Doctor Group (Doctors Without Borders ) Withdraw From Afghanistan

[G_j]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4359032,00.html

Wednesday July 28, 2004 5:31 AM


KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Medical relief agency Medecins Sans Frontieres on Wednesday announced that it will withdraw from Afghanistan because of the killing of five of its staff and the danger of further attacks.

The Nobel Prize-winning group, known as Doctors Without Borders in English, said it was pulling out also because it was unhappy with a government investigation into the June 2 deaths and with the ``co-optation of humanitarian aid'' by U.S.-led forces here ``for military and political motives.''

The group said in a statement that it regretted having to leave Afghanistan, where it has been operating for 24 years, but added: ``today's context is rendering independent humanitarian aid for the Afghan people all but impossible.''

..more..

[Hobarticus]

1. They were treatin' them there Tally-ban, and gettin' in the way...

Pretty goddamn grim when you manage to chase off DWB. Tough big hearted bastards.

[Moderator]

2. Kick

Kick

[Maeve]

3. This group has one of the best reps in the world--it must be VERY bad

The Mayor of Kabul isn't living up to his promises to the Bushies.

[G_j]

4. a real sign of how much things are deteriorating

does not bode well for the Afghan people.

[mom cat]

24. Actually, he is doing exactly what the bushies want: lying through his

teeth,putting on a smiley face while the ship is sinking, not building a meaningful power base that might threaten dimson and giving an illusion of victory that can be trotted out at the Republicrook convention.

[Dhalgren]

5. You know, it isn't just that Caligula can't pour

piss from a boot; it's the top military brass that is the worry. How could we have such gross incompetence at that level of operations? What Caligula and his bunch have shown the world is that the US is a blood-thirsty, vicious bunch of bumblers. We are the strongest military in the world, run by incompetants - not just the elected ones, but the professional ones, as well. Ridiculous and sad...

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. It's not that they are incompetent

they just don't give a shit. This a hard concept for most people to wrap their brains around. But understand, anybody who could sit on their hands on 9-11, knowing that 1000's of people were dying because of their inaction, could care less about the conditions of some brown people in Afghanistan.

The PNACers came and got what they wanted. A US friendly government in Kabul & Baghdad. A bunch of new places to build strategic bases. Plus access to whatever natural resources that the occupied country may have. In the case of Afghanistan, opium is back to full production levels.

If the rest of the country deteriorates into chaos and civil war, the PNACers are delighted. Then the people can waste their time killing each other, while the neocons stuff their greedy pockets with the spoils of their conquest.

[RobinA]

8. I, For One

have no problem getting my mind around this. It's something I've always known. This will be the eventual downfall of all they do. Afghanistan was a great opportunity to win hearts and minds, but they blew it because they just don't get the hearts and minds thing, all they understand is force and doing what they want for their own ends. It's a cryin' shame.

[atreides1]

21. Not Just Incompetent

The military brass was purged before the invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld wanted to make sure that the generals and admirals left were totally loyal to him and to Bush, the American version of Hitler's Generals.

To a man and woman they owe their allegiance to the President, and not to the US Constitution that they all swore to defend. The military brass have left our country undefended and open to attack, the active duty military is being stretched to the breaking point, 40% of the troops on the ground in Iraq are members of the National Guard or reserves, the 2nd ID responsible for defending South Korea is now being sent to Iraq, the 25th ID out of Hawaii now has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in order to make the recruiting quotas the military has lowered the numbers, which is why they keep saying that they are making the cut, and recruiting/retaining the numbers they need.

The military brass that support this pResident are traitors, and in my humble opinion as a former soldier should suffer the fate of traitors as described under English Law. It's the same punishment that William Wallace received, the only difference is that Wallace was a patriot and loyal to his country, and the military brass that
follow along like a bunch of whipped dogs aren't.

[G_j]

22. here, here ! n/t

[G_j]

7. DWB have been in Afghanistan for 24 years

what does that tell you about the state of things?

[Wind Dancer]

11. This is terribly disturbing!

Everyday I read more about the atrocities committed by this administration and it makes me sick.

