The Humanitarian Measure in Numbers:

Peacebuilders,

Like promised, here are more details on the measure approved yesterday. The following is a description of the programs related to addressing the Iraqi displacement crisis and the funds approved by the Congress for those programs’ accounts:

Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA):
• The Department of State’s Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account helps the United States meet its domestic and international obligations to protect and assist refugees and host communities. The two major line-items within MRA are overseas refugee assistance and U.S. refugee admissions. MRA funds for overseas assistance are used to support UN agencies, the ICRC, and international NGOs to provide protection and direct assistance to refugees. The Refugee Admissions portion of MRA provides funding to identify, admit, and provide initial reception and placement services for refugees admitted to the United States. Resettlement serves as a durable solution for individual refugees and demonstrates responsibility-sharing to encourage countries of “first asylum” to keep their doors open to refugees in need of protection. For fiscal years 2008 and 2009, Congress approved $680,500,000.

International Disaster Assistance Account (IDA):
• IDA helps address the needs of a wide range of civilians displaced or otherwise affected by conflict or other disasters. Congress should ensure funding for this program to address urgent humanitarian needs inside Iraq. The funding will allow for increased support to non-governmental organizations assisting vulnerable Iraqis and for a robust U.S. response to the needs identified in the U.N. Consolidated Appeal for Iraq. For fiscal years 2008 and 2009, Congress approved $665,000,000.

Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA):
• ERMA is an account that the President may draw on at any time to meet “unexpected urgent refugee needs”. ERMA funds are used to respond to breaks in the food pipeline, unanticipated new emergencies or unforeseen escalations in existing crises. For fiscal year 2008, Congress approved $36,608,000.

Iraq Community Action Program (CAP):
• CAP is a USAID program which is implemented by an alliance of U.S. based NGOs and is funded through the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account. This program works with Iraqi communities to identify their own needs and implement sustainable rehabilitation projects by promoting citizen-government engagement and local economic development. For fiscal year 2008, Congress approved $75,000,000.

Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund:
• The fund provides continued assistance to Iraqi civilians who suffer losses as a result of the military operations. For fiscal year 2008, Congress approved $5,000,000.

ADDITIONALLY, the Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund and the Community Action Program (CAP) were allocated $30,000,000 in unspecified initial funding for fiscal year 2009. Bringing the total funding of both programs to $110,000,000 for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

Bilateral Assistance to help Iraqi refugees in Jordan:
• Through the Economic Support Fund (ESF), Congress approved $150,000,000 for Jordan during fiscal year 2008. This amount is to be used to meet the needs of Iraqi refugees in Jordan.

You called for these accounts to be funded during your advocacy days and through your phone calls. We are pleased to see that your lawmakers listened to you and that our combined efforts have made an impact.

It is indeed an important step, but we still need to keep the vulnerable Iraqis along with their families in mind and we should help them in every way possible. Please take a minute to sign our humanitarian pledge (join the thousand people who have already signed) and in this holiday weekend, we invite your generous giving spirit to support EPIC’s work.

Enjoy your Memorial Day weekend!

Winning Hearts & Minds: Spotlight on Peacebuilders in Iraq

You've been reading a lot from Erik about how the media paints Iraqis as nothing but victims and victimizers, when in fact the situation is more nuanced. Meanwhile, an anonymous comment on my last blog astutely points out that we should focus on winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis rather than putting all our eggs in the basket of military solutions. Even newly-appointed “war czar” Army Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute said, in a May 16th Washington Post article, that "A short-term ‘surge’ would do little good [in Iraq] and any sustained increase in forces has to be matched by equal emphasis on political and economic steps."

Today, I'd like to tell you more about the people and programs that are winning those hearts and minds, taking those steps and, slowly, building peace in Iraq.

Yes, they're out there. You haven't heard their stories in the mainstream media but that doesn't mean their work is not having an impact. It's just that the most successful programs in Iraq are the ones operating on a small enough scale to avoid being targeted by insurgents.

But their small-scale successes are nevertheless impressive. Back in early May, I wrote about our conference on "Overlooked Successes in Iraq: Rebuilding communities, strengthening civil society, and advancing human rights despite the violence." Expanding upon that entry, here's more detail about three of the speakers.

