Why
Can't Relief Agencies Say No?
Everyone
signed up early for this war: the Congress, the embedded media,
and surprisingly the international relief community. The U.S.
Aid to International Development (USAID) began preparing the Government's
humanitarian response to the war months ago, and in anticipation
of the conflict, awarded nearly a million dollars to a group of
five American non- governmental organizations, the Joint NGO Emergency
Preparedness Initiative (JNEPI). The consortium will coordinate
relief efforts in Amman. Jordan and act as a clearinghouse for
information for other agencies. One JNEPI member began soliciting
for funds for its Iraqi operation in January.
The position of most relief agencies concerning signing on before
the war started was aptly presented by the President of one relief
agency, " The government usually depends of organizations
like ours to do the work , to be the boots on the ground."
It certainly sounds like being part of a war plan. Oxfam was the
lone voice, as it often is, in pointing out the ethical issues
being challenged. "We would not take funds that might allow
a government to use humanitarian operation as an instrument of
foreign policy, thereby increasing the chances of war or prolonging
it before it starts," stated Oxfam's, Jeremy Hobbs. "
We refuse the offer of money because it implies support for military
action in Iraq."
A case can be made for preparedness for an immanent disaster resulting
from warring governments, particularly United Nation Relief and
Development Agencies and the International Committee of the Red
Cross. What is more disconcerting , however, is the lack of stated
opposition to this war by the international community of non-governmental
organizations. It was generally acknowledged that the Iraqi population
was in a vulnerable position because of inadequate medical care
and undernutrition over the twelve year period of U.N. sanctions.
Numerous independent studies have reiterated that there is a large
cohort of stunted, underdeveloped malnourished children in Iraq.
Of the more than forty NGO's now raising money to respond to the
humanitarian crisis certain to cripple the Iraqi civilian population,
only a few had the courage to state that they unequivocally opposed
this war. The silence of the majority of Christian based NGO's
, many of whom are benefiting from special funding consideration
by the Bush administration, has been deafening. The largest private
medial relief organization did not mince it's words, " We
are neither for nor against this war." You cannot be against
suffering and neutral about war.
It is difficult to contain cynicism about the reason for timidity
of the relief community. The standard retort is that relief organizations
must be non- political to move freely and do their work. But fundraising
is entirely a political business and this is a year when a lot
of money will be put on the table. One has to satisfying the politics
of your individual donors, corporate donors, and the big Government
contracts. It is the motor that drives the industry. Money is
not the only issue. In post-war Iraq, the U.S. Military will presumably
allow access to only those relief groups it wants to work with-
no dissidents allowed.
It is easier for a small voluntary, medical relief organization,
like Medicine For Peace, to be clear on these issues. We do not
have large staff and enormous commitments all over the world.
We did state our position, as did Oxfam, the American Friends
Service Committee and the Church World Service. We
were opposed to the U.N. Sanctions in 1991, after our first mission
to Iraq , and remained adamant in our position. We decry the use
of starvation and disease as a political instrument . We unequivocally,
opposed a preemptive strike against Iraq, with or without the
approval of the U.N. Security Council.
A group of NGO's with a different bent were invited to the Pentagon
on March 24, 2003 to discuss the humanitarian situation with Secretary
of Defense Rumsfeld. The Director of one of the invited NGO's
stated, " I applaud the administration's efforts in positioning
the conflict as one against a regime and not against a people."
The fog of war. This war is not against nor about the people;
they are irrelevant and they will be disposed of as necessary.
