Bling, bling

Everytime I come around yo city
Bling bling
Pinky ring worth about fifty
Bling bling

It's a good time to be an Iraqi parliamentarian! France 24 reported on a Iraq's law makers approving a massive personal budget and payrise, plus other lavish perks.

Under the law, an MP will have a monthly budget of around 25,500 dollars (17,230 euros) encompassing a salary of 8,450 dollars and allowances for up to 30 staff, primarily security... They will receive 80 percent of their MP salary as a pension for 10 years after they retire, as well as a plot of land of up 600 square metres

They will also be receiving diplomatic passports for themselves are their family members, good for the rest of their lives.


You can imagine this has stirred some controversy in a country where unemployment has skyrockted, particularly after ministries cut government jobs, and where 2 million + people are displaced with little to no help from the government. This is an astronomical amount of money in comparison to what an average (employed) Iraqi makes. The organisation I work for pays between $400 - and $700 a month for support staff, and $1000 - $2000 a month for operations/program staff depending on experience and qualifications. This is an international organisation - which is seen (outside of plum government postings) as la creme de la creme of salary options.

Religious leaders have been speaking out about this in mosques. This is great because the government has also started heavily censoring media through lawsuits for defamation. They have sued papers such as the Guardian and the New York Times, and kicked Al Jazeera out of the country. The fines have been heavy (upwards of 10's of thousands)- payable by the big names, but stiffling for local media (especially if their paper is forced to close).

Reporters Without Borders reported that news outlets have been been prevented from objectively reporting on internal security - even when it is massive breach - such as the August Baghdad Bombings. Therefore it is unlikely that much will get out about this.

Photo: IDP Camp, contested areas. Author's own

uhhhhhh....

Image: The Insider
Please tell me this is joke:

Noble Awards set to honour celebrity humanitarians?

It's going to be 2 hour awards show to honour celebrities that give up just that "little" amount of their time to a cause of their choice and have "really" made a difference.

Now don't get me wrong.

I've had this debate a number of times with friends about the merits of celebrity support for a cause. I'm on the pro-side. As long as it is done responsibly, celebrities can bring massive amounts of coverage to causes. Ambassadors such as Angelina Jolie and Alicia Keys highlight the plight of refugees or the disabled for organizations such as UNHCR, IRC and the amazing Best Buddies. They can meddle a bit too much, such as in the case of George Clooney and Darfur, or become so over exposed that we roll our eyes everytime they appear off-stage (eyes on Bono - but maybe thats more because people forget that he's not an expert on global poverty... but actually rock musician). I also have no doubt that many of these celebrities aren't doing this because it makes the look good to the public (although that does factor in) but because they genuinely believe that they should work for humanitarian causes because they can bring so much exposure.

But do they really need a 2-hour awards show?

This is going to sound whiney - but there are thousands of relif and charities workers globally who toil day in and day out, not just because its their career, but also because they want to work the greater good. There are even more volunteers that do this for free with little thanks. Occasionally they are trown big parties to give thanks and priase where it is due(the organization I work for has quite the star-studded event every year in new york, and regularly has event in which celebrities and people in the know attend)and they are useful tools to draw attention to causes, but if they get too crazy or extravagent they are scoffed at. The money, at least I believe, that goes into these events could and should be better spent on advocacy, campaigning, or back into program coffers so that we're less dependent on pandering to foreign policies of the US and EU, and more focused on exactly what is needed.

I really hope this is a joke.

Two Posts in One Day!

I am actually quite busy - but this is cool, and sad, and anger inducing, and just very interesting.

It's an illustration of the world's needs for humanitarian crises in both monetary and human resources

Mixing Aid with Military

An interesting article in Slate Magazine from the Washington Post appeared this week, and continues my discussion on the mixing of military and civilian organizations in humanitarian aid work.

As per previous posts (namely the one where I went on and on about the humanitarian code of conduct vs. the USG plans to implement SPOT), I do not agree with the blurriness that continues between where military ends and the humanitarian work begins. This article, written by Anna Huskarska from the International Rescue Committee in Afghanistan further highlights the problems facing aid agencies in even receiving credit for their work or their committment to the communities and countries in which they operate.

Huskarska writes of a school opening of the CAI (famous from the book "Three Cups of Tea") depicted by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times in Aghanistan shows how the hard work of agencies can often be used as a means to show the "good donations" (=work) of the donors - and now in many cases in post-conflict settings, the military. This associations leads one to believe that without the US government (or any other donor agency)secular schools for children would not be built (and everything will go to hell in a handbag!), ignoring the longstanding relationships and commitment of the community and the aid agency to the project and the area.

This is not to say that some credit for donation is not due to a donor. However, activities such as this should be more of a celebration of the community rather than the aid aganecy or the donor agency - and it should most certainly not include the military.