Daniel Rothenberg is executive director of DePaul University's International Human Rights Law Institute (IHRLI), an organization dedicated to defending and promoting human rights through fieldwork, research and documentation, publications, and advocacy. Recently returning from his eighth trip to Iraq, Rothenberg has spearheaded the organization's efforts to advance human rights and rule of law there. IHRLI provides law training in Iraqi schools, encourages legal education reform, works on the Iraqi constitution and is running one of the largest human rights documentation projects in the world.

All this, as well as developing a plan for criminal justice reform, is done in collaboration with Iraqi partners integral to the success of all IHRLI's projects. "There are talented, educated Iraqis all over the country," Rothenberg observed at our conference. "The capacity exists. The people we work with are really excited. We have to keep a low profile for security, but it's not as hard to work in Iraq as one imagines."

Echoing Rothenberg's positive assessment of Iraqis was Bruce Parmelee, Middle East director of CHF International, who stressed the importance of community involvement in reconstruction efforts. CHF's efforts in Iraq are funded by USAID's Community Action Program (CAP) and are based on interacting with community associations to determine their needs and ways to best address them. CAP empowers Iraqi citizens to set their own priorities for rebuilding the infrastructure in their neighborhoods, towns and villages.

Parmelee recently returned from his twentieth trip to Iraq, and reported that "moving money is a challenge, as is getting around. But most of our projects are sustained and appreciated by Iraqis. We've gotten a lot of positive feedback."

Michael D. Miller, president of America's Development Foundation (ADF), helps run the Iraq Civil Society and Independent Media Support Program (ICSP) aimed at strengthening the role of Iraqi civil society to make democracy sustainable. The program coordinates between 18 different local governments and has reached 1900 Iraqi Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) all outside the green zone. And it is staffed by 275 Iraqis and only 12 foreigners.

"Our Iraqi staff members take big risks," Miller pointed out, "but they really want to be involved in change. They are passionate and dedicated despite the danger."

"Infrastructure development CAN take place in this environment," he continued. "Change can happen. The violence is committed by a small percentage of people, and we can't let the violence dissuade us. The Iraqis feel that way and they are willing counterparts. Not all of them are rooted to position; they are there for change. They want to identify corruption and throw it out. We owe all our success to the diligence of Iraqis."

EPIC applauds all three speakers for their dedication to the future and stability of Iraq. The experiences of IHRLI, CHF International and ADF all prove that when we listen to and engage with Iraqis, we can effectively work together to build sustainable peace.

The Senate Supplemental- Fact Sheet and Why EPIC Did Not Oppose It All Together

Threw together this resource for work and thought it might interest a few of you out there.

After going through the entire Senate version of the supplemental S.965 and the committee report here are all funds I could find being appropriated for relief and development in Iraq:

• $100 million for CAP, of which $5 million is for the Marla Fund
• $65 million for Iraq refugees including $5 million specifically for Iraqi scholars
• $65 million for Iraqi IDP’s as part of International Disaster and Famine Assistance
• $55 million to replenish US Emergency Refugees and Migration Assistance Fund (could be used for Iraq)
• Sec. 1711 seems to relax the restrictions for Iraqis seeking refuge in the U.S.
• $5 million for Iraqi civilians who have suffered losses as a result of the military operations
• $384 million for the Community Stabilization Program [CSP]
• $100 million to restart state factories
• $385 million for democracy, governance, human rights, and rule of law programs in Iraq including: $40 million for Human Rights; $10 million for Women’s Programs; $20 million for Support for Medial and $200 million to continue Democracy Programs, Civil Society and Political Party Development
• $70 million for Private Sector Agribusiness development
• $20 million for Financial Markets Development and Strengthening
• $456.4 million for CERPs
• $1 billion for PRT’s according to Senate Appropriations Summary of the bill

Also, a few people have written in asking why EPIC supports the supplemental, as much of the funding is appropriated for the military surge. Some have suggested that only once troops have withdrawn from Iraq, should we appropriate funds for reconstruction and aid. The point is that the people of Iraq cannot wait through the months of political debate on the Hill that would be needed to reverse current Administration policy. We have a humanitarian emergency on our hands. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are fleeing their homes every month while those who can’t leave are suffering from an inadequate public health system, 60% unemployment rate and a security situation that fails to guarantee them even a tomorrow.

