As U.S. President Barack Obama promises to send more troops to Afghanistan, a new report says there must be a clearer separation between military operations and humanitarian work, if the aid world is to succeed in helping and protecting those at risk in the war-torn country.
The research from the Feinstein International Centre, of the US-based Tufts University, found that humanitarian work is under threat in the country because of a perceived link between aid agencies and the US-led intervention.
Local communities are becoming increasingly distrustful of aid workers, believing they support the Afghan government, which they see as ineffective and corrupt. As a result, the Taliban and other insurgents are targeting aid groups more and more.
"There was a taboo against harming aid workers. This taboo no longer holds, in Afghanistan as in Iraq, largely because the aid enterprise is seen as tainted by its association with external political/military agendas," says the report, which is based on extensive field interviews with the aid community and Afghan civilians.
In 2008, 31 aid workers were killed, 78 were abducted and 27 were seriously wounded in 170 security incidents, according to figures from the Afghanistan NGOs Safety Office.
"There has definitely been an increase in the number of international agency staff who are affected by incidents or even get killed especially by insurgents," Lex Kassenberg, country director for Care International in Afghanistan, told Alertnet.
"ThatÂ?s the claim that the Taliban and armed-opposition groups are making, that we are just cronies or stooges of the government," he added.
In 2008, the country faced a 40 percent increase in security incidents compared to 2007 and warring factions killed over 2,100 civilians in 2008, the UN reported. Armed conflict also forced tens of thousands out of their homes and hampered aid workers' access to large parts of the country.
Aid work is challenged in Afghanistan as the scope for operating is almost nonexistent in the south, south-east, and parts of the west of the country, according to the report. Large areas of the country are no-go areas and it is now impossible even to have a clear picture of the humanitarian situation on the ground, it adds.
"In a number of cases we have had to suspend either short-term or long-term activities in the field because staff cannot simply go there because of security reasons, that is the main headache," Kassenberg said.
The issue, according to the study, is that Â? unlike in other conflict situations -- there are only a few non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Afghanistan with humanitarian track records or specifically humanitarian mandates.
The study suggests that all players willingly accepted the notion that Afghanistan was in a post-conflict situation, and that therefore the role of external actors, including NGOs, was to support the government rather than stay neutral.
"Neutrality is not an end in itself; it is a means to fulfil the humanitarian imperative," the report states. The perception of being associated with a military force carries
potentially deadly consequences for humanitarian aid workers, it adds.
"The problem at the moment is, the community themselves tell us now that they cannot guarantee our safety anymore because they themselves are under threat from armed opposition groups and the Taliban, who go to the villages and tell them if you continue to work with foreign agencies then we shall attack you as well," Kassenberg added.
With violence, unemployment and poverty in Afghanistan at a record high, coupled with the most severe drought in a decade, the U.S. has responded to the deteriorating situation with a plan to send 4,000 extra troops (in addition to the 17,000 already set to leave) to partner with the Afghan military.
In addition, hundreds of U.S. government civilian personnel are to be deployed to assist with reconstruction and development programs which could blur the distinction even further between aid work and military agendas and make aid work even more difficult.
Most interviewees in the report considered that attacks against aid workers were likely "to escalate in 2009 because of both the expansion of the Taliban areas of influence and the announced surge in US troops. Both were seen as resulting in more fighting, more civilian casualties, and more risks for aid workers."
Kassenberg said the Taliban are gaining ground because people are getting increasingly disgruntled as high unemployment and poverty soars.
"If people have no jobs, have no food to eat, they will fairly easily accept money from the Taliban, for example, to join their side," he said.
"The recent food crisis where prices really jumped up in the local market, of course did not help in this regard."
Hopelessness and disenchantment are everywhere, the report states.
"The tide is turning against the foreign militaries, largely because of poorly targeted bombing raids and heavy-handed searches of civilian houses that violate custom and culture, as well as for their support for power holders with infamous human rights track records."
"We have to wait and see what happens with the U.S troop surge, we havenÂ?t seen anything happening. But in the short-term, we donÂ?t really expect the situation to improve because the general feeling is that the situation will gradually deteriorate," said Kassenberg.
In the meantime, if aid workers are to prove effective, they must try and regain some sense of neutrality, the report says.
"Humanitarians should not take sides," it concludes.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