The Afghanistan experience parallels that of Iraq, where military representative from Provincial Reconstruction Teams are often present at events. This gives the impression to the local community that none of this was possible without "us giving you freedom". If the military goes away - so do all these nice projects. Scary.

To move away from this, strict policies can be put in place to ensure that this association is not made. Low profile security in dangerous areas, strict rules about "no guns" (which are also applied to your donor), and refusal to work with the military (including PRTs). This helps to distance an agency from these associations, and to quote the title of the article - give "credit where credit's due".

Gaining acceptance vs. Getting kidnapped

There's an article today on Reuters Alertnet (Reuters news source for those who care about humanitarian causes that is a bit more edgier that IRIN - I follow their "tweets"... I am a dork) that reviews that dangers of providing humanitarian in conflict and recent post-conflict societies.

Aid workers all know their environment is changing - at least I hope most do - and our families always assumed it was worse than what it actually is. Until now (duh-duh-duuuuuh).

It's been reported that aid workers in the Horn and Central Africa are being robbed weekly and that kidnappings all around have increased.

"Humanitarian workers are seen as rich people in places where most of the population is poor," said Philippe Adapoe, the Country Director of the International Rescue Committee (IRC) in Chad.

"In general aggressors target assets and money and we have visible assets such as cars, satellite phones, money and laptops."

Additionally, we can often be seen as collaborators with the "enemy" - as seen in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anyways - it's pretty interesting to read the article - (here!) And interesting to note that one method of protecting aid workers is to become more accepted in the community. In my case here in Iraq - aid workers have been doing the opposite. Until recently only a few were operating low profile in communities - most (including my own) are/were working remotely from the north or neighbouring country or high profile behind compounds and security companies. Doing this associates us with immediate relief and money - and makes us seem superficial. Acceptance requires us to be in the communities, building relationships and understanding of the work we do.

No typing. My hand looks like a roast chicken. Fact.

Will tell everyone about this later.

In the mean time read post from Stop Genocide blog from Change.org

All blogs of note should quote Eddie Izzard.

Do We Have a Compassion Deficit?

This post took me 25 minutes to type...

something to think about

- 18 trillion has been given to save ailing financial institutions this year
- 2.8 trillion has been given in foreign aid over the last 50 years

Aid money is drying up, and many countries are not honouring their commitments to humanitarian aid (not that they ever were).

Something to think about.

Do no harm?

Arg. There are certain principles that we (the collective we of aid workers) need to live and act by. Below is the ICRC Humanitarian Code of Conduct, signed by pretty, much every major NGO has signed up to:

ICRC Humanitarian Code of Conduct


I put this up because I have dealt with two episode this week that reflect a flaunting of these principles. One major... one a bit more minor.

1) Major - the SPOT
Good old US gov trying to get aid agencies to tell the military in Iraq where we're working (GPS location), who are staff are (?!?!?), if any major events happen in the area, and whether we have to evacuate or not (?!?!). It will become a requirement for anyone signing a US grant.

It's suppose to be for security - which in theory you may think - hey! having the military know where you're working may not be a bad thing... which in general... it's not. But staff names? numbers? exact locations? if there is a security incident? What happens if there is an incident - you report, then the military carries out an operation directly afterwards. Then community x goes... those NGOs are all working with the occupiers... lets make their life hell.

The blurring of military and aid work is a serious issue that will make any humanitarian work more difficult in any volatile country - having an even bigger impact on those most vulnerable. Let's hope this doesn't happen...

2) More minor but with a big impact...
One of my friends on facebook has joined one of those - click and feed a child groups. I was drawn to this because the profile pic of the group is a horrid image of an emaciated child near death. Now... I'm not an expert, but I'm thinking that's nearing 80's World Vision infomercial exploitation levels of target beneficiaries. Something any humanitarian knows... i hope... is a no-no. We pledge that we're suppose to use any images of our beneficiaries that are exploitative - they should depict resilience and respect the dignity of humans.

I was going to let the thing go, but I opened up the group and saw that it had 3 MILLION MEMBERS!!!! I had to write something to the group organizer - saying I thought the picture he chose was exploitative, and I respect his cause, but its promotion wasn't done in a very dignified way. He actual wrote back - but stated that all pictures were posted to show the state of the problem around the world - which may be - but there are only a few pictures posted... and they are all by him... and they are all exploitative. He can also monitor and remove any exploitative photos as the moderator of the group. What is more... I was referring mainly to the profile picture, something he has put up.

I'm very skeptical of these click and food goes to hungry child sites anyways - i think it's pretty dubious (where do they get this food/money from the click?). Moreover, I have mixed feelings about food aid unless in the most extreme cases. But to display these photos to so many people makes the public think this is ok! To exploit people is ok!

It's not.