Congress will pass a supplemental spending bill in some form or another to support the troops that are already there. This much is clear. The number of votes needed to oppose the bill simply aren't there. Whether they add restrictions, timelines, etc is not our primary concern, though we are certainly against further fighting in Iraq. This Administration has been wrong to seek a military solution to the problems of Iraq. We have repeatedly stated this, and gone even further by suggesting effective solutions to the crisis, namely relief and development. Our main concern is the people of Iraq who are suffering greatly due to this Administration's short-sighted policies and failed initiatives. All we are asking is that Congress appropriates a small percentage of the supplemental funds to help the people of Iraq. I’m looking through the House version now and it includes $25 million for spinach producers (p. 291) and $60 million for salmon fisheries (p. 216) among other expenditures extraneous to Iraq. Surely we can include something for millions of Iraqis.

Just 0.4% More Could Save Millions of Iraqis

Yesterday Emily mentioned that EPIC and 40 other NGOs including Amnesty International, Mercy Corps, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Iraq Foundation and Refugees International had sent a letter to Congress urging members to amend President Bush's $99.6 billion 2007 Supplemental to include more money for development projects and humanitarian crisis response.

The letter was initiated by the Iraq Peace and Development Working Group (IPDWG), a newly-formed NGO working group advocating policy improvements to reduce human suffering and conflict in Iraq.

One would think that a sum as large as $99.6 billion would adequately cover all facets of our involvement in Iraq, but an overwhelming majority of the request ($93.4 billion) is on behalf of the Department of Defense, once again demonstrating this administration's over-reliance on a military solution to the conflict in Iraq.

Bush has requested $5.99 billion of the remainder for the State Department. Of this sum, $2.3 billion is ear-marked for foreign assistance for Iraq. Secretary Rice broke this figure down further in her February 27th testimony to Congress. The aid-related numbers:

• $428 million for democracy programs to support greater engagement with political parties, civil society organizations and national political institutions such as parliament.
• $60 million for humanitarian programs to support the growing number of displaced people within Iraq who have fled areas due to sectarian violence.

Let's start with the last figure: $60 million to aid and resettle displaced Iraqis who have fled from the violence. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) approximately 3.7 million Iraqis, or 1 out of every 8, have been displaced by violence, with tens of thousands more fleeing every single month. While the figure is certainly a great improvement, it falls far short of what is needed to even begin to adequately address the displacement crisis. Several NGOs party to the letter who have operations on the ground in Iraq conducted a needs assessment and determined that at least $290 million would be needed to address the effects of the crisis.

With $290 million the U.S. will be able to:

• assist refugee-hosting countries with strained social services
• fund local NGO's to take care of basic needs of refugees
• fulfill 50% of UNHCR's funding appeal and 20% of the International Committee for the Red Cross' appeal
• resettle 20,000 Iraqis over FY07 and FY08
• assist internally displaced people (IDP's) with housing, food, healthcare, etc

Likewise the $428 million for democracy building is an improvement, but as the letter notes the Community Action Program (CAP) is still not fully-funded, despite it being one of the few successfull programs in Iraq. In the supplemental the administration asked for $50 million for CAP, a 50% decrease from previous years. The NGO letter asks that Congress restore full funding to CAP by granting it an extra $50 million. In addition, the letter also asks for an extra $100 million to support Iraqi civil society, conflict resolution and peace-building strategies, and the advancement of human rights and rule of law. All together, the letter asks for $440 million to address this critical funding gap for relief and development projects.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, approximately $30 billion has been spent to date on foreign aid and diplomatic operations in Iraq. Unfortunatly, as the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has found, much of this money has been wasted due to a lack of proper oversight. For more on this see these previous postings:

The CBO report notes that to date no funding has been provided to promote local economic development nor to assist local governance in 2007. I suppose just the fact that the supplemental includes funding for such projects is somewhat reassuring. However, it is clear to the 40 national organizations that signed the letter that more money, at least $440 million, is needed to ensure they can be effective.

That is an increase to the current supplemental of only 0.4%. Surely the futures and lives of millions of Iraqis are worth an extra 0.4%.

Beyond the Surge

Instead of focusing on Bush's plan to send 20,000 or so more troops to Iraq as pretty much everyone else seems to be doing, I'd like to discuss the economic and regional dimensions of his "new" strategy.

