Pakistan one year on - what has been learned?

As Pakistan commemorates one year since the horrendous super-floods, chairperson of the Pakistani Red Crescent, Ms. Nilofar Bakhtiar, outlines what she believes are the critical steps needed to protect vulnerable populations against future risk.

It has been one year since monsoon rains triggered landslides and flooding, the likes of which Pakistan has not experienced in 80 years. In its wake, hundreds of thousands of homes were damaged or destroyed, millions of acres of valuable farmland were left water-logged, and infrastructure such as roads and bridges were swept away. One fifth of the country was submerged, and a staggering 20 million people were affected (photo of Pakistani Red Crescent Chairperson, Nilofar Bakhtiar, left, compliments of AP).

With the next monsoon season on our doorstep, it is vital that collectively, we take the necessary steps to ensure people do not experience such suffering again in Pakistan, or anywhere else in the world when the next disaster hits.

We at the Pakistan Red Crescent Society (PRCS) are taking this to heart as we assist survivors of last year’s monstrous floods in their recovery. Disaster risk reduction (DRR) and disaster preparedness programming are the common factors that bind our projects together. But we cannot do this alone. It is incumbent on all sectors of society to embrace these life saving initiatives; to make DRR and disaster preparedness part of the law of the land.

Our efforts must stem from the needs of the people. We are helping flood survivors identify challenges they currently face, and those they will encounter in the event of another disaster. We are organizing village committees and teaching them how to develop village preparedness plans. We will help these village committees register with the government to ensure they are linked in with early warning systems.

The monsoon floods in Pakistan took six weeks to travel the length of the country, yet Sindh province in the south was still the worst affected. If villagers had been warned about the oncoming flood waters, injuries, deaths and damage to personal property would have been far less. 

We are encouraging people to rebuild their houses on higher ground, and are training workers on the use of more construction methods.

But for this to work, those at the grass roots level must get on board and embrace the power they have to make a positive change in their own lives. They need to take ownership of such disaster preparedness programmes, and in the process, become more self-reliant. It is then – and only then – that we will be able to build stronger, more resilient communities.

Complex disasters are nothing new to Pakistan. We have endured massive earthquakes, floods, cyclones, and drought. In 2007, flash flooding triggered by cyclone Yemyin affected 1.5 million people. An earthquake in October 2005 left more than three million people homeless. Five years prior, a ten month drought affected 1.2 million people in Balochistan. And perhaps the deadliest of all, a cyclone in 1970 that killed 500,000 people. If history is any indicator of the future, Pakistan will fall victim to more large scale disasters. To not learn from them and improve responses in the future is inviting disaster.

Pakistan is learning from the disasters it has faced over the decades. In 2010, a National Disaster Management Act was adopted by Parliament, under which the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) was formed. Similar bodies have also been created at the provincial, state and district levels. In 2007, the government of Pakistan joined 139 other governments in endorsing international guidelines that set out regulations and policies related to the provision of international relief during a disaster. We are currently working with NDMA to establish suitable guidelines for Pakistan. (Photo right Usman Ghani / IFRC)

Hundreds have been trained on disaster risk management, and plans to make villages more resilient to disaster are being developed. However, although institutional commitment has been achieved, the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) states that achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial and that many stumbling blocks remain to making any real progress.

The government, as an institution, needs to change its mindset from one that puts an emphasis on emergency response to one that makes disaster risk reduction an integral component of any sustainable development initiatives. Provincial governments, which are responsible for providing funds at the district level, have yet to make any substantial budgetary provisions in this regard. As a result, very little in the way of disaster risk reduction is taking place at the local level.

Natural disasters are indiscriminate and can strike any country. This is not likely to change as the impact of global warming grows stronger, the intensity of natural disasters increases, and more people are left living in precarious situations. No government or international organization is solely capable of responding to disasters of the magnitude we experienced last year. We need to support each other. To make that happen, the Pakistan government needs to put in place a transparent mechanism that facilitates international support and speeds our response to emergency situations.

We need to give communities the tools they need to rebuild their homes, their livelihoods and recover their dignity. We can no longer live in a world where disasters are forgotten, and with them thousands of people.

It is time for us all to take a stand and vow to do what we can. Villagers: participate in disaster preparedness initiatives, learn how to better prepare yourselves. Aid organizations: implement community-based disaster preparedness activities as part of your core programming. Private sector: stage discussion groups and disaster drills to ensure your employees know what to do when disaster strikes. Governments: enact disaster relief laws that clearly define roles and responsibilities of all players during a disaster, develop early warning systems and fund disaster prepared initiatives at the state/provincial and municipal levels.

We need to act, and we need to do it now.

originally published for ifrc.org

Pakistan: When floods recede, toughest challenges begin

The Pakistan 'superflood' has continued to be the primary focus of our combined aid efforts over the last weeks. Haiti has for now taken a back seat and other massive 'disasters' such as Niger - where famine looms and more than seven million are 'food insecure' - struggle to get the needed attention and funds.

The devastation in Pakistan has been one of the worst natural disasters witnessed in recent times in terms of the numbers of people affected and the massive swathes of territory that are completely destroyed and cut-off. But that is not nearly the whole story.

The impact has not only been about loss of life and entire communities being uprooted. Arguably more significant, livelihoods, properties, income sources, assets, animals, machinery and food stocks of millions of people (many of whom were already living hand-to-mouth) has been washed away and swallowed by the mountains of mud.

Throw into the mix the volatile political situation in-country and on Pakistan's borders and we have a cocktail for potential civil unrest and destabilization. Security concerns for the population and aid workers are growing and, in terms of media interest, these aspects of the disaster are now receiving more attention it seems than the actual human suffering - 'not getting aid through' is a much better story after all than 'getting aid through'.

I embed here for you a photo slide show we but together with our friends at Reuters in an effort to raise awareness (and funds - more than 50'000 hits so far). We will need to produce more of this type of product in order to dispell any misperceptions out there that when the floods recede the disaster is over - the opposite of course is the truth, the real problems are only starting.



A final word of recognition for the Pakistan Red Crescent - they are doing an incredible job and are leading the international effort of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement on the ground (for our latest update, if interested, check this). Years of dealing with large scale disasters and conflict-related population displacements has provided them with great experience and capacities. They will continue to receive our international solidarity, support and reinforcements as they strive to cope with the consequences in the years ahead.

/PC

Hunger is far from being History

On Tuesday Niger marked its 50 years of independence from France - but there is little or no reason to celebrate. Instead of fireworks, monuments, public holidays or parties, half of Niger's 13.5 million people are facing famine.

Niger has the dubious distinction of being known as the poorest country on the planet. Right now it is on the cusp of a famine. In the aidocratic world of humanitarian action people can get quiet hysterical about terminology: is Niger 'food insecure', is it suffering from food shortages, drought or famine. It is categorically facing famine and it is estimated that 1.5 million children are currently at real risk of death from starvation.

Why is it that despite all the awareness, despite the grand political ambition to rid the planet of hunger, despite billions being pumped into food aid and hunger alleviation programs - why is it that more than 35 years after the momentous World Food Summit (Rome, 1974) when Kissinger famously proclaimed a veritable war on famine and promised “that within a decade no child will go to bed hungry” - why is it hunger is a daily reality for a cool billion people? The fact is we have collectively failed to tackle hunger. We are - to our eternal shame - worse of now than we were in 1974.

I want to post a video here of Saray Amadaou, a mother of ten children, who struggles to keep the wolves of starvation from her door by feeding her family from grains scraped from the dry earth. The Disasters Emergency Committee in the UK posted the video on their Facebook page and it sparked some interesting debate. "Why", one lady asked, "Why do you have 10 children and if the Red Cross helps you, will you see this as the opportunity to have more children?". Others offered their opinion explaining that large families were actually coping mechanisms because of hunger and high infant mortality. Nevertheless, the fatigue, the frustration, the futility with seemingly never-ending food crisis is palpable (and understandable).



What do you think? Should the Red Cross Red Crescent and other aid organizations practice 'laissez faire' knowing that millions would die a horrible death or do we continue to provide 'emergency rations' keeping people barely alive as we seek out the magic 'sustainable solutions' formula and battle against a host of external factors such as currency fluctuations, bio fuels, epidemics, desertification, trade, conflict or weather and climate related disasters?

And, hunger, despite what we might think, is not solely an African problem. The situation is arguably worse in Asia. In Pakistan, hunger is now a direct consequence of the horrific floods that have decimated the region. Wheat prices have doubled this year and are set to rise another 30% before the year is out - food riots are again surfacing in North Africa and the Americas.

Global hunger is a reality.  Making hunger history is still a lofty ideal. Why are we so far from making hunger history?

/PC

Climate Change: The G20 can do plenty

Dear G20 leaders,

If necessity is the mother of invention, we should be looking forward to a breathtakingly innovative agreement on climate change in Copenhagen in December. Such an agreement would not only outline how we should curb greenhouse gas emissions, but also how we could realistically adapt to climate change, and help countries cope with its negative effects.

