Killed
coming to the aid of others: Eight of the 10 people who worked
for
Christian charity International
Assistance Mission who were murdered
by Taliban
in Afghanistan's remote Nuristan Province. They included six
Americans,
one Brit, a German and two Afghans.
Die Zeit, Germany
Calls for Military Protection of Aid Workers are 'Pure Nonsense'
"Would the murderers have been
deterred by a few armed security guards? Hardly. And are aid workers in Afghanistan
to limit themselves to people in regions patrolled by ISAF troops? In that case, a
huge number would be left to their own devices - or the Taliban. …
Work in the townships of Johannesburg, the slums of Rio de Janeiro, the coca-growing
regions of Columbia, or the oil-producing regions of Nigeria can be fatal. Security
forces worth trusting in such areas are a rarity."
Dirk Frans, director of the International Assistance Mission, denies that the 10 volunteers that worked for his organization and were murdered by Taliban were trying to win Christian converts, as the Taliban have charged, Aug. 7.
Ten people have been brutally
murdered in Afghanistan. They left the relatively safe capital of Kabul and
were driven into the provinces to help the population. The victims were
doctors, nurses, interpreters and local staff. They travelled in unarmored jeeps,
carried no weapons and had no accompanying security. These were "cowardly
murders," the government said, and rightly so.
It was but a
helpless reflex when Development Minister Dirk Niebel and other
politicians expressed in numerous op-ed articles the old demand
for volunteer organizations to please work more closely with soldiers. The BraunschweigerZeitung demands: “The deaths of
these aid workers should induce aid agencies to reconsider their approach. Aid
workers urgently need expert advice on security matters, including from the
military, and when in doubt, armed protection.” This is pure nonsense.
Would the murderers have been
deterred by a few armed security guards? Hardly. In the past, aid organizations
and institutions operating in Afghanistan have been attacked despite such
protection. Recently a German guard and several Afghans were killed in an
attack in Kunduz.
Anyone calling on aid workers
to seek the protection from soldiers has failed to properly judge the situation
in Afghanistan. The Bundeswehr and other foreign troops are in no position to
provide safe passage to all humanitarian organizations. Hundreds of non-governmental
organizations are active in that country - in a large number of locations: in
small remote mountain villages as well as cities along main roads. ISAF forces don't
have enough soldiers, vehicles or helicopters to escort every foreign aid
worker and thousands of local staff. So are aid workers to be limited to people
in regions patrolled by ISAF troops? In that case, a huge number of people in
many regions would be left to their own devices. Or to the Taliban.
But there is yet another
reason to object to the call for closer cooperation between NGOs and soldiers. Aid
workers would be no less vulnerable working alongside the military; after all,
soldiers are the primary targets of the Taliban and the terrorists. And rebels strike
with explosive devices, rockets and mortars. You could cynically say that aid
workers are at even greater risk in the company of soldiers than not.
To help where help is needed -
that is the goal of the NGOs, whether soldiers are stationed in the region or
not. That is why aid agencies around the world operate in areas where most
people understandably dare not go. Likewise, work in the townships of
Johannesburg, the slums of Rio de Janeiro, the coca-growing regions of
Columbia, or the oil-producing regions of Nigeria can be fatal. Security forces
worth trusting in such areas are a rarity.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
So what are organizations operating
in conflict zones like Somalia, Darfur, Congo, North Yemen or the Pakistan's
Swat Valley to do? Wait for U.N. observer missions to turn into robust peacekeeping
missions or the Bundestag [parliament] to decide to send German soldiers? Or
should they work under the protection of local armies accused of war crimes?
No one would demand that World Food Aid or Doctors Without Borders [Médecins Sans Frontières
or MSF]seek the protection of warlords like Charles Taylor who,
operating out of Liberia, benefitted from wars in neighboring countries, and
who today stands accused before the International War Tribunal. Nor would
anyone demand that aid workers active in Sudan be protected by the soldiers of President Omar al-Bashir, who is also wanted for war crimes by the
International Criminal Court.
Nevertheless, aid workers are
active in Sudan - without military protection. The innocent in war and crisis zones
always require urgent assistance. And they must be able to receive it, once an aid
agency concludes it can work in that region. That is why many such organizations
were active in Afghanistan long before the Americans drove the Taliban from
power in 2001.
Most organizations refer to neutrality
or at least non-partisanship as their best protection. This is certainly not a
new concept - but it remains true. As far back as 1862, Henry Dunant, a Swiss
man, formulated the notion of organizing independent volunteers to help those
wounded in war. The result was the International Red Cross,
which is still regarded as neutral.
Of course, independence from all
sides to a conflict is not an absolute protection: In 2004, Doctors without
Borders was forced to halt their work in Afghanistan after several employees
were murdered, rendering the security situation unpredictable. MSF returned in 2009 to help alleviate the suffering of the
population. MSF has rejected all calls for closer
cooperation between civic organizations and the military. Not even government agencies
travel the country in army convoys, nor are their staffs housed in military camps.
But those who believe that NGO's do nothing to protect their employees are simply in the dark. Many NGOs maintain, in cooperation with
the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, a notification service via SMS, e-mail and
radio, which is for issuing warnings of potential imminent danger.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
This is not absolute
protection - something journalists reporting from war zones also do without -
including those who are “embedded.” Before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it
was a matter of course that humanitarian and development assistance agencies would
operate ties to the military. Constant demands from the Ministries of Development
and Defense that NGOs should work harder to cooperate with the Bundeswehr do
nothing but compromise the safety of the aid workers. No one is asking the Red
Cross abandon its neutrality.
