Minear: "Agencies do not wish to be caught napping."
Larry Minear, director of the Humanitarianism and War Project at Tufts University in Massachusetts, says that U.S. and other military planners may prove wrong in their assumption that relief agencies will automatically step into the breach. He argues that humanitarian agencies should lay down the conditions under which they are prepared to become involved in aid activities during or after an eventual war in Iraq.
At his first press conference of 2003, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was asked: "Although you say that you would prefer that there not be a war, what sort of humanitarian consequences do you see the Iraqi people facing from a war, and is the United Nations prepared to respond?""We have been doing some contingency planning," replied the secretary-general," and are extremely worried about the humanitarian fallout and consequences of any such military action. Obviously we do not want to be caught unprepared." U.N. agencies are estimating that some 10 million Iraqi civilians may require emergency assistance.The dilemma is faced not only by the United Nations and its aid agencies but by private relief groups and the Red Cross movement. Aid agencies do not wish to be caught napping, yet neither do they wish their preparations to provide an imprimatur on the likelihood, much less the necessity, of war with Iraq.Recent experience documents the clear and present danger that humanitarian efforts may be co-opted by the United States and other military intervenors. In the Kosovo crisis, one senior U.N. humanitarian official refused to meet U.S. ambassador Richard Holbrooke as the Rambouillet talks faltered for fear that their meeting would be used to rationalise the NATO bombing campaign that would soon be launched. In Afghanistan, U.S.-led coalition troops are now expanding their hearts-and-minds activities and inviting professional humanitarian organisations to join them.As is often the case, U.S. and other military planners are underestimating the scale of the humanitarian tragedy that may result in Iraq. Moreover, the societal disruption through the Middle East of an eventual war may even become so wide-ranging that it frustrates achievement of the conflict’s stated political objectives. Planners may also prove wrong in their assumption that American and other relief agencies will automatically step into the breach. Despite financial incentives to join the fray, humanitarian organisations have ample reason to fear that an aid effort which is simply an extension of a political-military agenda will cut them off from reaching many of those in urgent need.Perhaps it is time for a radical approach. Humanitarian agencies that resist being taken for granted should stipulate the conditions under which they are prepared to become involved in aid activities during or after an eventual war. Rather than politicising humanitarian action, their initiative would underscore the importance of maintaining their neutrality and independence. In the meantime, the United States and other military forces that prosecute an eventual war would themselves be obliged to accept the responsibilities of belligerents under international humanitarian law to stanch the wounds they inflict.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (L) walks with U.S. Army Lt. General Kenneth Hunzeker after arriving at Baghdad International Airport December 10, 2009. Secretary Gates is in Iraq following a ...
