wfn.org | WCC: Winning hearts

["WCC Media" <Media@wcc-coe.org>]

World Council of Churches
Press Feature Feat-03-04
For Immediate Use
9 April 2003

Winning hearts and minds or ensuring impartial aid 
By Nils Carstensen

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.
-----

This feature is an updated version of an article written by Nils Carstensen
on 31 March. Carstensen is a comunicator working for DanChurchAid / ACT
International based in Amman, Jordan. ACT is a world-wide network of churches
and related agencies meeting human need through coordinated  emergency
response. The ACT Coordinating Office is based with the World Council of
Churches (WCC) and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) in Switzerland.

For further information, please contact the Media Relations Office, 
tel: +41 (0)22 791 64 21 / 61 53

**********

The World Council of Churches (WCC) is a fellowship of churches, now 342, in
more than 100 countries in all continents from virtually all Christian
traditions. The Roman Catholic Church is not a member church but works
cooperatively with the WCC. The highest governing body is the assembly, which
meets approximately every seven years. The WCC was formally inaugurated in
1948 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Its staff is headed by general secretary
Konrad Raiser from the Evangelical Church in Germany.

World Council of Churches
Media Relations Office
Tel: (41 22) 791 6153 / 791 6421
Fax: (41 22) 798 1346
E-mail: media@wcc-coe.org 
Web: www.wcc-coe.org 

PO Box 2100
1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland