The ramifications of the BBC world service report on the distribution of aid during the Ethiopian famine in the early eighties, shows no sign of abating. With the very public clash between Rageh Omar and Bob Geldof taking place last week in the Guardian, Sunday newspapers carried articles of how Bob Geldof has demanded the heads of the BBC personnel involved with the report.
Understandably Bob Geldof is upset. For millions of us, he epitomised the efforts to save millions of starving women and children and probably put the whole concept of aid and international charity giving into a public arena. I know for me, it was one of the first instances which motivated me to get involved in humanitarian work and is one of the reasons I hold Bob Geldof in the highest of regards.
However, I feel that in this instance, he should not feel too bad. Of course the inference of the numbers actually making it to the recipients hands is something that does need to be investigated particularly as people gave in good faith, but the fact of the matter is that you cannot divorce aid from politics and that in some ways there is some element of truth to the reports. Having lived in Ethiopia, it was an open secret that some of ‘Live Aid’ was used by all sides in the conflict to sustain and prolong the war. And unfortunately, this is not and will not be first time this has happened. As many current and former aid workers will tell you, you have to deal and engage with this reality on the ground and sometimes, the engagement is about tacit support whether you like it or not.
The fact that aid agencies are ‘apolitical’ has been made even more difficult by the war against Saddam Hussain's Iraq in spring 2003 which was a striking example of the mixing of military and humanitarian action. As the United States administration made clear, the military campaign aimed at bringing down the regime was to be accompanied by the delivery of humanitarian aid to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi people and make them accept the occupying force thereby changing the whole rhetoric on humanitarian relief.
Thus the sad aspect is that despite the best intentions, undoubtedly aid will become involved in politics and if you are working in regions affected by war, the politics will be dirty. This is something that everyone (particularly donors) has to realise and come to terms with. The quicker that people understand that, the less pressure will be on humanitarian organisations and individuals to deal with the consequences.
So the question should be ‘when is it alright for this to happen and when is it not?’ This is where the confusion creeps in. There seems to be a mixed response to this internationally.
Agencies who used to work in the former ‘uncleared areas’ in Sri Lanka controlled by the Tamil Tigers will tell you that they had to deal with a separate administration, pay separate taxes and in effect had to prop up the LTTE administration despite the banning of the LTTE as a terrorist organisation internationally, if they wanted to get aid into the areas of need. Yet very few of them have been castigated internationally for doing so.
The story is very different for those organisations working in Palestine in particular Gaza. In this context organisations doing the same thing and working and dealing with different aspects of the Hamas administration such as hospitals or schools have been sidelined for supporting ‘terrorism’.
So there needs to be a change in the attitude and a consistency in approach. This is not about casting aspersions on the majority of humanitarian agencies who work without any agenda just trying to accomplish their mission of getting aid to the most neediest of people. They have to work under the most difficult and trying of circumstances and need to be supported. In recent times, despite the best efforts of ensuring transparency and accountability, aid organisations will inevitably face the challenge of working in politically complex situations. It is important for governments to ensure that these systems and regulations are in place to allow these organisations to work freely and fairly.
Ultimately aid doesn’t recognise borders and institutions and as such should be allowed to be as apolitical as possible not withstanding the political realities and complexities on the ground. Whilst the BBC report was disturbing and does need to be clarified, it does highlight the challenges faced by many people and organisations and highlights the need for the naiveté that exists in charity giving to be shed. Ultimately, Bob Geldof should take heart from this incident, that once again he has highlighted to the public the immense challenge in not only ensuring that money is raised and spent but that it is also intertwined with the political realities of the day. This education is invaluable and serves as a good reminder to all of us of the problems and challenges faced on a daily basis on the ground by those courageous aid workers forced to take difficult decisions. As such our support does not waver but in fact it grows.
Amjad Saleem
