# Security issues hinder aid agencies in Afghanistan



## GAP (28 Mar 2007)

Security issues hinder aid agencies in Afghanistan
Updated Wed. Mar. 28 2007 1:59 PM ET Canadian Press
Article Link

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- Security concerns are making it difficult for aid agencies to help thousands of families who have been displaced by fighting and drought in southern Afghanistan.

A United Nations spokeswoman in Geneva estimates that almost 5,000 families have been displaced in Helmand province, where NATO and Afghan troops have been battling the Taliban for months.

The difficulties for relief agency can be seen in neighbouring Kandahar province, where five members of an Afghan medical team have been kidnapped by insurgents near a refugee camp.

A senior Afghan official says the Taliban have threatened to kill members of the team unless the government releases insurgent prisoners.

The UN estimates that 15,000 families were displaced last summer during intense fighting between Canadian forces and the Taliban in the Panjwaii and Zhari districts.

The UN says most of those people have returned to their homes, but some have not because of fear and security concerns.
More on link


----------



## KevinB (29 Mar 2007)

This is utterly assinine.

 I do PSD for a NGO in Iraq.  If these NGO's wish to operate in war zones -- they need to get security.  Its expensive as good help doe not come cheap -- and it still has risks - as while we can minize risk, we cannot eliminate it.  Some many entities are trying to rely on the Armies to deal with the security issues, which is not their job.  

The UN does hire PSD's -- however they limit them to who they protect...


----------



## armyvern (29 Mar 2007)

I agree I6.

I find it quite ironic how one the one hand the CP can frequently be found pushing news stories that claim that the military is doing too much fighting (ie making secure) and should be providing more towards relief efforts instead.

Then to turn around and push another story that bemoans the fact that there is not enough security for NGOs etc. as if it is our responsibilty.

The press likes to place us between the rock and the hard place. They insinuate that it's our fault...although it's not, nor should it be, our responsibilty. 

Armies fight to secure and stabilize an area, a zone, a province (Helmland in this instance) so that relief efforts can occur. If those NGOs and relief organizations etc want individual security and protection that remains their responsibilty to arrange and manage.

Armies are all about making and enforcing collective security of the whole; not the individual; and our lads & lasses are already busy enough doing that to be babysitting the NGOs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Mar 2007)

This is another, but not quite so new, _narrative_ which has quite a following within the media and, I suspect, with the general public: NGOs could be doing good things for poor people, would be doing good things for poor people if only the big, bad army wasn’t using all the government’s money to fight a few not so nice (but still poor) people.  See: Ruxted’s ”CARE in Afghanistan”.

We have seen a lot of good, even great Canadian reporting from the combat zone in Afghanistan – in all newspapers, including the oft reviled (in Army.ca) Toronto Star.  We know (at least we’re pretty sure) that quite a few Canadian journalists _“get it”_ and we can assume that they have passed on their knowledge to their colleagues in various news rooms.  So why does this particular _narrative_ resurface?

I think it is important to remember that some NGOs, especially the big ones, have extensive and effective PR networks.  They need them to keep raising money – private money and public money – to do *the excellent they accomplish in many of the world’s hell holes, often at considerable risk to their people*.

Canadian NGOs have a special problem.  For a whole hockey sock full of reasons Canadians are less _privately_ philanthropic than e.g. our American neighbours.  Maybe it’s a deep seated bit of Scottish _meanness_, or an equally deep rooted socialistic/statist sensibility which goes all the way back to the `16th century _habitants_ and which found expression in the prairie co-op movement in the last century.  Whatever the reasons we tend to think it is the government’s job to support the NGOs; we appear unconcerned about where the government will find the money – print more, I guess.  That means that NGOs need to keep their plight on the political front burner; they are in competition for a finite pot of government money.  Every C-17 or M-777 howitzer the government buys for us represents _x_ dollars which cannot be funnelled to NGOs by CIDA.  Thus, I think the NGO’s press agents keep bombarding journalists with the _narrative_.  There are always a few journalists willing (or just desperate enough for a by-line) to convert a NGO press release into _’news’_. 


Edit: "... not quite so neow, _narrative_ ..."


----------



## GAP (29 Mar 2007)

I never made the connection between CIDA and the NGO's for some reason, but you are are dead on ER


----------



## KevinB (29 Mar 2007)

Edward, thanks for the insight.  


As a security provider (with previous work both in the CF and Private side in Afghanistan), I find it IDIOTIC that any NGO would try this message.  For one without the Military operating to press the insurgents on the battlefield the entire country would be a no go area.  There needs to be a synergistic relationship between NGO's and the Military -- and for that to happen the NGO's need to hire effective and responsible security providers.  I do know that 90% of the NGO that we protect in Iraq's budget is security related -- from renting/leasing buildings, vehicles, static guards, and PSD's - and the O&E budgets for them.  Now these NGO's in Iraq can afford it due to the US Department of State grant fund and a suprising high amount of civilian philanthropy.  I find it mindboggling to see NGO's beleiving that in the post 911 world that they cannot operate in this manner.  Now perhaps you could do it cheaper -- living on a military base for one --but that ties you to the military (which has many negative conotations that I beleive outweighs the advantages in cost saving).  However many NGO's seem to find it easier in Afghan to sit in Kabul sipping coffe at L'atmosphere and badmouthing coalition forces or security contractors...
   Just my BTDT $0.02


----------

