Humanitarian aid to Iraq?

by kokomero Tue Mar 25, 2003 16:17

I agree that the priority should be Ethiopia and other countries where the crisis is completely unavoidable.

As for Iraq the UN and international community should leave all of the clean up to the US/K colonisation force whose responsibility it is to clear up the mess for the next 20 years if necessary ... this should sate their bloodlust and prevent them from moving on to their next victim.

by Joe Sheehan Tue Mar 25, 2003 16:24

I just heard on the news that the government is considering using the US military fees for use of Shannon as Humanitarian aid for Iraq.
While I think it would be good that this blood money is used for good, it is sort of sick that money derived from fueling the planes that go to bomb them. Maybe that money go elsewhere

by Joe Sheehan Tue Mar 25, 2003 16:26

should say:
is sort of sick that money derived from fueling the planes that go to bomb them should be used as humanitarian aid to Iraq.

by Sparks Tue Mar 25, 2003 16:39

I'm rather sure that UNICEF, Goal, Concern, and the other humanitarian agencies are of the opinion that to stand around bitching over whose bill it is would be morally indefensible while people die from starvation, disease and a lack of medical supplies.

by jenny Tue Mar 25, 2003 17:08

While i acknowledge the need for aid to be pumped into iraq i think that everyone should see this for what it is.
The Irish Government has again shown that it does not value human lives by using this as a PR stunt and an attemp to create backing for the use of Shannon.
Again i find myself ashamed to say i live in this country and i call for everyone to target their FF/PD TD's and tell them that we will not stand for this hypocray. It is an insulting attemp to save face on their behalf.
They should be reminded that if soldiers and weapons (some of which arrive via shannon warport)were not creating this humanitarian crisis then there would be no need for this aid. However now we have a case where the international community must repare damage done by the sanctions on top of damage resulted from this war. While at a time when innocent people are dying.

by Glen Moran Tue Mar 25, 2003 17:24

I thought Ireland was footing the bill for the USe of shannon?

by Killian Forde Tue Mar 25, 2003 17:47

I spent more than four years in the Balkans as an aid worker with various NGOs and with international organsations and can tell you that there was consideral debate about the politicisation of aid that arises and in particulary when the 'western' countries have a direct interest in the outcome of the war. In defence of Goal and Concern, neither whom I worked for, they are less at the mercy of the international donors in terms of independence as they raise huge amounts of their 'program' costs in Ireland itself. I.e the money you give on the street, raised in draws, cake sales, etc makes up a sizebale portion of theri overall budget. The Irish agencies are, in the main, driven by needs identified although they will take money and implement programs that have been indentfied as a priority area by the donors if needed. This also applies to some of the European agencies such as MSF and MDM. Also the likes of Oxfam and SCF are very strict about the programs they will implement and under what circumstances they will accept funding from donors.

Unfortunately many many agencies are totally tied to the needs, wishes and agendas of the donors. I worked for one particular, called ARC based out of Minneapolis who had no scruples, shame or relutance to accept funding from USAID to implement an extremly badly conceptualised return program for refugees from Yugoslavia to Croatia.

This program was also very expensive and had appaling low success rate. I believed then and still believe to this day that it was funded to the extent it was because it wasn't working. The Croatian govt did not want 'sSerbs' to return and while the US state dept thru USAID had to been seen to be concerned about the refugees (who fled when the Croat army with US backing and training ethnical cleansed them) they were content that the program was garbage but cost a lot as it ensured that there allies in the Balkans did not get too upset and it meant in international conferences and in newspaper articles they were able to slap themsleves on the back on their great work.

The main reason, I understand, that Goal, Concern etc are not in Iraq is due to security. The ealry and mid 90s saw hundreds of aid workers killed, murdered and in war related accidents all around the globe. There was a rethink by the agencies of how to manage their presence and opertions in conflict areas and the result is that the agencies are a lot more security aware and in general a lot more professional in every way that they were in 1990. Also remember any agency in Iraq at the moment would have very limited impact because they would be unable to secure supplies, be it medicine or food, and the international personell are not really needed.

What I think will happen in this war is that the any humantarian crisis that may occur in this war will be exploited in full by the US/Uk they will make claims about Iraqi troops holding people against there will in the city and that the cholera/malnutrition etc is the fault of saddam and his forces as they and of course they will be a tiny minority are starving their own population. This story will be reinforced by pictues of aid being unloaded and awaiting dleivery at the docks and some aid worker although interviewed for 10 minutes to camera will provide the sounbite of 'we are imploring for all armed groups to let the aid in'. Coupled with Iraqi footage of sick and dying children this pyscop could prove to be very powerful and could possibly affected world opinion in the favour of the US/UK.

I agree that it is crucial that the aid agencies ensure that they do not get used in this way and I would hope that debate takes place within Goal and Concern about refusing to take USAID money on this one.

by Sean Tue Mar 25, 2003 18:15

One of the main NGO/charity that give relief have refused to take money from the Spanish govt.
I´m taking from this that it is a Spanish NGO but could be wrong.
They state the hypocracy of taking money from the same people who are bombing the Iraqi population as there reason for not taking the money.

by redjade Tue Mar 25, 2003 18:31

They want sole control - in other words, Bush gives the finger to Europe, again.

---
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/international/worldspecial/25POST.html

The United States is preparing to establish immediate sole control of postwar Iraq, initially without recourse to the United Nations, with a civilian administration under the direct command of the military, according to senior administration officials.

Even before American troops reach Baghdad, administration officials are assembling a team of civilian officials, largely retired American diplomats, to run Iraq as soon as the fighting is over.

The administration has decided that helping the country and its people recover after the war will require a civilian corps in place working with the military as it tries to establish security throughout the country.

European and Asian diplomats, while offering to help rebuild Iraq, raised questions last week about American plans to administer postwar Iraq without a central role for the United Nations.

While the issue is debated at the United Nations and the European Union, the administration is going ahead with its plans for a civil peacekeeping operation under the direction of Jay Garner, the retired general who directs the Pentagon's new Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance.

ALSO READ:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2884145.stm

Coalition accused over aid to Iraq
Iraq has accused the UK and the US of stopping food and medical supplies from reaching the country and the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan of failing to stand up for Iraqi civilians.
At a news conference in Baghdad, the Iraqi Trade Minister, Muhammad Mahdi Saleh, said Iraq had already paid billions of dollars for these supplies, which were bought under the UN's oil-for-food programme.

The UN suspended the programme upon which millions of Iraqis depend for food as a US-led war against Baghdad became imminent last week.

Mr Mahdi Saleh said London and Washington had pushed for the programme to be blocked and accused Mr Annan of bowing to their will.

by Maubere Tue Mar 25, 2003 19:45

You might have heard Bush and Tonto Blair carping on about getting humanitarian aid to Iraq. They say they have to "secure" the port town of Umm Quassr before they can starting bringing it in and the media like the loyal servants they are have been repeating this over and over again. However it happens to be complete bollox. They don't have to wait until Umm Quassr is captured they could bring it in the same way they brought in 150,000 troops and 10,000 vehicles!!! thru the ports in Kuwait and over the border. They have chosen to shove all the aid agencies thru Umm Quassr because they interfere with their empire building plans if they went thru the desert. A humanitarian disaster has begun in Basra, they are now 4 days without water. How many Iraqi children will die horrible deaths because of this decision, who knows? but Bush and Blair don't give a shit anyway.