[G_j]

14. one of the poorest countries in the world i believe

ravaged by years of war, used as a battle ground between the USSR and the US. The US nurtured violent perversions of Islam looked the other way and then were 'shocked' by the extremism of the Taliban.

[htuttle]

9. More on 'co-optation of humanitarian aid' from DWB's statement

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/pr/2004/07-28-2004.shtml

The violence directed against humanitarian aid workers has come in a context in which the United States-backed coalition has consistently sought to use humanitarian aid to build support for its military and political ambitions. MSF denounces the coalition’s attempts to co-opt humanitarian aid and use it to "win hearts and minds." By doing so, providing aid is no longer seen as an impartial and neutral act, endangering the lives of humanitarian volunteers and jeopardizing the aid to people in need. Only recently, on May 12, 2004, MSF publicly condemned the distribution of leaflets by the coalition forces in southern Afghanistan in which the population was informed that providing information about the Taliban and al Qaeda was necessary if they wanted the delivery of aid to continue.

[G_j]

10. that is so despicable!

and no doubt against international law.
lets see, listing international laws, Geneva convention rules broken, what page are we on?

[Gin]

12. this section says it all!

on May 12, 2004, MSF publicly condemned the distribution of leaflets by the coalition forces in southern Afghanistan in which the population was informed that providing information about the Taliban and al Qaeda was necessary if they wanted the delivery of aid to continue.

[struggle4progress]

23. Attacking NGO neutrality has been a hallmark of Bushista policy.

The entire MSF statement is worth reading, but it is not unexpected: there is a long history, as the following sample suggests.

Non-Governmental Organization Statement to the Afghanistan Reconstruction Implementation Group
APRIL 10-11, 2002

<snip>
2. We ask that humanitarian space and access are protected, and the distinction between military and humanitarian action is clearly maintained.

To operate effectively in an insecure environment, humanitarian actors must act, and be seen to act, independently from any partisan political or military agenda. We must be permitted to maintain our political neutrality and our impartiality in the provision of humanitarian services. When soldiers provide relief aid in civilian clothing, they risk blurring the lines between military and humanitarian action and thereby place all humanitarian workers in greater jeopardy than they already are. We applaud the International Coalition’s recent decision to require military personnel engaged in humanitarian activities in Kabul and Mazar to wear uniforms, and we ask that this policy be expanded throughout Afghanistan.
<snip>

http://www.careusa.org/getinvolved/advocacy/agenda/cic/04112002_advocacyafghan.asp



With us or Against us? NGO Neutrality on the Line
By Abby Stoddard
Humanitarian Practice Network
December 2003

Navigating an uncertain course among military and for-profit actors in Afghanistan and Iraq, and confronted by intensifying security threats, NGOs may be forgiven for reacting with alarm to what they see as a gathering storm against non-governmental humanitarian action. From the White House, the State Department, USAID, and conservative think-tanks with close ties to the administration, the message is that neutral humanitarianism has no place within the framework of the ‘global war on terror’. In the past, the mainstream US NGOs have often dismissed with irritation the European fixation with humanitarian principles, regarding such navel-gazing as of little practical value. In the face of the new US foreign policy, the neutrality question has suddenly become less academic, and US NGOs are facing some very difficult choices.

