Linda Polman: On Somalia: United Nations Assistance Nourishes the War in Somalia: Interview

To be precise for approximately 6 months ago I wrote an article titled: Political Ownership is it the Key to the Dispute Between Somalis and the International Community? My article explored and touched on the correlations between Aid and Politics among other issues.

I coincidently came accross this interview given by Linda Polman who is one of my favourite writers on development and the Aid Industry. This interview is packed with issues that I had highlighted in my previous article.

Anyone who is concerned about the continuing, and pressing, problem of failures and corruption of the ” Aid Industry” will find here a throughly up- to- date interview and guide to all eveidence, debates and arguments.

Please note that I haven’t altered anything neither wording ,what I did was direct translation word for word. Opinions expressed in this interview are those of the author and do not necessarily represent me. Polman was being interviewed by a Danish Paper last month. Lean back and enjoy it.

Linda Polman: On Somalia: United Nations Assistance Nourishes the War
in Somalia: Interview

Who is Linda Polman?

Linda Polman (born in 1960) is a Dutch national; she is a trained journalist by profession from Utrecht School of Journalism, and her work includes radio documentaries and has written for Dutch and Belgian newspapers and magazines. She has traveled and lived in many parts of the world and in three years she traveled with UN troops to Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda. Her stay in Rwanda led to the book's "We Did Nothing: Why Does not the truth always come out when the UN goes in (1997, 2005)." "The Crisis Caravan - What's Wrong With Humanitarian Aid?" Was released in 2010 (in Britain under the title "War Games - The Story of Aid and War in Modern Times"). Linda Polman was Interviewed by Malthe Rasmussen in Denmark.

Somali businessmen sign contracts with the United Nations Food Program, WFP, to distribute several million tonne’s of food aid. Uncontrolled cartels are responsible for food aid: about half of WFP's assistance has been diverted, so they have along the way helped create the problems. WFP has fed a war in Somalia, which has created powerful military groups. "So says Linda Polman, journalist and author of" The Crisis Caravan "in a big interview with Reasoning Malthe Rasmussen. In "The Crisis Caravan", which appeared last year, Polman heavily criticized the international aid organizations. She says the reason being that : "We need to address the humanitarian dilemma, so that humanitarianism works for the victims affected. “But at the moment it seems the reverse is true.”

Malthe Rasmussen: You published last year the book "The Crisis Caravan" in which you criticized the international humanitarian organizations, as you compare them with commercial entities with the same conflicts of interest and cynicism. What are you basing this criticism on?

Linda Polman: My criticism is basically that humanitarian organizations are businesses and need to try to survive as businesses. They are in a constant humanitarian dilemma, which means that organizations need to take care of their own survival, until they help others. Since they have to protect both themselves and others, they are in a dilemma where they will if necessary put themselves above the sacrificial victims.

Malthe Rasmussen: So you see it as a structural problem - the same mistakes will be repeated over and over again?

Linda Polman: It will. They are constantly repeated. There have been changes in the humanitarian industry. More transparency, etc., but the fundamental problem is that aid agencies are dependent on donor money. Whether this is our money, or governments, so organizations must ensure that they get as much money as possible. This means that every organization is in competition with others. They behave as ordinary businesses in competitive markets. It should not be the case since we are dealing with humanitarian work, where the only obligation is to take care of the other rather than themselves. We will continue to see problems as long as we have a competitive structure where humanitarian organizations depend on donor money.

Malthe Rasmussen: How does your argument relate to the current situation in the Horn of Africa? The United Nations has declared famine in southern Somalia, but has difficulty getting into that area since the United Nations Food Program WFP has been banned by the Islamic insurgent group al-Shabaab. What is your take on that?

Linda Polman: The story goes beyond what is happening right now in Somalia. WFP has been in Somalia for 40 years and I think that about 60% of the Somali population has been dependent on assistance from WFP rations for years already. WFP has a long history in Somalia. The organization is run locally by local employees and contractors who deal with the constant flow of food aid. WFP provides food to as many people in Somalia now as it did two or five years ago, so the situation with WFP and the Somali population has not changed because of the drought. WFP is the largest operation in the area, and since it has been run locally for the past 40 years, there are a lot of different schemes in time. Somali businessmen make contracts with the WFP to address the flow of several million tonnes of food aid. The industrialized auxiliary structure have brought ample opportunities for fraud. Uncontrolled cartels are responsible for food aid: about half of WFP's assistance has been diverted, so they have along the way helped create the problems. WFP has fed a war in Somalia, which has created powerful military group Al-Shabaab is one of the most powerful out of the many. WFP is only one example of how aid agencies are present for so long, they become part of the problem.

Malthe Rasmussen: The U.S. in particular has taken careful note of the problem and do not allow their donations being used in al-Shabaab territory since this group is on the U.S. terrorist list. Some aid agencies have voiced concern about the decision, but has it really been a sensible strategy to prevent the strengthening of al-Shabaab ?

Linda Polman: Relief organizations have worked in the same environment since the 90s and with the problem that aid is a structural part of the war. They are faced with a dilemma. Donors say on one hand that they will not take part in a war. On the other hand, there are a lot of innocent people dying that have to be taken care of. But if you do not change the fact that the assistance is a structural component of the war, there will always be innocent people dying. It's a terrible decision that you will have to take, but something must be done. Therefore, I can really understand donors who do not allow their donations being used in al-Shabaab's territory. But it still does not solve the problem. The problem should be solved through a joint effort where donors and aid agencies working together to break the cycle. Both parties share the blame, but we cannot continue the circle.

