workers being killed or taken hostage. There is not only a relative silence from governments, media or the public but even from the humanitarian sector itself. Compare the death in Afghanistan of aid workers to that of soldiers who, by and large, are armed to the teeth and sent to Afghanistan to kill or be killed. I don't dispute military interventions - not my business - but it is quiet incredible that the media is so keen to eulogize the military as 'fallen heroes' and ignore those who risk (and give) their lives desperately trying to make a difference on the human level without resorting to state of the art munitions and military occupation.

Ready for risk but not to be a target

This realization - ever rising fatalities among aid workers in recent years - will inevitably affect how aid organizations operate in increasingly insecure environments. Can you, as an operational manager of an aid agency, send your people into danger zones knowing that the risks are unacceptable; knowing that they are likely targets? As is often said, aid workers are ready to accept the risks that come with the context of conflict but can we really accept to be a target? 


There are many possible reasons for this worrying trend not least of which are the blurring of the lines as occupying military armies (such as the US and its allies) increasingly resort to what they like to call 'hearts and minds' whereby you have the contradictory scenario of soldiers doing aid work (normally conditional on locals cooperating with military objectives rather than based on urgent humanitarian needs). And then you have the massive increase in private military contractors - as many as 100'000 working directly in Iraq alone - basically guys in tee shirts and jeans (just like aid workers) but part of the occupying power and walking around heavily armed (unlike aid workers - but can armed opposition groups or the public tell the difference?).


Neutral, independent, humanitarian action must be maintained if we are to retain a smidgeon of security, international law, human decency, conversation and understanding between the richly diverse and distinct peoples of our confused, imbalanced world. In the jargon of the aid business, the humanitarian space is shrinking fast. We have surely come too far, learned too much from the 'colonial' type mistakes of aid in the past, to resort to a regressive 'aid through the barrel of a gun' - or am I completely naive?

Meanwhile, spare a thought for Laurent and Gauthière and the good people of Sudan and Chad who are helping to secure their release.

/PC

Afghanistan: We kill f**king civilians all the time

Keep an eye out for an online documentary coming soon called the battle for hearts and minds. This is a sneak preview below, only one and a half minutes or so and well worth a glimpse. As Obama tries to resolve his procrastination - to surge or not to surge - over Afghanistan, this documentary is set to give Americans a real uncomfortable close and personal view of events around the cosily coined "battle for hearts and minds." Some notable quotes from the trailer below: "We are experts in the application of violence..... ECHO company is going to change history starting early tomorrow morning .... We kill fucking civilians all the time". This will not only open American eyes to the illusion of their military might (please check out a previous post that interviewed Seymour Hersh, well known American journalist, on this issue) but it will also touch the hearts and minds of Afghans and their neighbours for generations to come!
/PC

Afghanistan and the lessons of history

I would never have thought that reflecting about my time in Afghanistan, and my fascination with a 19th century painting from the Anglo-Afghan war, would lead me to Tipperary and Meath.

Last week's suicide bombing and armed raids on a guest house frequented by UN staff in Kabul got me thinking, not for the first time, of this interminable part of the world. The UN bombing had been preceded a few days before hand by a suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul that left at least 17 dead and dozens severely injured. Then, a few days after the UN bomb we had massive explosions in the crowded alleys of Peshawar's sprawling street markets that left more than a hundred civilians dead.

I remember back in 1999 when I had my Afghanistan time, the country - apart from a territory in the north - was presided over by the Taliban and an assembly of war lords. At that time there was no alcohol allowed, no women in the workforce (or anywhere else except mostly indoors), no television, no music - no fun basically. It was a tough time on many levels not least the psychological one. You have no idea how dreadfully depressing it can be to work with some twelve hundred colleagues all of whom are male with an average age of about 50! I longed for female company and I longed also for a cold beer at the end of the day.

Given the lack of social outlet and the very real security threats life was confined to work and (heavily gaurded) home - a good time to catch up on my reading and experiment with some herbal teas. At that time I became fascinated with the historical writings on what is know as the Great Game - the great rivalry between the British and Russian empires that lasted the best part of one hundred intriguing years ending in 1921 with a friendship treaty between the two great foes. The prize for the Great Game was the Indian sub-continent which Britain declared the jewel in its crown and feared mightily that Russia would conquer Afghanistan and use it as a launching pad to snatch India.