The scale of the challenge. In May 2003, USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios delivered his now-infamous speech to NGOs at a conference organised by the US umbrella grouping InterAction. In it, he roundly scolded NGOs for not clearly and consistently identifying their aid activities in Afghanistan as funded by the US government, and admonished them that they needed to demonstrate measurable results if they wanted to continue to receive USAID funding in the future. Shortly after the speech (in a coincidence noted in press reports) a new website, ‘NGO Watch’, was launched by the conservative think-tanks the American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The website project, kicked off by a conference entitled ‘NGOs: The Growing Power of an Unelected Few’, contends that the largely left-wing NGO sector wields undue influence over US foreign policy and US corporations. The venture has prompted a more than usual degree of concern among humanitarian practitioners, not least because several senior administration officials come from the two think-tanks involved. The site’s founders declare that, ‘without prejudice’, they intend to ‘compile factual data about non-governmental organizations’, and much of what is on NGO Watch is no different from the information posted on any number of websites and consortia rosters. Yet some in the US NGO community suspect that the NGO Watch project was designed as a tool for the administration to bully non-compliant NGOs, so that those who insist on openly criticising the US government’s actions in Iraq and elsewhere will be held up for public lambasting on the site. The tone of the language about NGOs (‘What are their agendas? Who runs these groups? Who funds them? And to whom are they accountable?’); its corporate sponsorship; and its underlying ideology indicate a heightened level of anti-NGO sentiment, uncomfortably close to official government circles. How real is the threat to NGOs and humanitarian action? Insiders at USAID and others in the US humanitarian community dismiss fears as conspiracy theory-mongering – an over-reaction fuelled by Euro-humanitarian indignation. Yes, there are communication problems with the military, but USAID is a longstanding partner and protector of NGOs and fully understands the importance of their independence and the principle of neutrality, despite some surprising rhetoric from officials (Secretary of State Colin Powell’s talk of NGOs as ‘force multipliers’, for example). Natsios comes from an NGO background himself, and was known not to mince words with the US government. Nonetheless, more seems afoot than just idle talk. The change in tone reflected in Natsios’ speech appears deliberate and meaningful – as though USAID is at once both remonstrating with and appealing to NGOs to get on board lest both they and USAID lose out to the forces of political change. Its partners see USAID coming under growing pressure from the administration and a majority in Congress that is sceptical of the foreign aid enterprise, doubts that it can get results on the ground and questions whether it deserves its place at the foreign policy table.
<snip>

Aid and security. After 9/11, the act of providing relief and reconstruction aid has assumed a vital political importance to the US. At the same moment that the humanitarian community was reaching consensus on the failure of political co-option of the aid response, the US began to demand it to an unprecedented degree. In the late 1990s, European and US NGOs alike reinforced the importance of the neutrality principle, and stressed the point both to governments and the UN. With 9/11 this all changed; early on in the Afghanistan recovery effort, President George W. Bush complained to his National Security Council: ‘We’re losing the public relations war. We’re not getting credit for what we are doing for the Afghan people’. As Natsios later put it to the NGOs, in the bluntest possible terms, ‘The work we do is now perceived to affect the national survival of the US’. Along with the well-known dispute over US military squads in civilian clothing delivering aid to Afghans, US NGOs have had to counter, with varying degrees of success, attempts by the US government to muzzle their press statements and gather information on local partners. Despite the traditionally pragmatic character of many US NGOs, and their willingness to find ways to work with political and military actors when the situation demands, the largest and most reputable are not prepared to be seen as direct agents of the US government.

Aid and profit. The second major trend is a burgeoning for-profit presence in post-conflict reconstruction. The cases of Iraq and Afghanistan are arguably anomalous in their political significance and the scale of reconstruction needed, but Natsios seemed to be putting the NGO community on guard for the future when he declared: ‘Results count. And if you cannot measure results, if you cannot show what you’ve done, other partners will be found’. And found they have been: the total awards to private-sector firms in Iraqi reconstruction are the largest USAID has ever implemented, dwarfing the sums granted to NGOs for smaller, more relief-oriented projects. To date, contracts with US corporations for civilian reconstruction in Iraq total upwards of $1 billion (the largest award, of up to $680 million over 18 months, has gone to US construction firm Bechtel). The provisional authority in Iraq has asked the US Congress for $20.3bn more, of which, if current funding patterns continue, only $.3bn appears slated for non-profit grants (refugee assistance, human rights and civil society). Even in recovery sectors where non-governmental actors traditionally predominate, such as public health and education, the US government has contracted for-profits instead. NGOs’ arguments that demanding quick results detracts from their efforts and comparative advantage in building close partnerships and stable relations with the beneficiary community have held little sway. <more>

http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/fund/2003/1200against.htm



AFGHANISTAN: Debate over relations between aid community and the coalition
This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations

KABUL, 24 Dec 2003 (IRIN) - A recent declaration by the new US commander in Afghanistan, Lt-Gen David Barno, to the effect that aid groups must accept that they can no longer be neutral, has prompted discussion about the role of humanitarian organisations in regions where security is poor. His comments followed a series of attacks on UN and NGO aid workers in the south over the past two months. Such attacks have forced the UN and other aid groups to withdraw from some regions, thereby undermining aid delivery and confidence in the reconstruction efforts of the US-backed government ahead of elections slated for June.

