SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Just_Observing who wrote (453)3/20/2003 2:53:47 AM
From: Just_Observing  Respond to of 21614
 
After an Iraq war, the catastrophe

Larry Minear IHT Thursday, March 20, 2003
Humanitarian aid

MEDFORD, Massachusetts As a U.S.-led war against Iraq becomes inevitable, attention is belatedly focussing on the plight of Iraqi civilians and on the extent to which their security and well-being is central to the success of the war's stated political objectives. A trip to Switzerland last week dramatized the connection.
.
Switzerland may seem an unlikely place from which to contemplate the humanitarian and political implications of a war in the Middle East. However, Geneva, known as the humanitarian capital of the world, is the home of a number of United Nations humanitarian and human rights agencies, the headquarters of the International Red Cross and the location of non-governmental aid groups and associations. The Swiss government is also the repository of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, the accepted legal framework that spells out how wars should be fought and civilians protected.
.
Last month Switzerland convened a humanitarian meeting on Iraq, bringing together officials from 24 governments and 20 aid organizations to highlight the vulnerability of Iraqi civilians in an eventual war. (The American government declined to attend.) Already the meeting has resulted in constructive steps to prepare for what could nevertheless still be a humanitarian catastrophe.
.
Last week the Swiss government's humanitarian aid department held its annual public meeting on the contribution of humanitarian aid to greater human security. Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey brought the topic directly to bear on the looming war with Iraq. “It is said that a war in Iraq is necessary to bring more security in order to protect us from the possible use of weapons of mass destruction,” she observed. “But there is a legitimate question whether in addition to concerns about the affected civilian population, the result will not instead be the creation of many new uncertainties, the further spread of international terrorism, and perhaps even the use of prohibited biological or chemical weapons.”
.
Indeed, the war cannot but cause grave harm to civilians, undermining its own stated political and security objectives. The humanitarian risks and costs themselves are likely to be staggering. The well-being of the civilian population has been severely weakened by more than a decade of UN sanctions, a "weapon of mass destruction" kept in place largely by pressure from the United States and the United Kingdom. (Saddam Hussein's policies are of course implicated as well.) Some 60 percent of Iraqis now depend on food provided from outside through supply lines that may be disrupted by the war. Water, sanitation and health services, already precarious, would also be vulnerable to bombing-related disruption of electrical power.
.
International aid organizations are alarmed. Many plan to withdraw expatriate staff just before a war begins, leaving activities in the hands of local staffs. They also fear for the security of expatriates once they return to Iraq. Fallout from the perception of this being a war against Islam could also have repercussions well beyond Iraq's borders. Some agencies are already implementing heightened security measures for their operations in Muslim countries. Meanwhile, the UN humanitarian apparatus is torn between trying to proceed with its prescribed humanitarian mission and damaging its integrity by functioning as handmaiden of Washington in a mop-up operation to an avoidable war.
.
American military planners have reportedly accepted the responsibilities of an occupying power under the Geneva Conventions. Yet there is some question whether the Pentagon has taken seriously the likely magnitude of civilian needs that the United States will be required to meet. The apparent U.S. decision to deny the United Nations and non-governmental groups access to Iraq until a U.S. occupying authority is in place adds to the importance of the American military's own capacity to assist and protect Iraqi civilians. Also open to question is the prevailing American assumption that if Washington shoulders most of the costs of the war, other countries (and the promptly resumed sale of Iraqi oil following the war) will pay for the longer term costs of reconstruction.
.
As war approaches, statements by the Bush administration stress the humanitarian and human rights gains that successful military action may accomplish in Iraq and the region. This is not the first U.S. administration to make noble objectives the frosting on a national security cake. The icing is likely to be burnished further during the war by air drops of humanitarian rations, expected in even larger numbers than the amount offered in Afghanistan, where aid sought to conjure a humanitarian rubric for the military confrontation with the Taliban and al Qaeda.
.
It would be naïve to expect the policy of the United States - or even Switzerland - to be shaped exclusively by humanitarian considerations. In this particular instance, however, gains in bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East require immediate and durable improvements in the health and well-being of ordinary Iraqis. Given that challenge, a decision to stay the American sword would arguably avoid a heightened humanitarian catastrophe and with it the frustration of U.S. political and security hopes in the region.
.
The author directs the Humanitarianism and War Project at Tufts University.

iht.com