The politics of humanitarian aid
How can humanitarian action retain its neutrality in today's global turmoil? Hala Sakr seeks some answers
Click to view caption |
A Palestinian father laments the death of his baby at the hands of Israeli forces; poverty and starvation devastate the lives of thousands of African children
|
Against the backdrop of global turmoil, humanitarian organisations, the oldest of which is the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), seek to accomplish their "humanitarian mission...to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance." The ICRC also "endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles". Article 4 of its statutes lists ICRC's fundamental principles as "humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity and universality".
Yet is it possible for "neutrality" and "independence" to be much more than illusions considering the pressures and complexities of the power game in the new world order?
According to Ameur Zemmali, advisor for the Middle East and North Africa ICRC, "neutrality in armed conflicts has two fundamental dimensions: not taking part in any hostilities and not engaging in any controversies whether political, religious, racial, or ideological...etc."
He states that "humanitarian action is about helping the victims whatever their affiliations. Priorities are dictated by the urgency of their needs. We are biased towards those affected."
Some of those caught up in conflict, however, are not very satisfied with the ICRC's performance. Mustafa El-Barghouti, president of the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees is very critical of the ICRC. In an interview with Al-Ahram Weekly he said that, "During the Israeli invasion of the Palestinian territories last year, the ICRC only did the minimum of what should have been done. Up until June 2002 their presence was much less than needed. Only after pressure from our side did their behaviour improve."
He added "If the same situation had existed somewhere else and the government involved had been any other than the Israeli government, their attitude would have been much different."
The performance of the ICRC in Bosnia and former Yugoslavia, on the other hand, has been praised by many. Fouad Abdel-Moneim Riad, former judge at the International Criminal Tribunals for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, told the Weekly that, to his own knowledge, the ICRC did help all victims regardless of which side they were on and that "the parties that were in greater need received more assistance."
Zemmali brushes aside any doubts about double standards. "This would completely contradict the concept of humanitarian action. We have always been faithful to the enforcement of humanitarian law which rules out [double standards], whether in Bosnia, the first or second gulf wars, Palestine or any other incident of armed conflict or occupation."
Speaking about crimes against humanity committed in former Yugoslavia, Riad points out that "numerous verdicts of long imprisonment were given to the perpetrators of these crimes after years of investigation. Wherever crimes were committed, the investigators were very strict regardless of the factions involved. The investigators' tasks were highly dangerous, and the participation of ICRC was extremely beneficial."
But Zemmali explains that there is a big difference between the situations in Bosnia and Palestine. The ICRC has been working in Palestine since 1967. "This is a case of 'occupation' falling under a specific legal framework, namely the Fourth Geneva Convention for Protection of Civilians in Times of War and Occupation. Israel is party to this particular convention and whatever its attitude towards it, it has to enforce its terms."
Nevertheless Barghouti insists that the ICRC "is too reconciliatory with the Israelis, who not only violate the Geneva Conventions but also refuse to enforce international law and regulations of war during military operations".
He laments that "The ICRC is not neutral. On the contrary it is biased in favour of Israel. How can [this organisation] equate between those who violate international law and those who do not? Neutrality is only a mask ICRC uses to decide when and when not to interfere."
However, Zemmali asserts that "neutrality can never be a mask. It is a position and principle that enables us to act as a neutral intermediary. It does not exempt us from fulfilling our obligations. We only interfere whenever we deem our interference necessary."
Riad thinks that "applying the concept of neutrality between the victim and the perpetrator, the killer and the killed, the tortured and the torturer, is a passive attitude amounting to indifference and refusal to be involved in enforcing justice."
When the Israelis stopped the ICRC from pursuing their work, Barghouti recalls that "instead of challenging the Israelis, the ICRC went on strike and ordered the Red Crescent to do the same, forgetting all about the hundreds of those wounded and suffering."
"We did not go on strike," explains Zemmali. "We ordered nobody to go on 'strike'. The word does not even exist in the discourse of humanitarian action. In certain situations, however, we decided to stop our activities provisionally. We were forced to [stop] until prevailing circumstances allowed us to go into action again and when minimum security requirements for our teams were in place. We try, as much as possible, to provide for humanitarian needs within existing circumstances."
Nevertheless, "they could have at least alerted the world to what was going on. The ICRC should have protested in a much stronger manner. But they said nothing," says Barghouti.
