March 28, 2024

Aid expulsions: Are we missing the real story?

Fellow bloggers over at Change.org have been running a couple of posts trying to get at the thorny question of just what the impact of the NGO expulsions has been on the provision of aid in Darfur. It’s been a question of intrigue ever since US Special Envoy, Scott Gration, came out with a strange statement on this last month:

“It appears that the 13 NGOs that were expelled will not be allowed back into the country. But you should note that right now, we are near a hundred percent capacity returned. We have – on the food side, we’re providing the same food resources as we were prior to expulsion, a hundred percent. And in the WASH, which is water, sanitation and hygiene, we’re at about 95 percent, and the other services about a hundred.”

No one really knows where these figures came from, but one theory I’ve heard is that he arrived at this assessment by looking at a report which said there was “some” (in some cases this meant one staff member) coverage back at 35 out of the 36 sites that were impacted by the expulsions. If true, one has to say his comments are misleading at best, but more like outright disingenuous. However for a number of the people I have been speaking with, in getting worked up about this aspect of things we are missing the main issue: Namely, the agencies that were expelled were the leaders on protection programs and other sensitive issues.

Ten out of the thirteen international organizations expelled had programs dealing with rape.

In all the concern about aid deliveries, I fear we are missing the real motive behind the expulsions – getting rid of those who view protection programs and assistance to rape survivors as integral to any aid program.  Whatever deals have been negotiated to cover the humanitarian gap – whether through the domestic NGOs (the most protection-oriented of which were shut down along with the international expulsions) or “new” foreign NGOs, I’d bet my money that protection programs don’t make the list of activities that they are permitted to cover the gap on.

Comments

  1. We’ve heard from news reports that U.N. peacekeepers are helping to deliver aid now, meaning they can’t focus on protecting civilians. Seeing that UNAMID is stretched to the limit already, it is safe to assume that security will deteriorate even more unless the remaining U.N. blue helmets are deployed within the next few months.

    It is also obvious that Western troops need to be deployed to help better train the U.N. peacekeepers and to bring much needed equipment, such as the 13 helicopters UNAMID still lacks.

  2. Hi Mark
    UNAMID folks here in Addis say the blockage is at the equipment side of things. They have the troops ready to go, but can’t deploy until there is also the equipment. This is slow in part because of lack of will from rich nations to purchase it, and because the GOS can hold up transportation once it gets to Port Sudan – indeed not even let it get to Port Sudan.
    Regarding your comment that “Western troops need to be deployed” – even if this is part of the solution, this just begs the question of how to get the GOS to accept anything they don’t want to accept. They have drawn a red line on Western troops that has not shifted for years. How to get sufficient leverage on this or any other proposal?

  3. Further evidence the West needs to get involved in Darfur on the more than a diplomatic and humanitarian level.
    It has been clear for years now that the GOS does not want peace. Activists, politicians, and advocacy groups for years now have been trying to find a way to get the GOS to accept things they won’t accept. The key missing point here is that the GOS is NOT going to accept it, and we need to stop focusing on trying to get the GOS to accept peace deals and peace talks. The rebels in both Darfur and the South have often times agreed to peace talks and have tried to work out, even as government planes bomb villages.
    The 20 year civil war in the South and now Darfur have proven that the only way to get anywhere with the GOS is to use force. The southern provinces are were they are today because they used force, both out of necessity for survival as well as a need to take a stance against a brutal regime.

    The West would do well to stop focusing on trying to find a way to get the GOS to accept anything major that can end the genocide. Years of those efforts have failed, and it is long overdue for Western nations, predominantly the U.S., Britain, and Canada to consider using force to end the crisis.

  4. And while military intervention is a highly debatable topic, at this point it needs to be considered. The power hungry GOS has proven by years of actions that it wants to defeat the rebels, and it’s willing to kill hundreds of thousands of it’s own civilians to do so.

Trackbacks

  1. […] there was one issue I could get a spot on CNN to talk about, it would be this. I had an inkling of it from people I had spoken to before I went, but once you are actually in Darfur, it hits you with […]

Speak Your Mind

*