On Wednesday, a bomb rocked a UN guesthouse in Kabul, killing at least five people. Last week, a man working with a UNHCR partner was killed in an ambush on his vehicle in eastern Chad. Another aid worker was kidnapped in Sudan’s volatile Darfur only days after two aid workers – held captive for more than 100 days – were released. Beyond their sheer human tragedy, these incidents highlight an alarming trend: attacks against aid workers have increased sharply in the last few years.
The attacks in the last two weeks are not exceptional; they represent rising violence against aid workers. Recent research by the Humanitarian Policy Group at ODI found that Afghanistan, Darfur and Chad are among the five most dangerous places for aid workers. In fact, three countries – Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia – accounted for more than 60% of violent incidents against aid workers between 2006 and 2008. Kidnappings tripled in the past three years, and while no aid workers had been killed in suicide bombings before 2003, several have now been killed by such attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2008, the mortality rate of international aid workers exceeded that of UN peacekeeping troops. These disturbing facts raise two basic questions. First, why are aid workers targeted? Second, what can be done to prevent such violence?
These questions go to the heart of providing assistance in insecure contexts, particularly for humanitarian agencies that operate in the most politically charged and violent environments. Aid workers are attacked for a number of different reasons. While some may be the targets of thieves, in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, the motives for attacks are increasingly political: to undermine stability and authority, discourage the presence of humanitarian actors and send a violent message that aid agencies are seen as part of a Western agenda. Politically motivated attacks on aid workers are on the rise because providing assistance is often seen as a political act, whether aid agencies want it to be or not. We can debate who is to blame for this – armed troops providing assistance are often cited as culprits – but there is little disagreement on the impact. The delivery of assistance, meant to reach those who need it most, becomes restricted to areas where it can be delivered with some margin of security.
Aid agencies face hard choices when it comes to protecting their staff and delivering assistance. In the most extreme cases, the two are mutually exclusive. Agencies often rely on ‘acceptance’ strategies – essentially cultivating relationships with local actors to minimise the chances of being targeted. However, these strategies are risky and often ineffective in settings plagued by lawlessness and banditry. Adhering to humanitarian principles like neutrality and independence should be part of a principled humanitarian response. But these principles are not consistently applied, and principles alone cannot guarantee security, particularly in environments where the very act of providing assistance is viewed by armed groups as supporting the institutions against which they are fighting. In some cases, aid agencies take more direct measures to protect themselves, such as hiring armed guards. Not only is this a controversial approach, and one that tends to undermine local acceptance, but it has evident limitations. It is difficult to imagine any strategy that could have prevented the well-armed and coordinated attack on the UN guesthouse in Kabul.
So where does this leave us, other than with hard choices and heart-breaking headlines? In areas where risks can be managed, it means finding context-specific security strategies to handle the different threats facing aid workers, including national staff who continue to operate in areas where international staff do not. In the most dangerous and politically charged contexts, the choices are indeed the hardest: to stay, to go, to scale-back assistance. The security landscape in these extreme environments is increasingly hostile for aid workers, where their principles and security strategies are pitted against bandits, guns and suicide bombers. The ultimate tragedy is that the cost of keeping aid workers safe may be the well-being or even the survival of those who rely on their assistance. Too often, aid workers and their agencies are having to decide whether the stakes are too high.
This blog post features the author's personal view and does not represent the view of ODI.
Comments
Comments on the ODI blog are moderated. ODI will post as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee to publish them all.
re: Aid workers under fire @ Friday, October 30, 2009 6:20 PM
In the last years the number of aid workers operating in insecure areas is increased significantly. I was genuinely hoping to be able to attribute the increase in the number of victims to the exposure of a highest number of people to an insecure environment. Unfortunately this is not the case. As the report highlights, also the relative number of aid worker victims is increasing (figure 2, page 3). Despite the caveats on the actual number I fear that the trend is evident. As a young individual willing to help insecure areas to recover I have to admit that I am more concerned after these news. The fact that international operators (like me) are still a smaller percentage of the overall killed does not come as a consolation, in the light of the trend of increased targeting toward internationals.
Aid agencies will make their institutional choices. So will individuals. The risk is then that there will be a tendency to increase financial compensations for this higher risk generating adverse selection. Money should not become the main motivation to engage in aid activities. The most prepared staff might find, and accept, employment options in safer areas.