Riad explains that "neutrality should only be understood in the sense that 'a person is innocent until proven guilty' according to the basic principle of justice. It should not stop people from trying to act once there is what we call 'prima facia' evidence, or a definite suspicion that a law has been violated. Once there is clear proof of the existence of illegal actions, a firm stance should be taken to condemn them publicly." He maintains world public opinion is the strongest force capable of opposing such actions so that they are not pursued indefinitely.
He points out that "for the first time in history, an international criminal tribunal has been created specifically for the purpose of bringing to trial those responsible for crimes against humanity. This occurred in two stages: the first was the creation of ad hoc international criminal tribunals for specific cases, namely the war crimes which have been perpetrated in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda since the early 1990s".
He went on to say that the importance of this achievement lies in the fact that the world is now convinced that perpetrators of war crimes should be investigated and brought to justice regardless of their position. Also it is now accepted that tribunals of that nature -- which constitute a major step towards the protection of humanity -- should exist on a permanent basis and not just for specific cases. Riad highlighted that this awareness led to the establishment of a permanent international criminal court which is accessible to all nations.
Zemmali argues that in Palestine, the ICRC has always "pointed out" the violations that hinder its own work and the work of the Palestinian Red Crescent. The only thing is that "unlike other organisations which resort to publicity, confidentiality is one of the fundamental principles we observe. This does not mean we stop working with the authorities concerned, rather we have to consider the best interests of the victims. Our experience proves that yelling and screaming gets you nowhere."
Riad agrees that neutrality is an essential element for investigating violations. "However once there is obvious prima facie evidence, public accusations should not be reigned in. Revealing violations does not constitute having a biased position, because the investigation of suspects would be considered hostile action even if reasonable doubt existed."
"Looking at the matter comprehensively, one might reach the conclusion that the real bias actually lies in silence and the refusal to bring findings to the attention of the world," he maintains.
Zemmali affirms that the principle of confidentiality does not exclude resorting to publicity under certain conditions specified by ICRC "such as when deliberate and repeated violations are witnessed by our own teams and when our confidential endeavours failed. When this happened in Palestine we did actually move".
In a press release from 8 March 2002, the ICRC condemned the Israeli attacks on medical teams in the Palestinian territories. The ICRC called upon "the Israeli authorities to take immediate steps to protect medical personnel and conduct an inquiry into the matter". The press release described the attacks on medical personnel, vehicles and infrastructure as a "grave breach of the Geneva conventions" which was "strictly prohibited".
More recently in January 2003, as part of its Family Visit Programme, the ICRC arranged for travel permits and the transfer of 209 persons to visit relatives detained in five Israeli detention facilities. However, Israeli authorities prevented 74 others from taking part in the journey even though they fulfilled the criteria set by the same authorities.
"If some people perceived flaws in any part of our work, they were definitely unintended and caused by the existing obstacles, which our teams do their best to overcome," Zemmali points out.
Not only politics, but also financial matters can undermine the principles of neutrality and independence. The principal assets of the ICRC according to their own documents are "contributions from governments and national societies, funds from private sources and its income from securities".
The United States is a major financial contributor and one cannot help but wonder about the impact of the American political agenda on the ICRC's priorities. Zemmali strongly denies the implications saying, "the European Community is another major contributor. We are aware of the financial constraints but we greatly cherish our independence regardless of the funding source."
"Contributors cannot determine specific priorities, policies or leanings, particularly since nation states are not members of the ICRC. Members of the ICRC Assembly are present only in a personal capacity."
And yet Zemmali argues that "It is unfortunate that ICRC financial contributions made by rich Arab and Islamic states are not proportional to the presence of the committee in the Arab and Islamic world."
Amr El-Chobaky of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies believes that humanitarian organisations should not be asked to undertake any direct political role. "By their very nature they contain in-built structural obstacles which prevent them from acting as judges or resolving conflicts. This should be the role of politicians and the United Nations."
He adds that "in any society practical action co- exists with political action, which is of no less importance. The role of humanitarian groups is basically practical. This is how we should perceive their role. As for actual change, it can only be effected as a result of interaction between the various political players involved in any conflict."
Zemmali concludes that "humanitarian action is very ambitious. It aims to provide protection for humanity in the most complex and difficult of situations. Yet obstacles and limitations do exist and violations are definitely committed. But this should not stop us from trying to fulfil our humanitarian mission."
At least until armed conflicts themselves can be prevented.
