Aid organisations risk becoming contractors for the attack on Iraq

Op ed in Trouw, a Dutch daily, by Ed Schenkenberg van Mierop

American and British troops have begun to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq, making it impossible for international aid organisations to render assistance independently of the armed forces. As a result, their safety is at stake and it is highly unlikely that the aid will reach those who need it most.

In the coming days and weeks we will see more and more pictures of soldiers giving food and water to Iraqi civilians. Before the war started, about 60% of the population was dependent on foreign food aid via the so-called Oil for Food programme. The longer the war continues, the worse the crisis will become. In the aftermath of bombing and the violence of war, the armed forces want to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

Distribution of food and water by American and British soldiers is simply part of the propaganda aimed at 'selling' the war to the Iraqis. Aid organisations have fiercely criticised the distribution of food under military supervision, from the back of trucks. They know from experience that providing aid without first making an independent assessment of the needs, a profile of the population, and establishing a distribution network, is doomed to failure. The aid is unlikely to reach those who need it most.

International non-governmental aid organisations (NGOs) are currently trying desperately to enter southern Iraq and establish independent programmes. In order to do so, they require permission from American and British military commanders. The Americans have opened a humanitarian coordination centre in Kuwait where NGOs must arrange this permission before they are allowed to enter Iraq. The organisations are afraid that, by subjecting themselves to this 'coordination', they will unwittingly become part of the military offensive. According to international humanitarian law, an armed force that occupies a country is obliged to take care of the civilian population. In other words, one interpretation of the Geneva Convention is that the Americans and British are obliged to provide and coordinate humanitarian aid. It is not clear whether the Convention requires them to do this themselves or whether they may leave it to others, such as UN organisations and NGOs. Should the latter take on this task, the dilemma is clearly apparent: providing humanitarian aid under control of the Americans and British carries the risk that NGOs will be seen as sub-contractors of the invading forces.

If NGOs are perceived as sub-contractors, this would entail serious risks for their safety; parties to the conflict would no longer necessarily perceive NGOs as being neutral and impartial. Neutrality and impartiality enable humanitarian organisations to command the respect of all parties, gain the trust of the Iraqis and provide assistance to the population everywhere in Iraq. In Afghanistan last week a foreigner working for the International Red Cross was murdered, allegedly because he was a member of a 'western' organisation and 'the west' is involved in the war in Iraq. Aid workers in Afghanistan have been protesting for months against the fact that American forces dressed as civilians have been carrying out secret operations while pretending to be assessing humanitarian needs.

Some NGOs have strongly objected to the American television spectacle surrounding the distribution of aid and have declared that they will not accept any funds from countries that are directly involved in the war. In this way, they try to guarantee their own independence; the distance between political and humanitarian aims must be made as wide as possible. In recent weeks, NGOs have appealed for the UN to play a leading role in coordinating humanitarian aid. This multilateral organisation is the only mechanism that can, to some extent, prevent aid being used as an element of a military campaign. The Security Council has decided that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan may restart the Oil for Food programme: a fair decision, mainly prompted by the fact that the US currently has its hands full with waging the war.

In the end, aid organisations will have to decide for themselves whether their principles allow them to work in Iraq. Clearly, not every organisation will arrive at the same conclusion. Many will conclude that their priority lies in alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people and allow themselves to be led by the armed forces. Others will stick to their principles and emphasise that they must be allowed to work independently, even though this will probably lead to non-cooperation from the Anglo-American forces.

It would be preferable if independent aid organisations do not march to the Anglo-American drum but establish for themselves where the humanitarian needs are greatest. The solution to the dilemma could lie in NGOs maintaining contact with the Iraqi people in order to register their humanitarian needs, without getting entangled in the Iraqi conflict. A positive side effect of this would be that more attention could be paid to other humanitarian crises in countries where help is just as desperately needed, such as Ivory Coast.

Ed Schenkenberg van Mierop is coordinator for ICVA, an international association of humanitarian organisations in Geneva.