c. 2003 Religion News Service

(UNDATED) In a sign of sharpening differences between the Bush administration and international aid organizations, several leading religious agencies say they will refuse to take part in relief operations in Iraq if the efforts fall under control of the U.S. military.

The administration has put the Pentagon in charge of the humanitarian campaign in post-conflict Iraq. However, private aid groups would like to see the United Nations coordinate the delivery of aid, as it has in the aftermath of past conflicts.

The United States is departing from the tradition of letting civilian authorities manage relief efforts as soon as the fighting stops, said Rick Augsburger, who directs emergency programs for Church World Service, based in New York.

“This flies in the face of humanitarian principles, and the humanitarian code of conduct,” said Augsburger, whose agency represents 36 Protestant, Orthodox, and Anglican communions with 50 million members in the United States. “As an organization, we would not allow our efforts to come under direction of the U.S. military.”

The administration’s plans have triggered opposition by a broad range of aid groups, including the evangelical Protestant agency, World Vision. Now, some humanitarian organizations are taking the further step of saying they will not take part in any aid deliveries managed by the military.

It is unclear what impact this stance will have on the overall humanitarian effort in post-conflict Iraq. For example, Church World Service believes it might be able to deliver aid through channels independent of the military, as long as the military does not keep an airtight grip on aid flows.

The agency has shipped $3.8 million of aid, primarily medical supplies, to Iraq over the past 12 years. That it would be ready to boycott the U.S. aid plan for Iraq is one sign of a growing divide between the administration and humanitarian assistance groups.

Relief officials say the military is less able or inclined to make sure that aid gets into the hands of Iraqis most in need.

(FIRST OPTIONAL TRIM BEGINS)

They point to recent chaotic scenes of relief distributions in southern Iraq. There, American soldiers hurled provisions off trucks while firing shots in the air to keep order.

Relief officials say the aid wound up going to the swiftest and strongest, not necessarily those who were most in need. And that goes directly against the mission of humanitarian agencies, especially faith-based agencies, according to the officials.

“Our theology directs us to provide assistance to those who are most vulnerable, from a perspective of unconditionality,” said Augsburger.

He said there is no indication that the Pentagon has conducted such an assessment of humanitarian needs in Iraq.

(FIRST OPTIONAL TRIM ENDS)

They also fear that military coordination will remove the shield of neutrality aid workers need in order to move safely around the country.

“This makes things very complicated for us, because we don’t want to be seen as part of the war machine. We don’t want to be seen as simply an extension of the military effort,” said Nazare Albuquerque, an expert on post-conflict emergency relief with Catholic Relief Services. The international agency is sponsored by the U.S. bishops and based in Baltimore.

“We’ve always had good relations with the military, but we believe the military should do what it’s good at, which is creating and ensuring a safe environment for the humanitarian agencies to work in. And it should let us do what we’re good at,” Albuquerque said.

Yet, while opposing the administration’s relief plans, Catholic Relief Services is signaling it will participate nonetheless. For one thing, the Catholic agency plans to seek funding from the United States for its relief work in Iraq, while Church World Service says it will not use government money.

“We’re not saying we’re not going to cooperate. But how we do it is a question,” said Albuquerque. “It’s difficult to operate in these circumstances, but at the end of the day, what matters is the good of people. We need to help people.”

Some other religious relief agencies are less willing to work under the Pentagon’s umbrella.

“Absolutely not,” said Janis Shields, a spokeswoman for the American Friends Service Committee, when asked if the Philadelphia-based Quaker agency would go along with the U.S. plan. “The blurring of lines between the military and humanitarian work is dangerous. It’s dangerous to relief workers.”

“I don’t believe so,” said Jonathan Frerichs of Baltimore-based Lutheran World Relief, when asked the same question. He said the organization works mainly through local Christian aid associations in Iraq and Jordan that would likely resist taking orders from the American military.

“It’s not an adversarial position. It’s just a matter of respecting the division of labor that makes it possible to do the job on both ends,” he said, explaining that the United Nations has a successful track record of coordinating emergency relief campaigns.

Even World Vision, which is considered more conservative or politically neutral than some other major agencies, is unsure about its relief role in postwar Iraq.

“The military is not trained to do this, and we’re concerned about the safety of our staff, that they’ll be potential targets,” said Bruce Wilkinson, a senior vice president of the organization based in Tacoma, Wash.

Asked if World Vision might opt out of the aid campaign in Iraq, he replied, “That possibility exists, yes.”

Still, there is much uncertainty about the administration’s position regarding the relief campaign in Iraq.

President Bush has said coalition forces intend to give the United Nations an important role, but he placed the humanitarian effort under the command of the Pentagon’s newly established Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance for Iraq.

At a press briefing in late March, Andrew Natsios, director of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said the United Nations will “clearly have a role, and the question is what the role will be.”

Some relief officials are quick to say that in certain circumstances, the military has not only a right but also an obligation to handle the humanitarian effort.

“If the military is the only one on the scene, it has to be in charge. They have to do it, if the bullets are still flying,” said Frerichs of Lutheran World Relief. “But there’s a switchover point. Once public order is restored, it’s time to hand it over to those with the expertise and competence, those who can do the job without seeming to be on one side or the other.”

DEA END BOLE