So, not for the first or last time in her long and illustrious history, the nation of Afghanistan found itself at odds - through no real fault of its own - with major military powers. A victim of its own geography. But, not being one to turn down a decent offer of a good fight, Afghanistan embraced the Great Game and played both sides off against each other, much like they did with Persia during the same period and of course the Americans and the Soviets in the 1980's.

Never conquered. Never Divided.
History will show that the whole of Afghanistan has never, not once, been controlled from the centre. And, while (in western eyes) treachery and deceipt are a frequent feature of their methods of warfare (rendering the Geneva Conventions culturally biased?) Afghanistan has incredibly remained solidly intact, never fragmenting along ethnic or religious lines and maintaining its borders since its inception. It clings fiercely to the origin of its name which is Sanskrit for "land of the allied tribes".

But, I digress. I did not intend a historical account, even a brief one. But it is necessary for the remainder of my tale. During those turbulent days back in 1999 we did manage to escape on rest and recreation every few months to Peshawar where the first destination was the long-established American Club - a place with cold beer, conversation with women and late night darts. At the entrance of this modest but grand old building, just before you climbed the stairs to the bar, hung a gilt-framed oil painting which always stopped me in my tracks and urged me to ponder awhile. It was an original copy of "Remnants of an Army" depicting a lone soldier, Scotsman Dr. William Brydon, at the gates of Jalalabad, which lie approximately half way along the 200 mile road between Kabul and Peshawar.

Brydon was reportedly the sole survivor of a sixteen thousand five hundred strong retreating British army that fled Kabul in 1842 - all but Brydon were mercilessly massacred with horrific efficiency by Afghan forces lying in wait (depicted above). The same Afghan forces, it should be mentioned, with whom they had been allied just a few days before - things can change very quickly in Afghanistan.

This effectively brought to an end the First Anglo Afghan War (1839 - 1842) and one of the lessons learned (for evaluation it seems was also a practice back then - makes you wonder if it is really possible to learn from our mistakes) was a telling and succinct recommendation whose relevance today is obvious: The First Afghan War provided the clear lesson to the British authorities that while it may be relatively straightforward to invade Afghanistan it is wholly impracticable to occupy the country or attempt to impose a government not welcomed by the inhabitants. The only result will be failure and great expense in treasure and lives.


From Tipperary to Afghanistan and back
Now, that painting (shown at the top of this post), as mentioned, fairly captivated me at the time especially as I was so enamored with Peter Hopkirk's writings of the Great Game that repeatedly recalled the resilience of the Afghans throughout their long and combative history. Staring at the forlorn figure of Brydon, the lone horseman, one didn't know whether to feel pity or pride. His form embodied defeat, set against an unforgiving and alien landscape; and such were the incredible odds against his survival that you were forced to wonder whether the Afghans let him loose on purpose - a barely living testimony to their military might.

The painting was the work of an artist called Lady Elizabeth Butler. When writing this post I could not remember her name so scoured the internet until I found it - and I found out a few other aspects which struck me as interesting. Elizabeth was born in Lausanne (Switzerland) but married an Irish soldier, writer and adventurer called William Francis Butler. William hailed from the impoverished famine fields of Tipperary and had risen to great heights in the British army. The couple returned to Ireland upon William's retirement and lived in Bansha Castle before moving eventually to the east coast of Ireland, settling down in Gormanstown Castle where they stayed till their final days and are buried at nearby Stamullen Graveyard.

Year's after my own Afghan adventure I tracked down some of Elizabeth's paintings at the Imperial War Museum in London, and I was not disappointed. I have heard that the painting of Brydon - the last remnant of a decimated army - now hangs at the Tate but will have to confirm that at a later date. It may be coincidence that a painting which had such a hold over me ten years ago somehow turned out to have strong Irish connections. Whatever the case, I'll be making my way to Stamullen cemetery the next chance I get to track down the last resting place of this incredible couple and pay them my respects.

/PC

Droning on, the Cubicle Warriors

War is peace, the party said, in Orwell’s prescient 1984. My first reaction when I saw Obama had won the Nobel peace prize was one of satisfaction, that this man of relative peace (compared to his predecessor) had been honoured, perhaps too soon, but honoured nonetheless. I was a bit peeved for Morgan Tvangirai, a mighty man if ever there was one, but Obama getting the Nobel call felt kinda good, fluffy, warm.

But, as the New Yorker magazine reflected, Obama would probably have preferred to get the Olympics for Chicago as a present from the Skandies. “At least at the Olympics the judges wait till after the race to give you the gold medal. They don’t force it on you while you’re still waiting for the bus to take you to the stadium. They don’t give it to you in anticipation of possible future feats of glory, like a signing bonus, or an athletic scholarship. They don’t award it as a form of gentle encouragement, like a parent calling “Good job” to a toddler who’s made it to the top rung of the monkey bars. It’s not a plastic, made-in-China “participation” trophy handed out to everyone in the class as part of a program to boost self esteem. It’s not a door prize or a goody bag or a bowl of V.I.P. fruit courtesy of the hotel management. It’s not a gold star. It’s a gold medal.”

Let’s remember that this is a wartime president. And this war is unlike any war that has preceded it. The Obama administration, according to the New Yorker in a different article, has carried out an may unmanned drone strikes in ten months as the Bush administration did in its last three years.

Drones are unmanned planes, effectively missiles, that are being used more and more in the lawless and impenetrable “Tribal Areas” of Pakistan. Last March the US government allowed Pakistani authorities to nominate its own targets.

Now, while Drones are touted as deadly accurate, more so than dropping bombs (or for that matter packing a car full of semtex and just driving right at the target), according to the New America foundation (which has links to the New Yorker magazine) as many as 320 innocents have been killed by these American robots since 2006: http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/revenge_drones

And drones are working. Half of the top 20 most wanted Al Qaeda terrorist suspects have been taken out of service. But surely, the (presumably quite large) families of the 320 innocents are at risk of being radicalized when they see their loved ones vaporized by … well, by whom?

The New Yorker says that the job of piloting these missiles halfway round the world is, wait for it, outsourced. The joysticks are being wiggled by civvies sitting in cubicles in Bartfark Ohio (or maybe not even in the US at all, maybe in the Drone pilots equivalent of a call centre in Chennai, “hello, this is Raj, who can I help you kill today?”).

This makes for interesting dilemmas for the rules of war. Back to the New Yorker: “If the United States can legally kill people from the sky in a country we are not at war with, other countries will argue they can do the same thing.”

The cubicle warriors could be considered by international law to be engaged in warfare, when, viewed from the neighbouring cubicle, they are just jiggling an Xbox.

/JL

Civilians suffer most in War

Today, the International Committee of the Red Cross, released ground-breaking research on the impact of armed conflict as expressed by the civilians whose lives it affects. No prizes for guessing the conclusions of the report - civilians bear the brunt of war. A far cry from the Battle of Solferino, 150 years ago, which kicked off the Red Cross movement, when one civilian reportedly died among 44'000 military casualities. The data collected from 4000 interviewees across eight countries makes interesting reading and here, HDEO provides a short preview of the 90 page report.

This research focused on some of the most troubled places in the world which are either experiencing situations of armed conflict or armed violence or suffering their aftermath: Afghanistan, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Georgia, Haiti, Lebanon, Liberia and the Philippines.

This research was undertaken in countries that are currently experiencing or have experienced armed conflict or other situations of armed violence. The aim was to develop a better understanding of people’s needs and expectations, to gather views and opinions, and to give a voice to those who have been adversely affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence.

This research has been commissioned within the framework of the Our world. Your move. campaign. Launched in 2009, the campaign's goal is to draw public attention to the vulnerability and ongoing suffering of people around the world. The intention is to emphasise the importance of humanitarian action and to convince individuals everywhere that they have the ability to make a difference and reduce suffering.

2009 is an important year for the International Red Cross as it celebrates the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Solferino, which gave birth to the worldwide movement of Red Cross and Red Crescent that we know today.

