January, 27 2010, 08:43am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
In the UK:
* Zahra Akkerhuys, Oxfam Press Office, +44 (0)1865 472498 or +44 (0) 7525 901932, zakkerhuys@oxfam.org.uk
In Kabul:
* Ashley Jackson, Oxfam International, +93 (0)700 278 657, ajackson@oxfam.org.uk
* Farhana Faruqi Stocker, AfghanAid, +93 (0) 799 310 498, ffstocker@afghanaid.org.uk
Aid Agencies Sound the Alarm on the Militarization of Aid in Afghanistan
Afghans say that the military places them at greater risk
WASHINGTON
As Foreign Ministers
gather in London for a major conference on Afghanistan, leading aid
agencies warn that the international militaries' use of aid as a
"non-lethal" weapon of war may even be putting Afghans at greater risk.
A US army manual for commanders in Afghanistan and in Iraq defines
aid as a non-lethal weapon designed "to win the hearts and minds of the
indigenous population to facilitate defeating the insurgents". The
Afghan government estimates international forces have already spent
$1.7 billion on "aid" in Afghanistan. The US military alone has
budgeted an additional $1 billion for the coming year - more than
Afghanistan's state budget for agriculture, health and education
combined.
In their new report, "Quick Impact, Quick Collapse",
the eight international agencies show their concern that the
militarization of aid is putting ordinary people on the frontlines of
the conflict. Afghans say that the military places them at greater risk
when they build schools and clinics which then become targets of armed
opposition groups.
The agencies say that "quick impact" projects provide a quick fix
rather than sustainable development. Military-led humanitarian and
development activities are driven by donors' political interests and
short-term security objectives and are often ineffective, wasteful and
potentially harmful to Afghans.
"There are no 'quick fixes' in Afghanistan"
International guidelines agreed by ISAF and the UN state that "the military is primarily responsible for providing security,
and if necessary, basic infrastructure and urgent reconstruction
assistance limited to gap-filling measures until civilian organizations
are able to take over."
The agencies say that the international forces are going way beyond their remit.
Ashley Jackson, head of policy for Oxfam International in Afghanistan,
says: "There are no 'quick fixes' in Afghanistan and nobody should be
cutting corners - the people here deserve better. Afghan people have
coped with decades of grinding poverty, conflict and disorder and need
real, long-term solutions."
The agencies call on the 70 countries participating in tomorrow's
London Conference to rethink the militarized approach to aid and shift
their focus towards a long-term aid strategy based on meeting the real
needs of Afghans. The agencies say that the distribution of
aid is heavily biased in favor of areas where the troop presence is
strongest rather than distributed according to need. The needs
of people in more secure areas and vulnerable populations, particularly
Afghans displaced by the conflict and other factors as well as
returnees are being overlooked.
Excessive influence of short-term military goals
"Development is incredibly complex here. You don't achieve
development, let alone security, by simply digging a well or building a
school. You can't fix the country in 18 months just by injecting it
with more money," says G.B. Adhikari, country director of ActionAid.
The agencies say that over the last eight years there have been many places where significant progress has been made in health, education and rural infrastructure,
but these have been driven by Afghans' needs, carefully planned by
development experts and implemented in partnership with communities and
local government.
The excessive influence of short-term military goals over aid policy
is part of a larger flaw in the US-led strategy. "Troop-contributing
countries overemphasize military issues and sideline the critical
challenge of promoting genuine development and good governance," says
Farhana Faruqi-Stocker, managing director of Afghanaid. "This imbalance
matters, not only because of the resulting human cost, but also because
poverty and weak, corrupt government are key drivers of conflict, and
must be effectively addressed if there is to be sustainable peace and
development."
Read more
Download the report: Quick Impact, Quick Collapse: The dangers of militarized aid in Afghanistan
Oxfam's emergency work in Afghanistan
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
LATEST NEWS
'Catastrophic': Biden Admin Approves Largest Offshore Oil Export Terminal
"Nothing about this project is in alignment with Biden's climate and environmental justice goals," said one campaigner.
Apr 15, 2024
Climate action groups are vehemently rejecting the Biden administration's claim that the approval of a new offshore oil terminal—planned to be the largest in the U.S.—is in the "national interest," after the U.S. Department of Transportation announced the project had met several federal requirements and could begin operations by 2027.
