Plagued by doubts about security, humanitarian organisations are leaving Iraq in droves. Nyier Abdou looks at what happens when neutrality is not enough The aftershocks of the 27 October bombing of the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Baghdad are still being felt in the Iraqi capital as humanitarian groups continue to announce office closures and pullouts of international staff due to mounting security concerns. Following the 19 August car bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello, the unprecedented suicide attack on the ICRC was a bold statement indicating that actors in this post-war conflict do not acknowledge the notion of impartiality. Many groups, including the United Nations, have come to the conclusion that a fundamental shift has taken place, with aid workers not simply working in a hostile environment, but being somehow perceived as actors in the conflict. This week, the ICRC closed its offices in Baghdad and Basra pending an assessment of the security situation. "We must painfully acknowledge that the ICRC, as a large humanitarian organisation, has become a target of attacks for a group of people," ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger told the Swiss paper Tages-Anzeiger. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which has been present in Iraq since 1976, was functioning before and during the war, but under the UN's massive withdrawal of international staff, most of the UNDP's senior personnel have been relocated to Amman. Though local staff still keep most projects running, Roger Guarda, the UNDP's officer- in-charge for Iraq, currently in Amman, told the Al- Ahram Weekly that it was difficult to leave Iraq when its people "need us most". Regrettably, says Guarda, the UN itself has become a target. "The danger was no longer to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but to be the actual target of a premeditated attack," he said. Given that the projects undertaken by the UNDP necessitate close contact with the population and frequent fieldtrips, "this made us sitting ducks for such premeditated attacks". A similar problem of security has plagued development efforts in post-war Afghanistan, leading many to conclude that there were lessons to be learned by the US about post-war planning that were poorly explored before the invasion of Iraq. The emphasis by coalition leaders on the humanitarian aspects of both military interventions may have conflated the presence of independent humanitarian groups with the military efforts in the minds of local populations resentful of slow progress in reconstruction. Brendan Paddy, spokesperson for the UK-based Save the Children, told the Weekly that in the south and southeast of Afghanistan, there is "continuing resistance to what is regarded as an occupation and no clear distinction made between the military and political presence of foreign organisations and the presence of international NGOs". This pattern seems to be repeating itself in Iraq. In both places, says Paddy, there is a "failure to distinguish between military and humanitarian workers" and "widespread public sympathy" for attacks on what many see as a foreign occupying power that has "failed to deliver promised improvements". This blurring of lines has proved a difficult challenge for groups working to meet the needs of ordinary people affected by conflict. Many have objected to the US mixing military and political objectives with humanitarian work, insisting that this only makes independent organisations more vulnerable. US Secretary of State Colin Powell remarked last week that if humanitarian groups are driven out "then the terrorists win". "They're certainly not making it any easier for us," Marc Joolens, Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) operations coordinator for Iraq, told the Weekly. "Military forces operating under the banner of so-called humanitarian activities hurt us because we feel we are less and less protected by a certain independence," he said. "By so openly mixing the two things, one day you are going to have a boomerang effect one way or another." A 3 November statement issued by MSF called the ICRC attack "an assault on the very heart of humanitarianism", but also made clear that the group does not appreciate being pulled into the political fray. "For MSF, independence from political agendas is the cornerstone of our action," the statement notes. "We are not part of the US-led coalition in Iraq, nor actors in the war on terrorism or any other war." UNDP officer Roger Guarda notes that most attacks on independent organisations seem to be aimed at those who "try to improve the humanitarian and socio- economic situation in the country". This "external assistance", he suggests, is "probably perceived by the attackers as support for the occupation -- which is of course not the case. Aid workers only try to help the Iraqi people." In keeping with its credo of fierce impartiality and openness, the ICRC has consistently refused any military protection. "We've never had any armed escorts, or concrete walls around our offices," ICRC Spokesperson Tamara