This is a pretty comprehensive- yet cynical view - of international NGO activities in conflict and post conflict areas from The New Republic. I wrote a post last May introducing the SPOT requirement on all US government funding in Iraq and Afghanistan (and possibly to be implemented in Somalia... and everywhere?!). It stands for Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker This requirement requires all US contractors (including INGOs) to provide the US government and the military with the GPS location of all programs and the names, positions and nationalities of all staff so that the military can keep tabs on all activity and movement (including movement in, out and around the country).
There are some major points of concern here. The first is the close association this put INGOs in with the US military. It runs counter to a lot of impartial and neutral stances of many of the major players. Close association with the US government can put beneficiaries in danger of attack from non-us friendly actors. Secondly, it reduces the capacity of donors like USAID to collect information effectively. This has been highlighted by the GAO. I know that despite a concerted effort from NGO consortiums like InterAction, a few INGOs have signed contracts (whether they knew it was in there or not) which include SPOT. Contributing further to the bleak situation David Rieff paints.
A good point that is brought up in the article is the fact that in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, the goal is not really development but national security. The budgets are simply not high enough to actually conduct development per say. Moreover, one needs to look at the types of civil society and governance programs that are actually funded here. In Iraq, programs such as the Community Action Program (CAP) which was in its third incarnation during my time, was in all matter of fact a way for the government to provide lots of material stuff to communities so that they would not hate what is happening to the country - Despite what the NGO (or development company in some cases) intended it to be. Another gem included a 2 year nation-wide peacebuilding program (peace in Iraq... in 2 years!) that was intended to be a front for counter insurgency information.
I wouldn't go as far to say that NGOs are pawns. Many know exactly what is going on and fight it continuously with lobbying. In regards to SPOT it may actually work (inshallah). The US administration is reviewing how USAID operates and SPOT seems to be on the list for review after it was blasted by the GAO. However the cynicism is warranted.
Showing posts with label stablisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stablisation. Show all posts
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
Thursday, 20 August 2009
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".
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".
Thursday, 13 August 2009
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Happy U.S. Troop Pull-Out Day!
In the event of the US Army withdrawing from urban centres (there will still be 130,000 in the country), the governments in both Iraq proper and the KRG have called... of course... and official holiday! For those places south of Erbil, Dohuk and Sulaimaniyah, yes - this is a good move. Security wise, its good to have people at home with their families... up in the three northern governorates...
The organization I work for has a pretty strict policy on holidays. This came about because some countries have a tendancy to have a lot of them. Often impromptu. Iraq is no different. Because of this, my current organization gives 15 pre-determined days a year that staff can have as holidays. Anything extra is evaluated, but usually not granted.
I was working for another organization previously here in Iraq, and I can see why the 15 day rule is useful. In December of 2008 and 8, because of a combination of pre-determined holidays and impromptu holidays, I think my staff worked a total of 8 days the entire month. A little ridiculous. Between the KRG and the GOI, and many last-minute declared holidays (often the day before - with a phone call at 4pm from the Operations Manager saying - the government says there is a holiday tomorrow so we are not coming to work), which of course you need to give to staff in both areas, actual work can go a little slow.
Now in this case, my current organization has granted the holiday for June 30th. But only for staff in the central regions (Baghdad, Anbar and Babylon) as a security precaution. We don't want people travelling around cities when we do not know what is going to happen. Our staff in Baghdad already has already faced difficulties working over that last two weeks because of all of the insecurities in the central region. We haven't, however, given the holiday to the northern staff. We'll see what morale is like in the office.
As for the pullout (or more appropriate "pullback"). On va voir!
For more on the US troop pull-out:
Washington post: Jubiliation in Iraq on Eve of US Pullback
NYTs: US leaves Iraqi Districts where anger still lingers
The organization I work for has a pretty strict policy on holidays. This came about because some countries have a tendancy to have a lot of them. Often impromptu. Iraq is no different. Because of this, my current organization gives 15 pre-determined days a year that staff can have as holidays. Anything extra is evaluated, but usually not granted.
I was working for another organization previously here in Iraq, and I can see why the 15 day rule is useful. In December of 2008 and 8, because of a combination of pre-determined holidays and impromptu holidays, I think my staff worked a total of 8 days the entire month. A little ridiculous. Between the KRG and the GOI, and many last-minute declared holidays (often the day before - with a phone call at 4pm from the Operations Manager saying - the government says there is a holiday tomorrow so we are not coming to work), which of course you need to give to staff in both areas, actual work can go a little slow.
Now in this case, my current organization has granted the holiday for June 30th. But only for staff in the central regions (Baghdad, Anbar and Babylon) as a security precaution. We don't want people travelling around cities when we do not know what is going to happen. Our staff in Baghdad already has already faced difficulties working over that last two weeks because of all of the insecurities in the central region. We haven't, however, given the holiday to the northern staff. We'll see what morale is like in the office.
As for the pullout (or more appropriate "pullback"). On va voir!
For more on the US troop pull-out:
Washington post: Jubiliation in Iraq on Eve of US Pullback
NYTs: US leaves Iraqi Districts where anger still lingers
Monday, 18 May 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)