Economic
In his speech President Bush pledged to aid the Iraqi government in creating more jobs with longer term sustainable programs. In fact, the Pentagon has already begun making good on this pledge having refurbished tens of factories all over Iraq to ready them for operation at the hands of Iraqis. Unfortunately, Bush continues to stress the importance of Provincial Reconstruction Teams or PRTs which have been criticized by the U.S. government’s own agencies as being largely ineffective.

Instead of doubling the number of PRTs, as Bush intends to do, more funds and resources ought to be directed towards the Community Action Program (CAP). CAP works to develop Iraq’s economy from the bottom-up, by employing local Iraqis in community-based initiatives devised by the Iraqis themselves. CAP has operations all over Iraq, including in its more volatile regions and, according to the U.S. government’s own auditors, has a 98% success rate.

This is where the money needs to go, but sadly Bush seems content throwing money at the proven failures that have been the Provincial Reconstruction Teams.

Regional
Whether we like it or not, Iran and Syria are an inextricable part of the Iraqi conflict. Beyond the levels of influence they hold over the vast majority of Iraqis, the two countries, Syria and Iran have a real interest in ensuring that the Iraqi civil war does not escalate to the point of an all-out regional conflict. Both countries, Syria more so, have already began suffering from the conflict in their capacity as hosts to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees. Their economies are being hit hard by the sudden influx of Iraqis, and it is unclear whether they will continue to accept refugees. (For more on the refugee crisis, I suggest you read our interview with Refugees International advocate, Sean Garcia). The United States must at least talk to Iran and Syria in order to coordinate a strategy that will address the needs of these refugees. Of course the U.S. has yet to accept responsibility for the crisis, much less recognize it so...

Here is what Bush had to say about Iran and Syria:

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

The U.S. recently acted on this threat by storming an Iranian consular building in Iraq and detaining several employees. Fact of the matter is that regardless of whether the U.S. and Iran have a relationship at the state level, there are many low-level negotiations going between coalition forces and Iranians or at least those sympathetic to the Iranians. Acts such as this one will obviously jeopardize these much-needed negotiations.

The Community Action Program

The reconstruction effort in Iraq have thus far been predominantly unsuccessful in revitalizing the county or stemming the conflict in Iraq. We have all heard the stories of corruption, waste mismanagement, etc. There are however several groups involved in reconstructing Iraq that achieve success on a daily basis, but due to security concerns cannot publicize these successes.

Most of these organizations are part of the Community Action Program (CAP) funded by USAID. These organizations are on the ground in Iraq supporting community organized and implemented programs that make a notable difference in the respective communities. CAP organizations contract all work directly to Iraqi firms, thus offering the thousands of employed Iraqi youth an alternative to militias and criminal syndicates. They provide Iraqis with the opportunity to have a say in their own future by identifying their own needs and developing programs that will address them.

Because the specific work these organizations do cannot be publicized, it is not unusual for them to simply be lumped in with all the other reconstruction organizations such as Halliburton and Parsons. Nothing could be further from the truth. CAP programs are run quite efficiently and have a high rate of success. For example while the Halliburtons of Iraq spend up to 50% of their budget on security, CAP organizations spend only a negligible amount for the simple reason that there do not have to fear attacks from the community. The communities are the ones who devise and implement the development plans and so they are very much in support of the CAP programs. Bruce Parmelee, the Middle East Director of CHF International who has spent the last 4 years working with CAP, explains:

"Before we could do anything, the community would have to agree. I would tell them, 'It's for your community. You're the Iraqis. You can pave the way for this to happen.' And they did that. It was never a case of some American saying, 'This is what you need in your country.' People won't attack projects that they feel ownership of."

Also, according to the US government's own auditors the CAP programs have a success rate of 98%. Thus far the CAP program has helped:

* build/repair 830 schools;
* repair 337 roads;
* complete 325 water resource projects;
* launch 298 health-related initiatives; and
* improve 292 electric utility centers.

Yet despite being among one of the only things going right in Iraq today, CAP organizations must constantly fight with the administration for funding. In January, Bush will again ask for supplemental funds, but it is still unclear what funding CAP will receive if any. I do know that EPIC and many other Iraq-minded NGO's will be fighting to include substantial funding for CAP.