Previous | Next

Denis McNamara speaks about Kosovo at a press conference in Albania.
File photo from July 1999 by ARBEN CELI

Background

•  Afghan turmoil

•  Iraq in turmoil

MORE >>

Some weeks after the Baghdad bombing, a number of UNHCR staff involved or working in Iraq met in Beirut to review where we should go from here.

This was necessary because the Baghdad attack brought a new degree and magnitude to anti-U.N. hostility we had not seen before.

Our Beirut reflections raised a number of fundamental questions that UNHCR and its partners need to start to address, including:

• How do humanitarian agencies -- including UNHCR and its partners -- avoid being too closely identified with resisted political or military interventions, as in Iraq? What is the right distance? How do we balance the need for a secure political and military environment -- essential for our operations -- without being seen as humanitarian cover for strenuously contested political action? Should the increasing peacekeeping merger of humanitarian and political aspects of such operations of the 1990s be revisited, at least in unilaterally-led interventions, such as Iraq? If so, how?

• What are the benchmarks or minimum conditions for humanitarian agencies to work in ongoing conflict areas? When do we say "No" and on what basis? When and how do we withdraw, or re-engage? What is the proper balance between action that saves or sustains lives and unreasonable risk to our staff, both national and international? How do we resist giving in to the bullying of the bombers without sacrificing more humanitarian workers unnecessarily?

• Is humanitarian action being used as an inadequate substitute for unclear or unsuccessful politico-military interventions? Are we accepting too passively the "humanitarian imperative" argument, which has become something of a political theme tune since Kosovo and Afghanistan? Do we need a more radical defence of multilateral humanitarian and human rights action in the face of often overwhelming unilateral political and security imperatives? Or, realistically and frankly, are we too dependent on the same political and donor support that inhibits more vigorous and principled responses?

• Does this new hostile environment, epitomised by Iraq but existing elsewhere, require us to go back to the drawing board in terms of what we can effectively and fairly do in highly politicised and militarised contexts? Can we operate more effectively and safely by not being so present and visible but working through national counterparts and structures? If we do so, how do we also ensure that they and their local staff do not become the substitute "soft targets" for our fanatical opponents? Are we doing enough to support and empower our counterparts? Can we adequately protect them or our beneficiaries without an active, operational presence on the ground?

• Finally, why are we now facing such intense and sustained hostility? Were we naïve to believe that our humanitarian flags and symbols were enough protection? Have we failed to effectively communicate, especially in regions such as the Middle East, what we are trying to do and what we represent? Do we need a longer-term public campaign to address current negative perceptions of bias and partiality? Is there more scope for dialogue -- a key concept of the U.N. Charter -- with potential and actual opponents, as we have had traditionally, including the Khmer Rouge and the Taliban, for example? How can we negotiate with groups we have not met?

These are just some of the questions with which we must grapple -- United Nations, Red Cross and NGOs -- working together as we do in those violent and unpredictable new zones.

UNHCR is not alone with these dilemmas, as we cannot function without our NGO partners. To some extent, the reverse is also true.

Is this a time for collective brainstorming, for reflection and review to produce an action plan, an Agenda for Conflict and Humanitarian Action?

Business as usual is not a sufficient response.

Recently there has again been lot of focus on U.N. reform; the need for the United Nations and its agencies to take stock, the unsatisfactory role of the Security Council, multilateral peacekeeping vs. unilateral pre-emptive action, and other issues.

But there has been less talk about the responsibility of states in all this: states that fund and direct most of us, directly or indirectly, and will ultimately decide what U.N. reform is possible.

We need an expanded dialogue with all our partners -- a new humanitarian coalition, including states and non-state actors -- to respond to these challenges in an increasingly unreceptive and hostile environment.

This dialogue must be with key political as well as humanitarian actors, if it is to be effective.

A crucial part of such a process is national pressure on government decision-makers to more seriously face issues, to help us maintain the unavoidable but critical balance between perceived national interests and established multilateral, humanitarian and human rights norms and commitments.

If states are to meet their responsibilities in this area, we have learned that they need to be pressed domestically to do so.

This advocacy is a key role for NGOs, from the local Islamic groups of Iraq to the rights advocates in Western states.

The United Nations and international agencies crucially need domestic support to be able to function effectively and fairly, without undue risk. We know that our best protection is always local understanding and backing.

These are critical challenges. We are at a fork in the road, as the Secretary-General recently told the General Assembly.

These are important questions for our future work, which we ignore at our peril.

I hope that we can agree which path to take together, in a renewed, expanded and vigorous partnership.

Background information

Briefings

Afghan turmoil - [Who works where]

Iraq in turmoil - [Who works where]

Topics

Politics of Aid Refugees & displacement Security

Facts & figures

Afghanistan Iraq Serbia

Statistics graphs

Landmine casualties (2007)

View more stats >>

Related articles

Breaking stories

All nations agree Copenhagen climate deal-Sarkozy (1 minute ago)

Karzai to keep pro-West ministers - Afghan officials (1 minute ago)

AlertNet insight

Insecurity, disease and political uncertainty put Sudanese lives at risk (1 minute ago)

Aid agency news feed

Emergency Relief supplies to aid 10,000 families fleeing South Waziristan conflict (1 minute ago)

Blogs

Yemen conflict: Adapting to life in the camps (1 minute ago)

Maps

IDP Camp Satellite Analysis Report - Sa´adah, Wadi Khaiwan & Baqim, Yemen (1 minute ago)

 Del.icio.us  |    Digg  |    NewsVine  |    Reddit   

• Latest images

Survivors of the 2004 tsunami pass time outside their newly-built house in Ban Nam Khem, a small fishing village on Thailand's Andaman Sea coast in this December 9, 2009 file photo. ...

More pictures | Galleries