The increasing threat to life and livelihood posed by climate change is already palpable and the need for effective action agreed in Copenhagen is increasingly urgent. Yet the lack of progress in ongoing climate negotiations raises concern as to whether world governments will be able to reach meaningful agreement in December.

For those living on the frontline - the most vulnerable communities living in risk-prone parts of the world - every day wasted could mean a step closer to food or water insecurity; communities having to move to secure adequate and safe services; or even whole regions emptying as they become unable to sustain life.

Changes in the Arctic are accelerating global climate change. Scientists warn that if the Himalayan glaciers disappear, the impact would be felt by more than one billion people across Asia. What will African farmers do when floods wash away their crops as is happening these days in West Africa?

This might sound overdramatic. However, climate change is already increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme natural hazard events, especially floods, storms and droughts. Weather-related events are affecting or displacing more people every year. During the last decade on average 140 million people annually were affected by floods and storms, or two percent of the global population. All the scientific evidence suggests that these trends will continue and accelerate.

Of course the climate change issue is complex, and cannot be neatly separated from other factors such as population growth, urbanization and environmental decline – all of which are increasing risks to vulnerable communities. But those working in the humanitarian field – whether aid workers on the ground, high level advocates or those providing funds – understand all too well that climate change is now a major factor in the rising numbers of people affected by disasters and therefore in the increasing demand for lifesaving aid. Disasters driven by climate change cost lives here and now and they also have lasting effects that take us back to square one in the fight against poverty.

We are not helpless – far from it. Many of the humanitarian consequences of climate change can be averted or reduced. For example, cyclone preparedness programmes in Bangladesh and Mozambique have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and can be expanded to address the increased risk of heavy storms and floods.

Public hygiene campaigns which have improved health in many villages and cities can be upgraded to address climate change related risks like the spread of dengue and malaria. Upgraded care for the elderly during heat waves, planting trees against landslides and storm surges, fine-tuned water saving systems against droughts. There are a multitude of small and big solutions in our hands. We are committed to bring these solutions to the places where adaptation programmes are needed.

But the humanitarian system will need an overhaul to adapt to this new reality. Better balance must be achieved between the imperative to respond to acute humanitarian need and far greater investment in disaster risk reduction and preparedness measures in risk-prone countries. At the global level, we need to improve our risk-management systems to anticipate and respond better to future climate impacts. We also need to explore more innovative ways of sharing risk, perhaps through insurance schemes, to better protect people in the future.

Time is short. There is a unique opportunity to put in place a comprehensive global approach for climate change mitigation and adaptation. World leaders meeting at the UN in New York and at the G20 in Pittsburgh this month should help to lay the basis for an agreement. Let’s hope so, as the interests of many vulnerable populations depend on a strong agreement signed by all Governments in Copenhagen. The agreement may not tie down every detail, but it needs to be in place to ensure that all the fine words we have heard are followed up by meaningful action.


/PC


This opinion piece was put together with our colleagues over at the UN OCHA and has been distributed to various media, co signed by the heads of the two organizations.

Children pay the price in Pakistan

The fighting in Pakistan’s north-west region has displaced between 2.5 million and 3.5 million people. Which amounts to one of the largest population movements in recent history. While more than 235,000 people are in camps, the remainder are living in the homes of relatives and friends away from the areas of violence – and nearly half of these are children who are among those most vulnerable to congested living conditions and poor sanitation facilities.

Support networks for those displaced are near their breaking point, with families facing huge challenges such as food shortages, health problems, and lack of clean water. Host families are struggling to maintain those who are staying with them.

Jahangir Khan, 15, fled his home with his mother and five younger brothers and sisters. His father stayed behind to protect their house in southeast Swat.

“The road was blocked due to the fighting, so we had to take a mountain trail to escape safely,” Jahangir recalled. “We walked for two days before we could get a van to reach my uncle’s house, where we stayed for a few days, but we had to leave because of overcrowding.”

Jahangir now lives in a cave with his family and is being supported by his uncle Taj Maluk.

The support being provided to Jahangir’s family is placing financial strain on his uncle, who is hosting ten other families at his home. He only earns the equivalent 50 dollars (CHF 54.33) a month as a farm worker, an amount that barely supports his own family of 10.

“It’s becoming more and more difficult for me to support these people. I have already sold a cow to get cash”, said 40-year-old Taj.

Jahangir now worries about his father. “It has been ten days since I saw my father,” he said, “I don’t know whether he is okay or not.”

