UN's Robinson Wants Afghan Civilians Made Priority

Reuters Photo
By Lucila Sigal

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (Reuters) - United Nations Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson said on Thursday she would welcome either a pause to U.S. bombing in Afghanistan or the creation of a humanitarian corridor in order to get needed aid into the country.

"Like all of the humanitarian agencies, I would welcome either a pause or a humanitarian corridor ... The civilian population in Afghanistan have a right to life, they have a right to human security and the world needs to ensure that right," Robinson told Reuters in an interview in Buenos Aires.

"I know the U.S. is concerned about the humanitarian situation, but I think the extent of the acute needs, aggravated now by the military situation, has to be given priority," she said in the interview during her visit.

U.S. air assaults on Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, which has refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in last month's attacks on New York and the Pentagon, are now in their third week.

The Taliban say U.S. bombs and missiles have killed more than 1,000 people, many of them civilians. Washington acknowledges some strikes have been off-target but disputes the Taliban death toll.

"It is extremely important to urge that there be no deaths or injuries to the civilian population and also that we have access to ensure the desperate humanitarian needs," Robinson, a lawyer and former Irish president, said.

Robinson has denounced the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon -- which killed more than 5,000 people -- as "crimes against humanity" and has called for the perpetrators to be brought to justice.

She has already met with Argentine President Fernando de la Rua since her arrival on Tuesday. She will wrap up her visit on Friday, after a series of meetings with Argentine ministers and local human rights organization officials.

 

COLOR=royalblue]An interesting article about the US and world opinion regarding the humitarian crisis in Afghanistan. Predicts the US will lose the public opinion war. If we do, are we really winning the war against terrorism?[/COLOR]


From stratfor.com, a pay per view site, but google picked it up.

Humanitarian Crisis Will Jeopardize U.S.
Military Goals
1700 GMT, 011022

Summary

International relief agencies have launched a volley of complaints against the United States and Pakistan for impeding humanitarian efforts along Afghanistan's borders. The United Nations will likely voice similar criticisms as winter sets in and member states seek a culprit for ensuing starvation in Afghanistan. Within months, U.N. Security Council members will lose consensus for the U.S.-led military campaign.

Analysis

Humanitarian relief agencies have about three weeks to deliver aid before harsh winter conditions take hold in Afghanistan.

Anticipating this, agencies are asking the United States to halt its bombing campaign against the Taliban regime and Pakistan to free up its borders to refugees. Disagreement over who is to blame for the starvation of thousands of Afghans will likely turn U.N. Security Council members against one another in coming months, constraining U.S. military objectives in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

By spring, the United Nations will reverse its stance on U.S. bombing operations, prioritizing humanitarian goals such as protecting civilians over U.S. military objectives in Afghanistan. This will serve as a nucleus for mainstream opposition that could fracture the U.S.-led coalition in the Middle East.


War Good for Economy - Even in Pakistan

Pakistan's moribund economy may actually benefit from the war on terrorism as Islamabad reaps economic rewards for its support of U.S. military strikes against Afghanistan. This will help Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf secure domestic stability and begin to reverse a decade of economic decline.

Analysis

Pakistani Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz began a two-week visit to Washington on Oct. 6. Aziz is seeking support from the U.S. government and multilateral organizations for Pakistan's struggling economy.
Click here to continue.





Criticism of U.S. and Pakistani policies has come from all sides of the relief sector. Speaking in Brussels Oct. 16, U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Ruud Lubbers cautioned the United States against waging war against Afghans in its bid to eliminate al Qaeda. He then issued a formal plea Oct. 17 for the United States and Britain to withdraw forces from the area, Deutsche-Presse Agentur reported. Oxfam International, Christian Aid, Action Aid and Islamic Relief called Oct. 18 for a suspension of the bombing campaign.

Some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have not limited themselves to blaming the United States and Pakistan for complicating the humanitarian mission -- accusing them instead of complicity in the mission's potential failure.

For example, Morten Rostrup, president of the International Council of Doctors Without Borders, wrote in the International Herald Tribune on Oct. 18 that U.S. military "food drops are a superficial and misleading gesture." He argued that by taking on humanitarian operations as part of its military campaign, the United States creates the impression among Afghans that non-allied or independent relief agencies have military agendas.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch appealed to Pakistan and other U.N. member states to permit freer movement of refugees along their borders. The groups assert that Pakistan's move to restrict refugee camps to border regions largely inhabited by Pushtun tribes -- which are sympathetic to the Taliban -- will generate resentment and could aggravate ethnic tensions.