Malthe Rasmussen: Overseas Development Institute has published an article where they specifically address your criticism. In the article they argue that the failures you mention is the international community's failures, not aid agencies. The international community is not doing well enough in conflict ridden regions, aid agencies have to work in those hotspots. Are there some grains of truth to that?

Linda Polman: All major aid agencies do receive support from governments and the UN. Therefore they cannot say that they are not part of the problem.

Malthe Rasmussen: What other options do they have? What would happen if the humanitarian organizations refused to take any support?

Linda Polman: They have not tried. MSF tried. They have ensured that they remain independent - to maintain their independence they refuse to take on more support from government than they do now. It's a very conscious choice to avoid dependence on donors. They are now relatively free compared to their own choices. Aid agencies should be far less dependent on donor money. If they do not liberate themselves, they become stuck in a perpetual motion machine. This release will probably come to mean that organizations end up with less money, but at least they will be able to make ethical choices. Look at Doctors Without Borders. They take on a limited quantity from governments and are still among the world's 10 largest charities. You are not lost without government support. With a good story, good practices, transparent work and ethical choice, it is still possible to raise lots of money. But it is easy for organizations to sit back and wait for the governments to pay most of their revenue.

Malthe Rasmussen: If we look at the current situation in Somalia, is it not our duty to help innocent victims of a drought, whatever it might lead in relation to strengthening al-Shabaab, accept government support or something else? Are humanitarian organizations not supposed to maintain neutrality in relation to victims of humanitarian disasters, rather than making cynical calculations?

Linda Polman: It has nothing to do with cynicism. The current practice is cynical. There are many millions of people who receive no assistance, despite their desperate needs. The people we say no to. The ability to say no to exist, and we carry it all the time. Donated money goes to areas where donors have political or military interests. There are plenty of people we ignore. It is my belief that if you have a humanist option, so you should try to save as many lives as possible. There are places where it is difficult or even impossible for humanitarian agencies to work. Because of resource constraints, there is a need to use them selectively in order to save as many lives and so Somalia probably is a bad choice.

Malthe Rasmussen: Is there a risk that organizations become politicized from the moment we ask them to help anyone in need, regardless of time and place?

Linda Polman: They remain policy instruments, so long as they are dependent on donor money. The largest and wealthiest charities are either the Danish or the Dutch, but the U.S..... Look at the agreements needed before organizations can gain U.S. support. The agreement is that they must act according to American foreign interests. This agreement shall be accepted by all, otherwise they will not get any money from the U.S.. To a lesser extent, the same rules apply to the aid given by Holland: If an organization wants government support, it must accept that all its projects must be approved by the government. Aid is a tool of foreign policy. It is quite common and goes a long time back. Politicization already exists.

Malthe Rasmussen: Is Development Assistance history marked by progress? Have we learned from our mistakes?

Linda Polman: There is progress in some areas but not in relation to the fundamental dilemma that humanitarian organizations face when they must take care of themselves and others simultaneously. The structural problem still exists and the aid industry does not reform itself. The changes come through good journalism and public pressure (since organizations depend on private contributions and contributions via taxes), forcing aid agencies to admit that there is a problem.

Malthe Rasmussen: What roles do journalists play in your opinion in this context?

Linda Polman: I have been saddened to watch for example the BBC's coverage. In England there are a number of organizations working to raise money for famine in the Horn of Africa. BBC volunteered immediately to volunteer to go and do the right reportage to help. It is the usual, outrageous stories of journalists who insist on showing starving babies, and aid organizations that are doing their best to find some. It is quite common that journalists make themselves available for emergency sector, and I do not understand why. If a journalist got an invitation from Shell to come to Nigeria and cover how amazing they do, the journalist would immediately know that it's not a journalist's work. But no alarm bells ringing when charities ask journalists to help with their work. Journalists think like many other people in that situation: "Here are some white people that help some black babies - what could be wrong with that?" They think they have to help aid organizations to help. Journalists are not addressed through industry or its economic agenda, which they would have done in other contexts. It is a big problem.

Malthe Rasmussen: It seems that you still continue with your critique than to say that we sometimes exercise injury. Would you go so far as to say that we are doing more harm than good?

Linda Polman: Humanitarian assistance saves lives, but we must be careful not to generalize. There is a difficult balance. In some areas aid organizations can accomplish great things, because the environment is different with respect to regimes and conditions. There are big differences. But there are situations where aid organizations predictably become involved in problems that can be very damaging. So we need to look at the conditions every time. Who has control of the area? What conditions are there that we can work in the area, and are they acceptable? We'll you will have to find the balance when we see millions of dollars disappear into the pockets of warlords - as in, for example, Somalia. How many more victims we create by virtue of that assistance benefits the local warlords?

Malthe Rasmussen: What is the way forward for the humanitarian sector and the press?

Linda Polman: We'll have to address the humanitarian dilemma, so that humanitarian work benefits the victims rather than the organizations. Right now the reverse is true. It should not be necessary for aid agencies to have to take into account their own survival in everything they do.

Malthe Rasmussen: Could these changes come from within the humanitarian sector itself, or should they be en- forced reform?

Linda Polman: I think big here. The system must change, and the relief community agrees into that. It is sad. They do not need me to tell them how they must change. The aid industry has a lot of good think tanks that produce excellent research. All analysis is available online. We have come up with solutions, but they will not be implemented if they touch the auxiliary sovereignty or the position they have taken. There is an aspect of humanitarian work, that hasn’t changed. There are small changes in the transparency and accountability, but the humanitarian dilemma still exists.

____

Translated from Danish by Ahmed A Hirsi: Ahmed Hirsi works in Central London for a major Financial Institution. He can be reached at: Ahmed.hirsi@yahoo.com

Book Reviews