The agency's Maritime Administration said last week that Enterprise Product Partners, a Houston-based pipeline company, had been granted a deepwater port license to build the Sea Port Oil Terminal (SPOT) near Freeport, Texas following a five-year federal review process.
The federal government determined the $1.8 billion terminal project had undergone sufficient environmental impact reviews and would overall benefit the country—even as it was projected by the Sierra Club, which has fought SPOT for several years, to emit greenhouse gases equivalent to those of nearly 90 coal-fired power plants.
"The evidence is clear that SPOT would be catastrophic to the climate, wildlife, and frontline communities of the Gulf," said Devorah Ancel, senior attorney with the Sierra Club. "It threatens the future existence of the endangered Rice's whale with a population of less than fifty, and its ozone pollution would compromise the health of thousands of Gulf residents who have endured decades of fossil fuel industry pollution. Make no mistake, SPOT is not in the national interest."
The project is expected to include two pipelines that would carry crude oil to the deepwater port each day, enabling the export of 2 million barrels of crude oil, loaded onto two supertankers at once, daily.
"Nothing about this project is in alignment with Biden's climate and environmental justice goals," said Kelsey Crane, senior policy advocate at Earthworks. "The communities that will be impacted by SPOT have once again been ignored and will be forced to live with the threat of more oil spills, explosions, and pollution. The best way to protect the public and the climate from the harms of oil is to keep it in the ground."
Allie Rosenbluth, U.S. manager at Oil Change International, noted that the project has been approved despite the International Energy Agency's clear assessment in 2021 that "all new investments in oil and gas projects must stop if the world is going to reach its climate goals," including limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C.
"The Biden administration's decision to approve the Sea Port Oil Terminal is a grave mistake. This approval will only harm local communities and ecosystems, and lead to even more devastating impacts of the climate crisis," said Rosenbluth. "The U.S. is already the largest producer of oil and gas and has the largest expansion plans globally. Instead of continuing this legacy of harm by approving fossil fuel projects, President Biden should be listening to the science and the masses of his constituents calling for an end to fossil fuels."
The direct action group Climate Defiance expressed doubt that the approval of SPOT will help Biden win over any voters as the 2024 election approaches.
Nine in 10 Democratic voters and Democratic-leaning independents told Pew Research Center last year that they believe the U.S. should prioritize developing renewable energy sources—and two-thirds of Republican voters under age 30 agreed.
"This project would be the single-largest oil export terminal in the U.S." said the group. "We are being boiled alive here, literally burned to death by 'moderate' politicians who see fit to torch us in the name of quarterly profits. How can we live like this? How can this go on?"
Last year was the hottest on record, and the first three months of 2024 have each broken records for high global temperatures. Scientists found last year that climate disasters including wildfires in Canada and extreme heat in Europe were made far more likely by fossil-fueled planetary heating.
Local organizers in Texas condemned the Biden administration's decision to ignore campaigners who have warned of the danger SPOT poses to marine habitats as well as people who live in the area where two crude oil pipelines have now been given final approval to run.
"We continue to struggle to see why Biden and [Transportation Secretary Pete] Buttigieg prefer to protect the corporate profits of billion-dollar oil giants like Enbridge and Enterprise over the hardcore objections of the people who would have to live with the consequences of pipelines criss-crossing our beaches," said Trevor Carroll, Brazoria County lead organizer with Texas Campaign for the Environment. "If you care about environmental justice and the climate, you just can't support a monstrosity like SPOT. The local community and the global climate justice movement are continuing to fight... This is not over."
Melanie Oldham, director of Better Brazoria, said SPOT will be "an oil spill waiting to happen that would not only lower property value, but harm our local ecosystems, ecotourism, beaches, recreation, and kill marine life like the endangered Rice's whale and Kemp's Ridley sea turtles."
"Those of us residents, beachgoers, and voters that have for the past four years opposed the SPOT offshore terminal and pipelines are very disappointed with the approval of the project license," said Oldham. "President Biden has again broken promises to protect frontline communities in Surfside and Freeport."
The administration's approval came three months after the White House announced it was delaying consideration of new gas export terminals, and the same day the federal government said fossil fuel companies will have to pay higher royalties in order to drill on federal lands.
But those climate actions paired with the SPOT approval amount only to "flip flopping," said Climate Defiance.
