AUTO ENTREVISTA

The research set out to answer questions outlined in chapter one under Rationale of Study, over humanitarian space in Afghanistan and to offer recommendations to mitigate the future threat. The recommendations for mitigation are listed in the first section of this chapter. The research questions were set to discover if there has been a change in neutrality and impartiality or the perception of change in NGOs and whether that change has affected their humanitarian space. These issues were explored with reference to funding, corporate aid and contractors, the civilian-military relationship and development progress. These questions have been answered in the Afghan context, a country where primary and secondary research conclude that humanitarian space has shrunk to such a degree that many parts of the country are to dangerous to operate in.

Afghanistan is not the first country to suffer from the NGO murders. However, the post- September 11th era has heralded a new operating environment for NGOs in Afghanistan and Iraq. NGOs are specific targets and have been legitimised due to perceived complicity with the Afghan Government and the Coalition forces. The modern environment in which NGO staff work in close proximity or indeed in conjunction with international military actors is relatively new. The current political climate regarding a Western led war on terror makes the civilian-military relationship fragile and potentially dangerous.

NGOs are heterogeneous by their very nature and rightly so as homogeneity would limit the various caveat roles that different NGOs fill. Heterogeneity, however, means that NGOs may align themselves more or less with various political ideals or various countries’ foreign policy. NGOs consider neutrality to be fundamental to their work but in varying degrees. There is no universal NGO absolute on the standard operating procedures for NGOs working with the military in the field and due to NGOs’ different characteristics there is unlikely ever to be one. However, NGOs should be aware that in Afghanistan the civilian-military relationship does contribute to the shrinking of humanitarian space, among other factors.

The question is, is it better to act with the military to help save lives or to maintain neutrality and possibly risk civilian deaths? That is an unanswerable question which should be a hotly debated topic within the NGO community. When it comes to saving lives it is impossible to categorically denounce a NGO that compromises their neutrality by accepting military logistical help or funding. Further debate will raise all the issues surrounding the argument, increasing the awareness of all the different factors allowing each NGO to make an informed decision according to its organisation’s own principles.

The civilian-military relationship is not the only factor that is causing the shrinking of humanitarian space in Afghanistan and has in fact been attributed to improving it by some NGO staff. NGOs must be aware that the slow rate of progress and resentment of foreign intervention is growing due to a variety of factors. Religion and a clash of cultures make Afghanistan a particularly fragile environment to work in and NGOs must shoulder some of the responsibility for the shrinking or humanitarian space themselves. Inappropriate dress, consumption of alcohol, displays of wealth and working with the Afghan Government or the Coalition, or simply being Western, all act to make NGOs a target. NGOs and the humanitarian community must monitor humanitarian space closely and scrutinise themselves as closely as they do others to ensure that humanitarians have continued access vulnerable people anywhere in the world.

The research concludes that NGO neutrality has been compromised, causing a shrinking of humanitarian space. In the case of NGOs such as MSF who are staunchly neutral and

un-associated with any other group, the attack on their organisation was due to a perceived loss of neutrality or other reason. The slow rate of development angers the local people and is hampered by poor security. It is clear that working with the military and the Afghan Government does compromise NGO neutrality but, as highlighted by Joseph of HOPE International, sometimes it is better to receive help from the military in order to act rather than not. The choice that faces each NGO working in Afghanistan is whether and to what degree they should involve themselves with the military groups such as the PRTs. NGOs should be aware that their organisational morality may spur them to receive help, funding or perhaps even join forces on projects with the military. However, such moves would make NGO staff colleagues with military staff. Military staff whose job it is to win hearts and minds, and who, when questioned on about criticism over heavy handed and culturally insensitive tactics, excuse culturally insensitive behaviour by saying:

“It is quite difficult to kill people with a light touch and in a culturally sensitive way!” (Boswell, pers.com, 2006).

As such, NGOs ally themselves with people and beliefs that are incompatible with their own and those of their organisation and are seen to be doing so by the local people. Latterly, when NGO staff get attacked, one reason for their loss of neutrality should be clear.

APPENDICES