Iraq and Afghanistan

Today the leading Times Op-Ed is a plea for making a greater effort to divide humanitarian assistance from the use of military force. This is a recurrent theme lately, often with references to the decision of Doctors without Borders to leave Afghanistan because several of its people were killed (and the organization felt that there had been too little attempt to punish the killers) and the destruction of the UN headquarters in Baghdad about a year ago.

Before we analyze these issues, we must make some distinctions. The work of the United Nations should not be conflated with that of USAID or other governmental aid organizations on the one hand, nor with that of independent nonprofits such as Doctors with Borders on the other. First, as to governmental assistance, we should not accept even provisionally the idea that American or West European assistance organizations, such as the Peace Corps or most economic, educational, or medical assistance programs, have nefarious objectives such as undermining local religion or society. We should understand that many think so, just as we understand that many believe that medical missionaries are actually there to infect rather than treat the people. Second, we must not forget that the United Nations serves the countries of the world, particularly those that supply its budget. As such, whatever it does cannot be "apolitical", even though the politics may be different than that of any particular member of the United Nations. It was not so much because the insurgents in Iraq thought that the United Nations was a tool of the United States that they blew up its headquarters. It was because they had become convinced by propaganda and otherwise that the country had suffered for years primarily because of United Nations sanctions. Only after understanding these distinctions should we approach the issues and suggestions that the Op-Ed raises.

First, it makes the suggestion, already forcibly made by others, that military forces should never become involved in humanitarian assistance because this blurs the distinction between the use of force and humanitarianism. This is a proposition that we cannot endorse. In many cases, assistance must be given in extremely violent environments into which it would be foolish to send unarmed civilians. Secondly, in many cases it is the military that is willing and able to act now while the civilian agencies are just gearing up. This is true of building schools, refurbishing hospitals etc. Moreover, an occupation army not under great pressure has a great deal of spare energy that can be used in assistance activities during lulls in the fighting. Moreover, many soldiers come back from overseas activities seeing their assistance activities as the best part of their experience. Taking part in assistance programs makes them come to view the local people as more than just enemies, just as it helps the locals to see them as more than just enemies. Later, in battle, this combined experience should have a positive influence on the way in which each side fights.

One can certainly second the Op-Ed's suggestion that more should be done to acquaint the local people with the special missions of humanitarian organizations. Often they do not know. Often their leaders do not want them to know. Such education should not be a primary task for the United States or other Western governments. It should in the first instance be a task for the nonprofits. Secondly, it would seem to be a useful function of the United Nations itself. For it has responsibilities both to these groups and to the governments behind it.