"It is not enough that the administration stopped new gas exports if they are going to back stab us with this death-sentence decision now," said the group. "This is not us being 'ungrateful.' This is the science. The pure, unvarnished, science."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Spying Expansion Could Hand 'Stasi-Like Powers' to Trump, Privacy Advocates Warn
"In my opinion no country that has something like this to enter into force can still be considered to be free," said Edward Snowden.
Apr 15, 2024
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is among the privacy advocates sounding the alarm over a major expansion of mass surveillance that the U.S. House approved in a bipartisan vote last week, a step toward handing the federal government—and a potential second Trump administration—even more power to spy on Americans' communications without a warrant.
Sean Vitka, policy director of Demand Progress, used social media to press the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) on the implications of an amendment that the lower chamber approved as part of a bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
"Did you know your FISA [electronic communications service provider] amendment facilitates Stasi-like powers, very plausibly for [former President Donald] Trump? I asked your staff if you were lied to about it or if you knew. Can you confirm?" Vitka asked Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. (Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee, has postured as a FISA opponent, but as president he signed an extension of Section 702 authority.)
Vitka noted Sunday that Himes repeatedly characterized the amendment—which was led by HPSCI Chair Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio)—as narrow, even though it would dramatically expand the kinds of businesses that can be forced to help the government conduct surveillance operations under Section 702, possibly handing a would-be authoritarian chilling surveillance powers.
As the Brennan Center for Justice explained, "Although the amendment exempts hotels, libraries, restaurants, and a handful of other types of establishments, an enormous range of businesses could still be conscripted into service, including grocery stores, department stores, hardware stores, laundromats, barber shops, fitness centers, and countless other locations Americans frequent—even the offices in which they work."
"Moreover, although the targets would still have to be non-U.S. persons overseas, many of these businesses would lack the technical ability to turn over specific communications, so they would be forced to give the NSA access to entire communications streams—trusting the government to retain only the communications of approved targets," the group added.
Section 702 permits U.S. agencies to spy on non-citizens located outside of the country, but the communications of Americans—including activists, journalists, and lawmakers—have
frequently been swept up under the surveillance authority, sparking a bipartisan reform push.
Himes, an
opponent of reform efforts, responded dismissively to Vitka's question on Sunday, writing that "life is really too short to engage with people who need to use bombastic absurdities like 'Stasi-like.'"
"Yes I know exactly what is in there," Himes added, referring to the Turner-led amendment. "Some of it is classified. And none of it is remotely 'Stasi-like.' Sell your nonsense elsewhere."
Snowden, who in 2013 exposed the NSA's
illegal mass surveillance program, said in response that "the 'it's classified' dodge" by Himes "is a bright red flag."
"This amendment radically—and I repeat radically—expands the range of who the gov't can force to spy on their behalf. It may be law in DAYS!" Snowden wrote on social media.
Snowden went on to argue that Vitka's "invocation of 'Stasi-like' is not only a fair characterization" of the amendment, "it's probably generous."
"Frankly, it's hard to imagine any modern communication beyond the reach of this thing—which is, of course, the true reason they're trying to sneak it into law so quietly," he added. "It is unbelievably overbroad, and in my opinion no country that has something like this to enter into force can still be considered to be free."
"The House bill represents one of the most dramatic and terrifying expansions of government surveillance authority in history."
Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program,
said the "disregard for Americans' civil liberties" in Himes' reply to Vitka "is staggering."
"This provision allows the NSA to force a huge range of ordinary U.S. businesses to assist the NSA in Section 702 surveillance," Goitein added. "That's not 'nonsense,' that's a fact. And this is your response?"
URGENT: Please read thread below. We have just days to convince the Senate NOT to pass a “terrifying” law (@RonWyden) that will force U.S. businesses to serve as NSA spies. CALL YOUR SENATOR NOW using this call tool (click below or call 202-899-8938). 1/25 https://t.co/HAOHURZoJQ
— Elizabeth Goitein (@LizaGoitein) April 15, 2024
The Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA), described by some as "Patriot Act 2.0," passed the House in an overwhelming bipartisan vote last week after mass spying supporters—including the Biden White House—defeated an effort to add a search warrant requirement to the bill.
But the legislation still has to clear a procedural hurdle to reach the Senate. Later Monday, the House is expected to vote on whether to table a motion to reconsider RISAA's passage.
If the bill does reach the closely divided Senate, privacy advocates are expected to continue their fight for meaningful reforms.