As a motivated individual I would like to know that greater financial effort is devoted to reducing the riskiness of the activity (more security personnel, equipment), rather than in remunerating the higher risk (higher wage, higher insurance costs). As I am not an expert of the financial costs involved in activities in insecure areas I can not be sure that this solution is financially or operationally viable. What I do know, is that the personal choices of aid workers are far harder now.
Social comments and analytics for this post @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 4:07 PM
This post was mentioned on Twitter by odi_development: ODI blog - Aid workers under fire
http://bit.ly/2edTMW
re: Aid workers under fire @ Monday, November 02, 2009 2:00 AM
First of all, I would like to thank the author of that piece for bringing this issue to the front end. Although, I agree with the fact that these attacks are politically motivated but the reasons behind this political motivation is what I will discuss from another perspective. First of all, aid workers are not only easy targets but also, some groups -- generally those on the losing side-- use these workers as bargain chips. These are the cases that repeat so often when kidnappings involved. By kidnapping aid workers, these groups can leverage with either intergovernmental forces or national forces under which such forces operate. However, although some of the time, groups used these tactics to undermine peace, the question that we never raise is: to what extent these groups consider aid workers working for particular agencies as part of the problem? When this problem arises, these groups no longer consider these aid workers as helpers, rather as ''agents of trouble'', or workers working with the power structure which they want to get rid of and which they see aid workers solidifying. Because in asking this question, we also have to take into account the behavior of the power structure since it [power structure] can endanger the lives of aid workers by using their works as propaganda to further their goals and aims.
re: Aid workers under fire @ Monday, November 02, 2009 7:05 PM
The political motivations behind the targeted attacks on aid workers cannot be ignored. While you mention that some aid agencies attempt to cultivate relationships with local actors to minimize potential targeted violence, do you know the extent to which aid agencies engage multiple groups, including potential “terrorists”, in discussions to identify their development needs/priorities for their country? It seems that giving proper recognition to the role of the citizen in determining the direction of their country could help remove some of the “western agenda” stigma from aid workers. This seems additionally important when the government lacks legitimacy, as is the case in Afghanistan.
re: Aid workers under fire @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 4:56 PM
It’s really sad that the killing and kidnapping aid workers is nothing new over the past years. They give humanitarian assistance but receive safety threats. I agree that “the motives for attacks are increasingly political” and it is hard to dispel the local factions’ suspicion. The article says the claim of neutral stance is not useful, but I think it is still needed to be repeatedly underscored to imbue local factions with the purpose of humanitarian aid, rather than political aim. Also, it may be practical for aid workers to train locals, and then let locals to spread the assistance work. By doing so, they could stay in chaotic regions for shorter time, and pass on basic skills to locals. Actually, how to protect aid workers is the part of the bigger problem of how to intervene countries and regions under failed and poor governance that calls for coordinated effort from the international community.
re: Aid workers under fire @ Friday, November 06, 2009 3:47 PM
It is very unfortunate that in order to achieve political goals some groups choose to kill or kidnap aid workers from around the world who chose to help others and be in tough areas instead of air conditioned comfortable offices in skyscrapers.
I think a key thing for these aid organizations to do is increase relationship with the locals and go in when possible and when it is not possible they should train local aid worker to carry out the operations. Also UN and aid agencies I think should be housed in areas that are in control of the governments with strong presence.
re: Aid workers under fire @ Saturday, November 07, 2009 2:40 AM
During the past years we have been witnessing an increase in attack against aid workers in place such as Afghanistan and Iraq. It is obvious that violence against aid workers is being underreported. The fact is that the contract signed by the aid workers is totally different than the one signed by a military member or a UN peacekeeper. The annual income of the aid worker is in some cases four times bigger than the military at a difference, on the line of duty the military is well equipped and the security of his convoy is assured by helicopters and other intelligent units whereas the aid worker has to deliver sometimes without any kind of security. They have been paid for their lives. As consequences more aid workers have been killed than UN peacekeepers in the line of duty. At this point the question that being asked is what needs to be done? Is it just a better collaboration between the military unit and the aid workers on the ground or lowering the annual income of the aid worker by assuring their security as a human being not just on the field but during his contract time?