U.S. officials show no signs of softening the blows against Afghan targets. Concerning requests to suspend the bombing campaign, Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem, deputy director of operations for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, says the Taliban is to blame for the humanitarian crisis, according to media reports.

The United States and relief agencies are playing a shell game of finding fault for the imminent humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan. The United States will lose.

International media are the relief sector's secret weapon against Washington. As winter deepens, bringing temperatures of minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 20 degrees Celsius) thousands of civilians could starve, and impassable roads will compromise relief efforts -- both military and NGO. The United States must halt its military campaign -- at least temporarily -- before Ramadan in order to head off a disaster, according to the agencies. Unless the U.S. shifts its military strategy in Afghanistan away from civilian concentrations and toward more focused, coordinated, ground and tactical air operations, media characterizations of the U.S. bombing campaign will soon turn extremely negative.

In forums hosted by the International Center for Humanitarian Reporting, executives from BBC and other media have struggled since the mid-1990s to define a constructive role that journalists can play in humanitarian efforts. With a clear opportunity now available, BBC is playing quarterback to relief agency complaints about the U.S. military campaign. This stems from the industry's search of a role rather than from a partisan agenda.

The relief sector is poised to win the media contest. No matter where blame actually may lie, come January the international media spotlight will shine on the failure of the humanitarian mission in Afghanistan. Christian Aid already has said 600 civilians in Afghanistan have died of starvation. This figure will likely multiply in coming months -- building pressure on the United Nations, where some member states are likely to deflect criticism onto Washington.

Some of the criticism stems from the United Nations' ongoing difficulties in protecting civilians during times of conflict -- an increasingly hot topic for the body during the past 18 months. U.N. General Assembly resolutions have criticized the Security Council for relying too heavily on extrabudgetary funding and for lacking the analytical and operational capabilities to prevent conflict. Bulgaria, Norway and Ireland -- all slotted as non-permanent Security Council members in 2002 -- are highly critical of the United Nations' failure to protect civilians in wartime.

Momentum could easily build within the Security Council, polarizing member nations. Based on prior statements and U.N. voting records, Norway will likely stir up debate over Afghanistan, with Ireland, Bulgaria and newcomer Syria opposing the United States. France and China remain wildcards.

Fractures are developing within the United Nations. UNHCR, UNICEF, the U.N. World Food Program and Security Council Chairman Richard Ryan have called repeatedly for member states to disburse funds pledged to Afghan relief efforts. Operating budgets for Afghanistan are conditioned on promises of aid, not cash in hand, and member states have been slow to honor their pledges. U.N. relief efforts are regularly underfunded, jeopardizing humanitarian missions, but this circumstance is less likely than U.S. military action to draw media fire.

Facing another failure in shielding civilians from conflict, the United Nations likely will attempt to intercede in the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan. Veiled criticism of Washington will surface in moves by the General Assembly and the Security Council to ensure the U.N.'s humanitarian objectives take precedence over U.S. military goals.

Although the United Nations as an organization may be unable to sway U.S. policy in Afghanistan, it will serve as the nucleus of mainstream opposition for states in the Middle East that are uncomfortable with U.S. actions but which find it difficult to openly oppose Washington.

Countries like Iran and Egypt -- already calling for a major U.N. role in dealing with international terrorism -- will find new strength in the U.N.'s shifting position. They could quickly be joined by critically important coalition members such as Saudi Arabia or other Gulf states, rendering continued U.S. military action politically and operationally difficult -- if not impossible -- military goals

An interesting article about the US and world opinion regarding the humitarian crisis in Afghanistan. Predicts the US will lose the public opinion war. If we do, are we really winning the war against terrorism?

 

Is the US Attempting to Sabotage Humanitarian Aid to Afghans?
By Rahul Mahajan

The first principle of humanitarian relief is that it be impartial, that aid be given on the basis of need without any consideration of political agendas.

The United States government, the same government that aroused international execration by using Red Cross markings on planes used to smuggle arms to the contras in Nicaragua, has once again made a mockery of that principle with its conduct in Afghanistan.