"I am now completely shocked by Barno's words and apparent intent, which indicates not only his lack of knowledge but also a complete disregard for the security of the NGO community," Nick Downie, a coordinator for the Afghan NGOs Security Office (ANSO), told IRIN on Tuesday.
<snip>

ANSO argues that the proposal for aid workers to forego their hard-won neutrality would be the loss of the long-standing and effective principles of protection afforded by communities through acceptance. "It appears that he endeavours to breach those principles of humanitarian neutrality and intent; in doing so he implicates combat with humanitarianism. I now fear that the safety of humanitarians is at further risk," Downie stressed.
<more>

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=38593&SelectRegion=Central_Asia&SelectCountry=AFGHANISTAN



Muddying the world's conscience
The 'war on terror' is being used as cover for a sustained assault on the independence and progressive agenda of NGOs, says Abigail Fielding-Smith
Friday January 9, 2004

<snip>
Since the US-British invasion of October 2001, neutrality has been difficult to maintain, despite the agencies' best efforts. The US has been widely castigated for its "unhelpful" blurring of military and humanitarian activities. This has included "humanitarian airdrops" from the same planes that had released cluster-bombs, and troops in civilian outfits handing out food.

President Bush complained to his national security council about not getting enough "credit" for the humanitarian effort in Afghanistan. In June, USAid, the body that coordinates funding for US overseas aid, ordered US NGOs to identify themselves more clearly as part of the US operation or lose their funding. A USAid coordinator, Andrew Natosis, said US NGOs should consider themselves "an arm of the US government".
Against this background, the invasion of Iraq fatally compromised the position of NGOs in Afghanistan. Anyone seen to be involved in the international reconstruction effort became a potential target for resistance attacks.
<snip>

Distinctions are further blurred in Iraq by the unprecedented use of for-profit organisations in the reconstruction operation.

<more>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/comment/story/0,11447,1119541,00.html

[Hidebo]

13. can't believe that

the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated so fast. I just saw Geraldo Rivera praising GWB for his great accomplishments there.

[G_j]

15. ha ha

Geraldo is soooooo on top of things.

welcome to DU Hidebo!

[Wind Dancer]

16. I continue to read updates on the

destruction we have caused and shake my head in shame.

This country has the ability to provide money and aid to countries who desperately need assistance. We have the ability to endorse and practice peace keeping throughout the world by example. With all of the riches this country possesses, we have the ability to provide medical care abroad and at home but instead, we attack and kill innocent people. We ignore the hungry and diseased. We choose to spend a fortune on defense and ignore those who desperately need our help. It is depressing beyond belief.

[G_j]

17. As we speak: The War in Iraq Cost the United States $124,849,485,408

from, www.costofwar.com

[Wind Dancer]

18. Instead

we could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for
4 years.

Instead, we could have fully funded world-wide AIDS programs for
11 years.

Instead, we could have ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for 39 years.

Instead, we could have paid for 16,567,805 children to attend a year of Head Start.

Instead, we could have insured 50,228,966 children for one year.

Instead, we could have hired 2,232,081 additional public school teachers for one year.

Instead, we could have provided 2,972,336 students four-year scholarships at public universities.

Instead, we could have built 1,674,063 additional housing units.




"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953


There are no words.

[G_j]

19. how I wish people could just understand

the world could be a better place for everyone.
We've been walking on the dark side.

[Wind Dancer]

20. Some people will never understand

and others simply don't care. This is one of the hardest things for me to deal with on a personal level, along with the hatred we've created around the world. History will remember this period as one of the most horrific in our country's lifetime.