Relief Groups Object to Militarization of US Aid to Afghanistan

[bigtree]

from Democracy Now: http://i3.democracynow.org/2009/12/3/as_troop_escalation_begins_relief_groups

{snip}

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about this, we’re joined by Lex Kassenberg. Since 2006, he’s been the director of CARE International’s efforts in Afghanistan. He’s just back in Washington, DC. Lex Kassenberg, thank you very much for joining us. Explain exactly what you mean by the militarization of humanitarian aid.

LEX KASSENBERG: Well, what we are really concerned about is that a lot of international agencies, including CARE, have been on the ground in Afghanistan for a long, long time. CARE, for example, was established in 1961 and has been in Afghanistan ever since, except for a period of ten years during the Russian occupation. During that long period of time, we have been able to build up a very good rapport, a very good understanding with the local communities. And historically that has then translated in an acceptance of CARE and other agencies working at the community level and the communities in turn providing us with a good level of safety and security that, even under very difficult circumstances that we’re facing now in Afghanistan, still enables us to, to a greater or lesser extent at least, implement our activities.

The moment that you start bringing in the military and the requirements that agencies like CARE have to be faceted or have to be closely working together with armed units, let me put it that way, because we’re not just talking about the military, we’re also talking about the provincial reconstruction team that often are linked up with agencies like CARE—the moment these armed units visit the communities, our integrity is compromised, and very often the communities also tell us that their integrity is compromised and that they are now open and prone to attacks. And that is a major concern to us. We have the feeling that it is really negatively affecting our work if we are linked with armed units.

{snip}

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to get your response to USAID, the US Agency for International Development. If William Frej, the head of the USAID mission in Afghanistan, has rejected your criticism. He said yesterday, quote, "’Militarization of aid’ is a gross mischaracterization of what actually happens on the ground. Without counterinsurgency and without the military’s support, many of the humanitarian agencies—such as Oxfam—that raise such complaints would not be able to enter the areas once controlled by insurgents.” Lex Kassenberg, your response?

LEX KASSENBERG: Well, I think it’s an argument that works in both directions. There are probably examples where indeed agencies would not have been able to work if somehow military units and international military forces had been able to free the area from insurgents. On the other hand, there are also examples where NGOs have been working on the ground and had to leave the area because of the presence or intervention of military units.

One example that I would like to give here to illustrate this is not CARE but another international organization called Afghan Aid. They were present in a rather challenging province called Nuristan and had been working there for many, many years, on and off. If the situation was insecure, they would leave the province for a period of time. If it was fine again, they would go back in and had been able that—and be able to achieve reasonable results for a long period. Now, at one night, their office was visited by insurgents, who ransacked or went through the whole office looking for evidence that Afghan Aid had been working together with either the military or provincial reconstruction teams, who are seen as very closely related to the military. They didn’t find any evidence, and they left. The next morning, the local or the close-by provincial reconstruction team, hearing about this attack on the Afghan Aid office, went and visited them and stayed there for a long time, checking what exactly the attack was about, what they wanted, etc., etc. The result was that after the visit by the provincial reconstruction team, Afghan Aid very strongly felt that their independence was compromised, because now there was very public and open proof that, for whatever reason, the PRT, the provincial reconstruction team, had been in contact with their office and had been visiting that office. So it caused them to leave the area.

So some of it is really based, I think, also on a lack of understanding what the impact can be of a visit by armed groups to an area where NGOs are working . . .


listen, watch and read: http://i3.democracynow.org/2009/12/3/as_troop_escalation_begins_relief_groups

[elocs]

1. Well I'm sure there are more than a few DUers who can set them straight. n/t

[bigtree]

2. the administration tried to

I'm gratified to see this response to the folks at USAID.