In 1999, when I was moving as an ICRC delegate from an assignment in the Balkans to Afghanistan, we undertook a similar survey entitled People on War, which now serves as a good basis for comparison of trends over the last 10 years.

Suffering in armed conflict is extremely widespread

Almost half (44%) across the eight countries surveyed have personal experience of armed conflict – but even this does not fully reflect the impact of such events on their lives. The consequences of armed conflict are felt beyond those who are immediately affected.

In total, around two-thirds of persons (66%) have been affected in some way – either personally or due to these wider consequences – and this includes almost everyone in Haiti (98%), Afghanistan (96%), Lebanon (96%) and Liberia (96%).

Displacement, the separation of families, and economic hardship are day-to-day realities for many

Of all the people who have experience of armed conflict, 56% have been displaced. In certain contexts, this number is higher such as in Afghanistan, where 76% have been displaced, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) 58%, in Lebanon 61% and in Liberia, almost nine in ten (90%) of those interviewed responded that they had to leave their home.

Across the eight countries in this study, these figures equate to several millions of people having been displaced. Almost half of (47%) respondents who have experience of armed conflict say they have lost contact with a close relative. It is 86% in Liberia, 61% in Afghanistan, 51% in Lebanon, 47% in the DRC, and over one in three (37%) in Haiti.

Worse still, many people (28%) say that close family members have been killed by the fighting, including 69% in Liberia, a quarter of those in Lebanon (26%) and the DRC (25%) - and 45% in Afghanistan. People also face a range of dangers to their health, liberty, self-respect and state-of-mind. On average across the eight countries:

• 18% have been wounded by the fighting;
• 19% have known someone to fall victim to sexual violence, including 44% in Haiti and
• 28% in the DRC;
• 17% have been tortured, including 43% in Afghanistan;
• 10% have been imprisoned and 10% kidnapped / taken hostage;
• 32% have been ‘humiliated’, including 51% in Haiti;
• 23% have been ‘psychologically hurt’.

As well as displacement, many have suffered serious damage to their property, or seen their homes looted. Lack of access to basic necessities and to healthcare is yet another widespread problem, particularly in Afghanistan and Haiti, where most people have suffered a lack of both.

Last but not least, there is an enormous economic impact for people. Many have lost their means of income due to armed conflict including over half in Afghanistan (60%) and Lebanon (51%) and two fifths in Haiti (40%).

People have many fears resulting from the traumatic events around them

Faced with so many threats, what do people fear the most in armed conflicts? Three top issues emerge:

• Losing a loved one, mentioned by an average of 38% of those surveyed;
• Economic hardship (31%); and
• Displacement / becoming a refugee (24%).
• Other common fears include physical injury (15%), sexual violence (13%), and living with day-to-day uncertainty (25%).

Beyond this, there are notable fears in individual countries:

• Losing one’s house / belongings in Liberia (35%);
• Limited access to basic necessities in the DRC (22%);
• Being denied an education in Afghanistan (21%);
• Imprisonment in Afghanistan (15%).

A comparison was made between people's fears and actual experiences. In many cases they are similar. Sometimes, people’s fears and experiences match. For example, displacement and economic hardship are a fear and a reality across the eight countries. There are also specific examples such as in the DRC, experience and fear of sexual violence are both very high, at (28%) and (36%) respectively. In other cases, fear and experience do not match. For example, across the eight countries the fear of being deprived access to basic necessities / healthcare is far less prevalent than the reality based on respondents’ feedback. Understandably, people more often fear the death of a family member than they do separation from them – but in reality, the latter is more likely.

Above all, people caught up in armed conflict need basic provisions and protection

• For basic needs, people primarily cite:
• Food, cited by 66% across the eight countries and by 90% in Liberia;
• Security/Protection, 48% overall and 66% in Haiti;
• Medical treatment/healthcare, 43% overall and 48% in Afghanistan;
• Shelter, 40% overall and 58% in Liberia.

There are other needs as well. People say that families must be kept together (18%), and that respect/dignity must be maintained (14%). Psychological support is mentioned by 12% overall. In individual countries, other factors also emerge. Economic help is reported as a particular need in Colombia (35%), and those surveyed in Georgia are especially focused on a resolution to the conflict (23%).

