NGO's Pawns in Terrorism?

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.

Delayed Doom and Gloom

I may or may not have on here, or amongst friends, predicted that things will intensify in the north. I still hold my ground, although its taking longer than expected. Not to make that sound like I want things to intesify. I'm just mearly stating a fact. The US Army is moving more troops up here to hopefully reduce tensions between the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish Peshmerga, Kurdish leaders have walked away from the governing council in Mosul claiming that the Arab council members are allowing Al Qaeda to flourish, Al Qaeda may be flourishing in Mosul (altough most information has been pointing to a reduction in their presence in the country... however Mosul seems to buck the trand on all accounts), and now there is a severe drought in the north increasing tensions.

Now I'm being told that Aid-Workers' resilience is beng put to the limits the field... Al Humdeliliah Eid is coming! In the mean time... this is the picture I always look at whenever I'm stressed.
Gets me every time.

For more information on this, please refer to people who write better than I do.
- On US Army plans for northern Iraq
- On the problems in Mosul
- On the water shortage
- On Aid workers' mental health

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.

Sicilian-American Food from Turkmerica Hawler Style

Yesterday we had our first real "scare" of a potential IED threat in the city centre in a while. Nothing has been found as of yet, but there were loads and loads of under cover and uniformed Peshmerga and secret service everywhere. I'm torn between thinking potential violence leading up to the election or political ploy to show how safe the current government is making Erbil. I wouldn't put it past them – a lot of these ministries are shameless in trying to get exposure on anything they can – particularly if it's going to make those dreaded "islamists" look worse.

Kurds like their vices – especially alcohol. And they like being Kurdish first. I think the likelihood of this region switching over to radical Islam in one election is unlikely. But that is just me.

And don't get me wrong – I take my IED threats very seriously. I won't be going to the market or crowded places all the way up to the elections. Maybe even after. I'm really trying to not become complacent in the belief that the KRG is safe (which it's not – there's a reason they have serious checkpoints everywhere) especially after moving up from Baghdad. I just wonder sometimes…

In other news – it is the weekend and I'm looking forward to meal prepared by a friend who lives part-time in Turkey. Meaning it will include ingredients that we can only dream of here… like maybe avocado, canned tomatoes (not tomato paste), or whole grain rice!!!! I may be getting ahead of myself but TGIT!