International aid agencies' work in Iraq has been hampered by their placement of security concerns above humanitarian missions, according to a study published this summer through Tufts' Feinstein International Center (FIC).
Entitled "Taking Sides or Saving Lives: Existential Choices for the Humanitarian Enterprise in Iraq," the study concluded that, with few exceptions, "relatively little energy and few resources have been expended by the humanitarian enterprise in Iraq on bridging cultural divides, knowledge gaps and perceptual differences."
The study was authored by independent researcher Greg Hansen for the Humanitarian Agenda 2015: Principles, Power and Perception project. This project is run by the FIC, which is a part of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy.
Hansen conducted his study October 2006 and May 2007 and his data was based almost entirely on research done in Iraq between November and December 2006.
His report indicated that the political affiliations of aid agencies in Iraq, such as visible cooperation with the American military, have significant negative influences on their work with Iraqis.
"Everything that interacts with the American occupation is tainted," FIC Director Dr. Peter Walker said in describing the findings.
Antonio Donini, a senior researcher at the FIC and the coordinator of the Humanitarian Agenda initiative, said that humanitarian aid agencies are not doing enough to understand the way Iraqis view their purposes, missions and affiliations in the country.
"Conflict analysis, understanding the local context and local perceptions are all important," he said in an e-mail.
Not only are the aid agencies themselves targeted in the report, but suggestions are also made for donor agencies.
According to the report's recommendations, "donors must do more to adapt to the Iraqi context" and thus must shift their support to the more effective local Iraqi aid agencies, either directly or through international agencies that have a better understanding of the situation on the ground.
The changes urged by the country study are becoming increasingly pertinent, as the number of attacks on aid workers in the Middle East increases, Donini said.
As such, some international aid agencies and donors, such as the United States Agency for International Development, have generally been receptive to the report's message.
Oxfam International, a non-profit organization that has been either operating in Iraq or working with partners in the war-torn country for the past four years, has already made adjustments to its operations that parallel the suggestions made in the FIC report.
"I do feel that many of the recommendations are relevant in terms of other humanitarian crises for the future," said Mike Delaney, the director of humanitarian response at Oxfam America.
"The issue with humanitarian organizations and workers is we're constantly on the run, so when organizations like the [Feinstein] International Center can identify what's happening and make recommendations in an objective manner, it's helpful," he said.
Oxfam pulled out of Iraq only months after the U.S. occupation began. The organization has since partnered with Iraqi non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to provide support to hospitals in major conflict areas.
But Shannon Scribner, a senior humanitarian policy adviser at Oxfam America, an affiliate of Oxfam International, said that this contact has been too indirect.
"It's important to have strong relationships with national or local NGOs because they are the ones that know the language, the culture, and because they can adapt to the security situation," she said.
The response to the report at the U.N. has so far been mixed, but mostly positive, Donini said.
"The U.N. humanitarian agencies seem to have welcomed the report even if it is somewhat critical of their work," he said.
Overall, the researchers hope that the report's recommendations will encourage humanitarian aid agencies to alter their practices and remove the stain on their work caused by their over-reliance on the American military.
"The main thing is [the report has] put back on the agenda that it's really not acceptable to have what little humanitarian work that's going on under one regime," said Walker. "It's perceived by Iraqis as being not impartial."