"The House bill represents one of the most dramatic and terrifying expansions of government surveillance authority in history," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement following Friday's House vote. "It allows the government to force any American who installs, maintains, or repairs anything that transmits or stores communications to spy on the government's behalf. That means anyone with access to a server, a wire, a cable box, a Wi-Fi router, or a phone."
"It would be secret: The Americans receiving the government directives would be bound to silence, and there would be no court oversight," he added. "I will do everything in my power to stop this bill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Cannot Let the Warmongers Win': US Progressives Reject Calls for Attack on Iran
"We must resist the U.S. becoming embroiled in another costly conflict abroad," said U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee.
Apr 15, 2024
Progressives in the U.S. Congress on Sunday urged the Biden administration to resist calls for an attack on Iran following the country's
retaliation against Israel for the deadly bombing of Tehran's consulate in Syria earlier this month.
The hawkish rhetoric came from both sides of the political aisle in the U.S.—Israel's main ally and weapons supplier.
U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), one of Congress' most fervent supporters of Israel's war on Gaza, claimed Iran is "the single most destabilizing force in the Middle East" and "must be held accountable for the aggression it has long shown toward Israel not only directly but also indirectly through proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis."
U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), directing her message at President Joe Biden, was more explicit in demanding an immediate military response from the U.S.
"We must move quickly and launch aggressive retaliatory strikes on Iran," Blackburn wrote on social media.
The number two Republican in the U.S. House, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.),
said Saturday that the chamber would "move from its previously announced legislative schedule next week to instead consider legislation that supports our ally Israel and holds Iran and its terrorist proxies accountable."
"The House of Representatives stands strongly with Israel, and there must be consequences for this unprovoked attack," Scalise added. "More details on the legislative items to be considered will be forthcoming."
"As leaders in Washington jump to call for war with Iran and rush additional offensive weapons to the Israeli military, we need to exercise restraint and use every diplomatic tool to de-escalate tensions."
Iran's launch of hundreds of drones and missiles on Saturday marked its first direct assault on Israel, which has repeatedly engaged in covert attacks inside Iranian territory. On April 1, Israel bombed Iran's consulate in the Syrian capital, killing diplomats and a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander.
Iran said its retaliatory firing of missiles and drones—most of which were intercepted—was in line with international law. One person, a seven-year-old girl, was seriously injured in the attack.
Israeli officials immediately vowed revenge, a pledge that intensified global calls for restraint to prevent the regional war in the Middle East from spiraling further out of control.
As
The Intercept's Ken Klippenstein and Daniel Boguslaw noted Sunday, the conflict "now involves at least 16 different countries," including the U.S., which "flew aircraft and launched air defense missiles from at least eight countries, while Iran and its proxies fired weapons from Iraq, Syria, and Yemen."
U.S. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), a vocal supporter of a cease-fire in Gaza, issued a statement Sunday condemning both Israel's attack on Iran's consulate and Tehran's response, which she said "threaten civilian lives and regional war."
"I also condemn the calls by members of Congress and others to initiate war with Iran; to do so without congressional authorization is blatantly unconstitutional," Bush said. "We cannot let the warmongers win; our country and our world are calling for restraint, de-escalation, a lasting cease-fire, and diplomacy. Our government must listen. That is how we save lives."
Bush urged the Biden administration to "take immediate steps, including at the U.N. Security Council and G7, to de-escalate and facilitate an immediate, lasting cease-fire in the region."
U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the lone congressional no vote against the war in Afghanistan, similarly called on the Biden administration to "lead efforts toward de-escalation, diplomacy, and securing a permanent cease-fire in Gaza."
"We must resist the U.S. becoming embroiled in another costly conflict abroad, but rather lead toward peace and security in the region," Lee added.
Axiosreported Sunday that Biden told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directly that the U.S. would not "support any Israeli counterattack against Iran." An unnamed official told the outlet that "when Biden told Netanyahu that the U.S. will not participate in any offensive operations against Iran and will not support such operations, Netanyahu said he understood."
Echoing her progressive colleagues, U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)
said Sunday that "as leaders in Washington jump to call for war with Iran and rush additional offensive weapons to the Israeli military, we need to exercise restraint and use every diplomatic tool to de-escalate tensions."
"Civilians in not only Gaza, Israel, the West Bank, and Iran but also Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen are bearing the brunt of this escalation, and there must be a cease-fire on all sides," said Omar. "I will continue to call for de-escalation, restraint, and lasting peace."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular