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.