Amaury Cooper

Recent Activity

• 

  Amaury commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Looking Back - When Humanitarians Become Targets

  Humanitarian and development workers became targets as Cold War tensions fell and the regimes or rebel groups once supported by either the US/West or the USSR began to see their incomes disappear.  The funds supporting proxy wars being fought between the US and its allies against the Soviet Union all over the world especially in Africa, Central and South America, and South and Southeast Asia began to dry up. 
  
  During the cold war, aid workers and to some extent journalist were able to work under the umbrella of neutrality because both sides had no interest in seeing their fundees as supporting hostilities towards aid workers; at the same time humanitarian relief and development work was left to outside parties once again allowing the two Super Powers to remain hidden.  As the Cold War thawed and the funding stopped, terrorist groups, insurgents and rebel groups had to find alternate sources of funding.
  
  Illegal mining (diamonds, timber, etc), drug trafficking or taxing, and kidnap for ransom became the new funding mechanism for groups once patronized by the great powers.
  
  The battle for supremacy in tribal, ethnic, religious, and left over remanents of idiological wars were now faced with financing their operations by other means.  Aid and development groups were often seen as impediments to their goals thus became targets.
  
  Throw in 9-11, the rise Islamist terrorist groups, and the new world disorder, aid and development workers are seen as arms of American/Western imperialism attempting to destroy local  religious/ethnic ways of life. 
  
  As US/Western forces invaded and occupied Afghanistan and the US invasion of Iraq promising to alleviate the suffering of both these countries woes, nation building, humanitarian aid, and development work has become as much a military strategy as the invasions themselves.  Provisional Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) are indistinguishable from non-military aid work, repeating what I have mentioned in an earlier blog as blurring the lines between military and non-military participants.
  
  So humanitarian aid and development workers became targets sometime between the time the USSR pulled out of Afghanistan and the fall of the Berlin wall.  Left to fend for themselves rival factions in conflicts around the world turned on those who once helped them.  Reminds me of Aesop's the Scorpion and the Frog (http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?4&TheScorpionandtheFrog)

• 

  Amaury signed the petition | about 3 years ago

  Support the Stephen D. Vance Foundation
• 

  Amaury commented on the article | about 3 years ago

  How Many Aid Workers Receive Security Trainings?

  It always comes down to four big issues:
  
  1) The money issue when it comes to providing training to field staff.  When non-profits deploy into the field they worry more about getting the bulk of their funding into the work than providing the proper security training needed.  I know of several cases where on the ground situations forced the evacuation of field staff.  The money used for evacuation was taken from the project budget, forcing the project to shut down.  Organizations need to make security, security training, crisis management planning and training, evacuation and continuity of operations line items in their budget proposals.  The initial costs may seem large, but how can you measure those costs compared to the life of an aid worker, or for that matter the need to shut down an entire project.  More often than not, when competitive bids are being sought, the first thing NGOs do is cut the security component/budget from the bid.
  
  2) There is an unfortunate culture/mindset that exists within much of the NGO community (not shared by all of course) that having a strong security component will separate the staff on the ground from being able to do their jobs, acting as a barrier to the affected populations.  Unfortunately the new reality of the post-Cold War, post-911 world is that aid workers are easy prey for terrorists, insurgents, criminals, you name it.  NGO staff need to overcome the idea that everybody loves them because they are helping people and the work they are doing is for the good of all.  This is especially true in places like Afghanistan where many of the projects NGOs work on go against the cultural norms present in the country, case in point being projects for educating girls.
  
  3) The world of security professionals is dominated by ex-military and law enforcement who have very little or no experience working with NGOs.  Added to the fact that NGO salaries pale in comparison to what they could earn working in the private sector.  The flipside to that is that NGOs seem to have a strong dislike for ex-military and law enforcement, viewing them as trigger happy.  The fact is that the training for both come from different angles.  The ex-military/law enforcement look at things in either an offensive or completely defensive posture; the NGOs want to reach out and really mingle with their aid recipients.  Neither groups speaks the same language.
  
  4) New government (mostly US) policies of having the military involved in "hearts and minds" campaigns where one day they are building bridges and digging wells, and the next day involved in military activities blurs the line between aid/development workers and military involvement in aid projects.  The affected populations often can no longer distinguish between aid workers and military, making any foreigner a potential target.  Now I am not saying that the military should not play a role in aid or development work.  Only the military has the logistical capabilities and budgets to get needed supplies where they need to be in record time.  Here we can look at the example of the December 26, 2004 Tsunami as an example.  If the President of the United States says I want to see food on that beach in Aceh in 24 hrs or else, the food gets there.
  
  Having come from a private security company and now doing consulting for an NGO I have had the opportunity to work with both.  The fact is that the mindset from both camps has to change.  But particularly on the NGO side.  They need to make security a priority within their organizations, because a minimal or complete lack of security can leave not only affect their staff but those they are trying to help stranded.
  
  Donors, in particular government donors should insist on having security training as part of the proposals, and if need be, pay for it themselves.  Aid/development workers give up the luxuries we take for granted to do the bidding (no pun intend) of government and private donors in some of the most hostile environments on the planet, for little pay and even less recognition. 
  
  Now because of the current state of the world more aid organizations are placing an increased emphasis on the need for proactive versus reactive security.  But there is much to be done.  There are companies/organizations that cater to the specific needs of NGO security, but it remains the responsibility of NGO management to enact and enforce security policies and be willing to spend the money needed to adequately prepare their employees for field operations.
  
  A more concerted effort on the part of NGO security officers to communicate with not only themselves but with other organizations (even companies) operating in high risk areas to share intelligence and help each other.  I know there is a lot of communication between NGO security officers, but there seems to be a reluctance to approach security officers who don’t work in the NGO domain.  These companies usually have more resources and capital and be helpful when things get rough.  They can call it Corporate Social Responsibility if they want, write a press release if they want, who cares.  In the end, keeping field staff safe so they can do the job of helping those who can't help themselves is the most important.