Aid Must Not be Used for Political And Military Purposes

Oxfam Warns Against Trend in Using Aid for Political And Military Purposes

Relief agency calls on donors to allocate life-saving aid based on need not on short-term political or military gains

Since 2001 there has been a growing trend of aid being used to win “hearts and minds” in conflicts. Unfortunately, this aid is often poorly conceived, ineffective, and in some cases has turned beneficiaries and aid workers into targets for attack, international agency Oxfam said. This type of aid often bypasses the poorest people and dangerously blurs the line between civilian and military activity.

Donor governments are now spending proportionately more aid on countries they consider politically and militarily important while overlooking equally severe needs in crises elsewhere, said Oxfam in a new report ‘Whose Aid is it Anyway?’, released today. Oxfam found that billions of dollars in international aid that could have transformed the lives of people in the poorest countries in the world was instead spent on unsustainable, expensive and sometimes dangerous aid projects, as international donor governments used aid to support their own short-term foreign policy and security objectives.

The report says that while aid flows rose towards meeting wealthy donors' international aid commitments between 2001 and 2008, more than 40 per cent of this increase in aid was spent in just two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. The remainder, Oxfam said, was shared between 150 other poor countries.

As national budgets are being reviewed and with more people in need of aid than ever before, Oxfam says that a new approach is needed to maximise the impact of aid based on long-term objectives rather than short-term political or military interests.

Barry Coates, Executive Director of Oxfam New Zealand, said, “Effective aid saves lives, reduces poverty, builds health and education systems, and strengthens the economies of poorer countries. Aid directed to short-term political and military objectives fails to reach the poorest people and also fails to build long-term security in fragile states. It also fails to meet donor aims too.”

The report says that in 2010, 225 aid workers were killed, injured or kidnapped in violent attacks, compared to 85 in 2002. In part this reflects the greater number of workers operating in violent places but statistics indicate it is also the result of an increase in politically-motivated attacks. Aid workers’ neutrality is compromised if locals see aid as a tool of the military.

“Blurring the role between civilian aid workers and the military can turn aid workers and, more importantly, the communities where they work into targets. Aid will only win hearts and minds when it is distinct from the military effort and aimed at reducing poverty and suffering rather than addressing the short-term security problems of donor governments,” Coates said.

New Zealand’s Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) has been internationally commended for its work and has started the transition to a civilian development model. This is welcome but is not the practice for all donors. Oxfam’s report calls for a transition process to be adopted by all NATO countries and PRTs in Afghanistan. Development aid should concentrate on building the capacity of Afghan communities and local government to own the development programmes and build their own future.

NATO needs to recognise that failed strategies of the past need to change. The USA and some other NATO nations have spent billions of dollars on expensive and unsustainable “quick impact projects” intended to win local support, but which are perceived by many Afghans to be particularly targeted by the Taliban. NATO training for Afghan troops has continued to encourage the reward of those who give information with humanitarian aid, even after NATO itself officially renounced such practices in 2004 and agreed rules prohibiting them.

The report notes that some donors are also increasingly militarising aid when responding to major emergencies. Oxfam acknowledges that the military can play a crucial role in the days that follow a humanitarian crisis, particularly through the provision of transport and creating a secure environment but notes that relief agencies are best positioned to directly provide food, medical care and support for livelihoods of those caught up in disasters. Evaluations of the humanitarian response to the Rwandan refugee crisis in 1994, the 2005 Indian Ocean tsunami, and several other emergencies suggest that the military can be up to eight times more expensive in providing basic services compared to civilian alternatives.

ENDS

© Scoop Media