Muhammad Zubair, 13, has not been as lucky as Jahangir. He and his family are living in an abandoned poultry farm that was cleaned and made available by villagers in Ichrian village in Mansehra district east of Swat, in an area free of fighting. (Photo right: Muhammad Zubair and his friends sit outside their living place in village Ichrian of Mansehra.)

Zubair, a student of Quran in a local Madrassah in Mingora, the capital of Swat, had to suspend his studies and move to a safer place along with his family when the fighting escalated.

“I miss my home and my friends. I don’t like living here. My friends and I used to play cricket and other sports. Life was fun,” Zubair said.

It is cold in this poultry farm at night, and sometimes the stench of dead chickens in the area from neighbouring poultry farms is overpowering.

There are around 500 people living at this facility and locals are doing their best to support them. But much more needs to be done to help these families live in a more hygienic environment that provides even the most basic comforts.

“Children are living in extremely unhealthy conditions. Most of them do not even have soap to wash” said Doctor Umar Riaz, a member of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society (PRCS).

Doctor Umar added that the ongoing fighting and the subsequent uprooting of children from their homes have resulted in significant psychological trauma. “They need to engage in sports and other social activities to cope with the situation,” he said.

For the PRCS, the health and welfare of these children is among the top priorities of the appeal for emergency funding that was launched in June to provide humanitarian relief for internally displaced people in Pakistan. These funds are urgently needed but have as yet met with a very poor response. It seems we have our work cut out for us if we are to convince donors and general public that the needs in Pakistan are pressing and present.

This post is based on an article written by my colleague Mubashir Fida in Pakistan which first appeared ifrc.org -- Mubashir also took the photos accompanying this post.

/PC

Moving Mountains: Unique World Youth Gathering in Solferino Italy

Right now, thousands are gathering in the fields around Solferino, northern Italy (birthplace of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement) to commemorate 150 years of the Red Cross. This is a remarkable event in many ways - youth representatives from some 150 countries will be present and will spend the next days working on a declaration to bring about positive change and to identify, from their perspective, what are the real contemporary humanitarian challenges that need to be addressed. Importantly, from a media guy's point of view, this event will also be a rare opportunity to listen and learn from a global representation of the younger generation on how we, as humanitarian organizations, can better engage with and more effectively communicate to our emerging activists, journalists, leaders and decision makers. There is also a special focus on harnessing new media technologies in a genuine effort to reach out and make that conversation with youth. Here below, to give you a flavour of the event, the first video diary, fresh from 'the field', produced by and for our Youth on the Move as part of our global Our World. Your Move. campaign.

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

Health Workers need better protection

We can never let up in our efforts to convince combattants that targeting medical workers and health facilities is not only a breach of international law but contrary to all accepted customary norms of war throughout all cultures. Unfortunately, we still recieve frequent reports of hospitals being bombed, paramedics being shot and ambulances being mortared.

The neutrality of the Red Cross means that speaking out on such incidences is quiet rare. Why? Well for a start, access to the sick and wounded must be the priority and if public silence is the price to pay, so be it. Behind closed doors issues are raised directly with those who can influence positive change on the ground. I have personally witnessed this in many contexts such as in the Caucasus, Afghanistan, the occupied Palestinian Territories and Darfur.

The frustration of course is that you are sometimes also restricted from speaking about 'positive' progress (as it implies that a negative existed in the first place). However, there are exceptions to public denouncements - especially if there is irrefutable evidence that the targetting of civilians or medical workers and facilities is deliberate and part and parcel of military strategy (very difficult to prove).

The Red Cross also operates according to the principle of Independence and this can, in my opinion, mean the 'independence to communicate' no matter how unsavoury the consequences. The reality is that there is often a real humanitarian responsibility to speak out on behalf of the most vulnerable with all the moral authority that the Red Cross voice can muster.

In fact, it is probably being more commonly witnessed today where people affected by conflict or disaster are requesting (desperately) for the "assistance of communication" -- to advocate to the world and "tell them what is happening here". Often it is not wheatflour or tarpaulins that are needed but solidarity and advocacy on behalf of the voiceless.

While outright condemnation is rare, public statements of concern are less so. This is a topic - complex but core - that is only touched upon today but that this blog will tackle on a regular basis in the future.

The embedded 30-second TV spot above contrasts the protection afforded to combatants with the vulnerability of medical staff during an armed conflict. The spot concludes with a battle scene demonstrating how health workers put themselves in harm’s way, unprotected by flak jackets and armoured vehicles. And it reiterates that the safety of health workers must be ensured at all times so that they can do their work – so that they can save lives.

/PC