However, people face a number of barriers to receiving help

For people in need, receiving help is not always straightforward. Some 59%of respondents across all countries surveyed cite corruption as an obstacle to receiving help. This figure includes 85% in the Philippines, 82% in Colombia, 81% of persons in Liberia, 75% in Haiti, and just over half of those in Afghanistan and in the DRC. People also face restrictions due to social status/discrimination (37%) and black markets (33%). Other factors include inaccessible locations (39%), or a basic lack of knowledge that help is available. This latter factor is most cited in Haiti (50%), Colombia (41%), the DRC and the Philippines (37% each).

Some people also fear that accepting help may have repercussions for them, such as rejection by the community (13%) or the perception that they are aligned with the ‘wrong side’ (20%). However, aid is rarely refused because it is not needed or not wanted; fewer than 10% in most countries reported this.

Wide support for direct action by ‘the international community’

People are clear about what direct involvement they think that the international community should take. In particular, they would like the international community to:

• Provide peacekeepers, cited by 42% across the eight countries;
• Give emergency aid (42%);
• Intervene militarily to stop the conflict (29%).

People also want peace talks/negotiations (34%), trials of leaders accused of war crimes (25%), financial support for humanitarian organisations (25%) and awareness raised of civilians’ plight (17%). These actions are supported in all countries. In Liberia, most people want peacekeepers (65%), and in the Philippines and Afghanistan, half call for emergency aid (52% in each). Military intervention is most widely supported in Liberia (37%), the DRC (36%) and Afghanistan (34%).

However, people generally do not want economic sanctions; just 10% of those surveyed endorse the use of economic sanctions. This perhaps reflects people’s fears of the financial impact both on their own families and on their countries’ economies. Nor do people want the international community to rebuild national infrastructure.

How can those living outside armed conflict zones (i.e. citizens in other countries) best help?

Respondents in all eight countries emphasise:

Donations of goods and money (45%). Those in Lebanon, Liberia and Georgia

particularly want to see donations of money; Support for organisations that help those affected by armed conflict/violence (48%); Volunteering cited by 33% on average, and by 47% in the Philippines and 43% in Liberia.

Some 39% of those surveyed support the idea of applying political pressure on legislators, including at least half of those in Colombia, Afghanistan and the DRC. Journalists and the news media, were also cited, and many people see them as having some role to play. This is particularly evident in the Philippines (42%), Haiti (32%) and Afghanistan (22%).

To download the full survey results, access footage, press releases, expert analysis and more, visit the landing page here.

/PC

The "Humanitarian Space" just got Bigger

A significant victory for the "humanitarian space" was achieved by NGOs in Afghanistan this week when NATO command agreed to stop using white vehicles. From now, all 58,000 troops in the International Security Assistance Force will use non-white cars (colours yet to be determined, and NGOs are pressing for a special colour for military vehicles.)

 

Why is this significant? Humanitarian organisations have traditionally used white vehicles as it is the universal colour for peace, neutrality, innocence (and happily, white reflects the sun best). A white armband was the initial symbol for neutral medical staff on the battlefield, with the Red Cross being added when the ICRC was first formed as the International Committee for Relief to Wounded Soldiers.

 

If there can be no distinction made between belligerents and neutral humanitarian staff then the lives of the latter are placed in jeopardy. Furthermore, it confuses the local civilian population who cannot be clear on the motives or identity of those who are promising them aid.

 

Every Red Cross vehicle in the world is emblazoned with a logo of a Kalashnikov with a red line through it - No Guns on Board. The Red Cross symbol alone should - but alas is not - be the only protection aid workers need, as the Red Cross (or Crescent) symbol is enshrined in international law signifying that the bearer takes no part in hostilities.

 

There are those who would argue that the ambiguity worked in favour of aid workers - if stoned teenagers on a checkpoint weren't sure if there were weapons on board they might show more respect. That of course is sheer bollakiss. The only way to prove you come in peace is to arrive weaponless (the origin of shaking hands - immobilising the sword arm). People carrying no weapons pose no threat. Yes, it makes them more vulnerable but that's the tradeoff we make (and it has a tendancy to improve ones communication skills).