Al-Rifai told the Weekly. The evident need for outside protection has consequently brought the organisation to a standstill in most of Iraq, but Al- Rifai stresses that ICRC staff remain in Baghdad pending a re-evaluation of how to operate under the country's tense conditions. "For the time being they are staying there," she said, adding that the offices in northern Iraq are still operating. But the closure of the ICRC offices in Baghdad and Basra signals the depth of security concerns in the country. Even in Afghanistan, when international ICRC staff were temporarily withdrawn during the war, local staff continued to keep the offices running. When six ICRC staff were murdered in Chechnya in 1996, international staff were also pulled, but the offices remained open. A total closure is in fact quite unprecedented. Even the UN acknowledges that there are limits to how much military protection it can draw on before its operations are adversely affected. "The UN needs to have access and be accessible to the people," a 10 October "Iraq Crisis Update" put out by the UN Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq (UNOHCI) insists. Noting that the current situation in Iraq calls for "armoured vehicles, barricades and armed guards", the report bluntly states that in order to serve development needs in the country, the UN "cannot operate from a fortress". Other aid groups had already curtailed their activities following regular reports of aid groups being targeted. In July, a foreign staff member of the ICRC was killed, and recently, an international employee working with the Mines Advisory Group (MAG) was killed and a local staff member seriously wounded in an ambush outside Mosul. UN vehicles have frequently been shot at, and a driver was recently killed in one such incident. Hampered by restrictions imposed by the Iraqi regime during its 12 years of work in Iraq, Save the Children only expanded its activities beyond the Kurdish autonomous area in the north after the war. But in the beginning of September, the group was forced to suspend its operations in Baghdad. Spokesperson Brendan Paddy says that the decision was taken based not only on the UN attack, but because of "repeated attacks on humanitarian workers over many months". "Security incidents involving NGO staff are now routine," says Paddy. This can involve anything from verbal or written threats and bomb scares to the hijacking of vehicles and firing on offices with automatic weapons or RPGs. "The overall picture is one of a deteriorating situation in the centre and a willingness nationwide to strike at 'soft' humanitarian targets." In mid-September the UK-based Oxfam International also suspended its operations in Iraq. International staff were relocated to Jordan, while local staff remain "unable to travel to villages where they work because of car-jackings and robberies", according to an 18 September Oxfam report. International staff were also pulled from Karbala, the report says, because of "nearby killings of international NGO workers and increased tensions in Najaf and Hilla". A 29 August bombing of the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf killed 120 people. If the exodus of aid workers continues, Iraq could end up in a worse humanitarian situation than it was in before the war, when 12 years of UN sanctions had already crippled much of the country's infrastructure. The October UNOHCI report warns that coordination between the UN and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) as well as Iraqi ministries has been significantly affected by the pullout. Crucial initiatives aimed at establishing the much-touted "broad based and representative government in Iraq" and efforts to monitor human rights issues have all been delayed. "A long-term 'absence' of the UN, especially in the field, will hold back most of the progress achieved," the report warns. A report released by the British-based medical charity Medact on Tuesday contends that post-war Iraq is engendering generations of Iraqis who will suffer from even poorer health than before the war. According to the report, a quarter of a million children failed to receive vaccinations for measles at the outset of the conflict and it is impossible to determine if they have since been immunised. Maternal mortality rates and cases of acute malnutrition have almost doubled in the past year, while destroyed water systems mean water-borne diseases are on the rise. The high-profile attacks on the UN and ICRC mark a turning point in the Iraq conflict, bringing humanitarian groups to a crisis of identity that will affect not only how they are seen in Iraq, but in future conflict areas. Many humanitarian groups refuse to discuss the issue with the press, preferring to keep as low a profile as possible. Both the ICRC and MSF are reluctant to speculate on what conditions they would need to see to feel confident about redeploying their teams in Iraq. This hyper-sensitivity is hardly surprising. How these groups choose to act in the coming months will set the tone for independent humanitarian intervention in the era of the "war on terrorism".
