Aid agencies seen taking sides in Iraq

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/1264/2007/06/17-173624-1.htm

Which is more important - keeping aid workers safe, or helping people who are struggling to survive?

Researchers say international aid agencies have made a bad name for themselves with Iraqis by putting their staff security above the humanitarian imperative to assist others.

And they've forfeited any sense of neutrality by subscribing to a U.S.-style black-and-white view that makes it impossible to talk to insurgents when that might well be the sensible thing to do, argues a new report for the Feinstein International Center of Tufts University in Boston.

Aid agencies working in conflict zones sometimes have a quiet preference for one side or the other, but usually they're in touch with all parties. It's the best way of making a good show of impartiality, and it helps in getting aid through safely.

But in Iraq, many aid agencies have only been in touch with one of the warring groups, if they've stayed in the country at all. They tend to have contact with the U.S. military, while rarely talking at all with insurgents.

[malaise]

1. No surprise here n/t