Its conduct to this point was bad enough causing the suspension of aid programs for weeks because of threats of bombing; constructing a "humanitarian" reason to bomb (air drops are required to feed people, the planes will be endangered, so we must bomb to suppress air defenses); causing renewed suspension because of the bombing; and the piece de resistance, adding insult to injury by dropping 35000 meals a day to replace programs that had fed millions. That last has been repeatedly criticized by aid organizations as associating humanitarian operations with military assault, thus making aid work far more difficult and dangerous as a spokesperson for Doctors Without Borders put it, "We do not want to be perceived as a part of the U.S. military campaign."

At a Pentagon news briefing on Wednesday, however, this politicization was taken to new heights with the invocation of unnamed "sources" claiming that "there are reports that the Taliban might poison the food and try to blame the United States," according to Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem, deputy director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He went on to warn Afghans receiving aid, "If it comes from Taliban control, they must be careful."

It scarcely needs mentioning that poisoning one's own populace is senseless, and that there is no reason to suppose the Taliban is planning anything of the sort. In fact, it was reported yesterday that officials from the World Food Program expressed "surprise" at the allegations, with one saying "If they're talking about the food we deliver, there's not been a single instance that we know of in which the Taliban have tampered with it. Stolen, yes, but not tampered."

When contacted, Sam Barratt of Oxfam International, currently working out of Peshawar, Pakistan, characterized the Pentagon statement as "deeply unhelpful," adding, "This claim further goes to undermine the position of aid agencies in the country."

It's well known that our government frequently uses "disinformation" in wartime. And we find out long afterward. We know now that the story about Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators was a fabrication created by a Washington PR firm and that the "nurse" testifying about it was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, who wasn't even in the country at the time. We found that out, but not before an Amnesty International report about it was circulated to all the media and to all of Congress, playing a major role in building support for the Gulf War.

In order to combat disinformation effectively, however, we will have to learn how to recognize it before the war is over, while it's still relevant to current affairs. And, in fact, we've already seen open evidence of its use in this crisis. Government officials were forced to admit that reports that the terrorists targeted Air Force One were untrue (presumably they were circulated to further anger the American public).

If we do manage to have the courage of our intellectual convictions, the question still remains, "What is our government trying to do?"

A clue may be found in previous statements by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who expressed concern early on that humanitarian operations be conducted ''in a manner that does not allow this food to fall into the hands of the Taliban." Since the Taliban, as the men with guns, will always be fed while there is any food in the country, this seems like a hint that the United States would consider interfering with the supply of humanitarian aid in Taliban-controlled areas, in order to erode public support for the Taliban. Further hints come today, with the second bombing of a Red Cross warehouse complex in Kabul. It was entirely plausible that the first strike was accidental, but the second does make one wonder. Obviously, there is no way to know, but some vigilance is definitely in order.

Such tactics are not at all foreign to the U.S. government. Making the Chilean economy and later the Nicaraguan "scream" was an essential, deliberate part of destabilizing the Allende and Sandinista governments.

UN agencies have warned that 7.5 million people are dependent on aid for their survival through the coming winter. UNICEF has estimated that 100,000 children may die. The U.S. government has continued its protracted bombing campaign in the face of numerous concerted from private aid agencies and from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right of Access to Food for a bombing halt so that supplies can be trucked in. Simultaneously, the noncombatant toll of the bombings continues to grow a bus in Kandahar, a hospital in Herat, numerous private homes, and more.

Notwithstanding its invocation of humanitarian concerns, the U.S. government has shown a criminal indifference to human life. It has sabotaged one of the few truly noble, truly heroic efforts in the modern world humanitarian aid. It has also severely tainted public discourse, to the point where it is difficult to know what is true and what is not.

Among Afghans and other peoples for whom water is scarce, poisoning a well is the deepest crime, more powerfully symbolic even than taking a human life. The reason is that it takes something vital, something necessary to preserving life, and perverts it into a force of destruction.

That is what our government has now done. CP

Rahul Mahajan serves on the National Board of Peace Action and is a member of the Nowar Collective. He is the author of the forthcoming "The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism" (Monthly Review Press). He can be reached at rahul@tao.ca