 

A good friend who served as head of mission in Afghanistan for MSF-Holland was my co-tutor at the International Diploma for Humanitarian Affairs in Fordham University in 2004. While the course was on, several of his friends and colleages were ambushed and murdered in a white vehicle in Afghanistan. Yet he was still adamant that the military, and particularly armed "private security contractors" should be banned from using white vehicles.

 

The news from Afghanistan is tempered by realpolitik. There's never any 100 per cent good news. Unfortunately NATO's new policy regarding the use of white vehicles will not apply to thousands of US troops operating beyond the writ of NATO/ISAF and engaged mainly in counter-insurgency and "anti-terrorism" military activities.

 

More work remains to be done. Just as we seek to highlight our neutral and independent status, combatants are required under international humanitarian law to distinguish themselves from civilians in conflict.  

 

But for now, let's celebrate this small victory and the significant enlargement of the "humanitarian space". How serendipitous that Red Cross volunteers from all over the world are right now converging by foot, car, rail and air on Solferino for the anniversary of the battle that brought the Red Cross into being.

/JL

Gaza: Billions pledged but will the washing machines get through?

Good news for Gaza after billions pledged at the international donors conference today in Egypt. Lets hope so. As Mahmoud Abbas was quick to pronounce (maybe he reads Head Down Eyes Open): cash is "insufficient" without a political solution. Abbas went on to say that "the reconstruction and development efforts will remain insufficient, powerless and threatened in the absence of a political settlement". And this is the crux of the matter.

Most aid is conditional. In this case, conditional on real political action but that we discussed previously. It will likely be conditioned by many donors that Hamas does not benefit. And, of course, it will be conditional on Israel's cooperation to open up the border and allow an increased flow of aid and economic activity.

The first condition, if going by many positive statements from world leaders in Sharm el Sheik today may actually occur. The second condition, for argument's sake, can be readily circumvented by channelling aid through the Palestinian Authority, the UN and other aid organizations such as the Palestine Red Crescent. The third condition is trickier however.

During my recent years in the region, where I worked closely with both Palestinian and Israeli authorities to facilitate the movement of people and goods across Gaza's perimeter, the argument of "dual purpose" was regularly used by Israel to block aid and effectively seal`off Gaza from everything apart from the most vital commodities. One anecdotal example: I spent about 6 months trying to get two washing machines into Gaza for a hospital laundry (do you realize how difficult it is to run a hospital without a laundry?). The washing machines were declared "dual purpose" by the IDF, that is, could be easily converted into parts for missiles or other home-made projectiles. Other items which qualified for this ambiguous label were gravel, concrete, water pumps and on and on.

It is extremely difficult to argue against this type of logic (despite the fact that as the neutral Red Cross we guaranteed to provide a 'safe escort' for the washing machines and to monitor thier installation into the laundry). Eventually after months of efforts we succeeded - as we often do, persistence being one of the Red Cross' greatest assets. This frustration is a real issue today because large-scale projects - such as a USAID funded water and sewage project for Beit Lahiya in the north of the Strip - were completely cancelled in the past because of the impossibility to ship in raw materials and spare parts. Before this current escalation of the crisis Gaza's production was dependent on 95% raw material imports (I guess its nigh on 100% today). Will we find the political will to facilitate the ambitious reconstruction plans demanded by a $5 billion aid package?

Ban Ki Moon, UN chief, is already making this issue his key message. The UN suffered massive destruction in Gaza during the January conflict and are aware of all the potential pitfalls on the road ahead. Ban has said that the situation for getting goods through the so-called crossings into Gaza today is "intolerable" (even pasta is on the banned list it seems). "Aid workers do not have access. Essential commodities cannot get in. Our first and indispensable goal, therefore, is open crossings," he told delegates at the conference today.

We have seen in similar conferences that the easy part is to pledge money. Delivering on pledges and getting the aid to those who need it most is the real challenge ahead. We will return to this subject and follow the path from pledge to reality. If we look at the case of Afghanistan for example more than $25 billion was pledged and less than $15 billion actually 'handed over' - though according to Oxfam's research as much as 40% of this made its way back to the donor country. Like the child in the photograph accompanying this post, we will be keeping an eye on the future.

/PC