Gates: Under US Redeployment, Ethnic Cleansing Likely

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates underscored a dire consequence of the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq:

"One real possibility is, if we abandon some of these areas and withdraw into the countryside or whatever to do these targeted missions, you could have a fairly significant ethnic cleansing inside Baghdad or in Iraq more broadly."

U.S. actions in Iraq have served as the catalyst for the collision of many underlying, dangerous elements of Iraqi society. One of these elements is corruption; coming of age under Saddam's regime, many in the current generation of Iraqi politicians use their political clout to advance their own group's agendas rather than the well-being of all Iraqis. Another element is sectarianism, with the major political parties defining themselves along sectarian lines. As a wartime sense of criminal immunity propels sectarian violence, and political parties back militias that "cleanse" neighborhoods until they are entirely Shia or entirely Sunni, the chances for large-scale ethnic cleansing in parts of Iraq are high.

But what is stopping it? Ironically, it seems to be the presence of U.S. troops. In a January hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Cornyn and the Secretary Gates pointed to the role that U.S. forces are playing in maintaining a fragile level of peace--and, as a result, warding off large-scale ethnic cleansing:

SEN. CORNYN: "What would be the humanitarian consequences [if US forces in Iraq are redeployed]? What would be the likely outcomes in terms of loss of life to innocent men, women and children in that region if some of these dire consequences do occur?"

SEC. GATES: "I think one of the consequences -- we're already seeing some internal immigration and to a limited extent ethnic cleansing. And I would suspect that one consequence would be a fairly dramatic increase both in internal immigration, the number of displaced persons, but also ethnic cleansing. Sir, clearly in my mind there would be additional increased murders, sectarian violence. I don't know how much, but certainly a large increase in that..."

SEN. CORNYN: Well, if I could just say in closing that many people in this country are justly concerned about the genocide in Darfur, where hundreds of thousands of people have died. And I've -- with others who've traveled to Iraq -- I remember traveling with the chairman to Iraq in 2003 and standing on the edge of a mass-grave site where the United Nations said in that and similar sites 400,000, perhaps, Iraqis lay dead at the hand of Saddam Hussein, and perhaps a million more people had simply exited the country during his regime in order to avoid a similar fate. So I hope that we will focus a little bit more on the consequences of failure in Iraq. And that will fuel us and encourage us to at least try to heed the advice of the president's most expert military advisers, present company included, to try to avoid that failure, because I agree that the consequences of failure are simply unacceptable."

In all of the political posturing and agenda-advancing taking place in Washington over the president's request for a $100 billion funding bill, our leaders must not lose sight of the need to protect Iraqi civilians. With 3.9 million displaced Iraqis clinging to a hope that normalcy can be restored to their fractured lives, childhoods being destroyed as children are used as decoys in car bombings, and dozens and dozens of sectarian-motivated murders taking place every day, the U.S. must do everything it can to protect civilians and care for those who have been affected by this war.

And They Suffer in the South Too...

Last week I discussed the difficulties internally displaced people (IDP's) were having in the Kurdish north of Iraq; entry restrictions are strict, cost of living is prohibitively high and little to no aid is allocated for those who have fled their homes with little more than the clothes on their back.

Unfortunatly, the Refugees International report I referenced is one of the only places in which the IDP situation is discussed at length. Most U.S., U.N. and even Iraqi institutions fail to even acknowledge that there is an IDP crisis.

The RI report, however, seems to have created a little bit of momentum. Yesterday IraqSlogger published a piece detailing the plight of IDP's in the south of Iraq. According to local officials in the southern provinces, there are nearly a million displaced people in urgent need of food, medicines and municipal services. And unlike the Kurdish north, which is protected by its own security forces, much of the south is plagued by violence. Thus even though aid may be available, often times it cannot be delivered due to security concerns. The south is also considerably poorer than the north and so can offer few jobs to the massive influx of IDP's.

Fareed Abbas, a spokesman for Najaf-based NGO the Muslim Organisation for Peace (MOP), said the central government was unwilling to provide sufficient funds to develop sanitation, education and electricity projects in the southern provinces:

“We have appealed dozens of times to the central government to help in such critical circumstances but we haven’t got any response yet. Instead, over the past few months, their assistance has decreased considerably, leaving people without support and infrastructure."

Dr. Aziz Ali Baroud, a physician at Najaf Main Hospital, explains that the health care system cannot cope with the dramatic increase in people:

“At least one person dies in our hospital every day due to lack of assistance or medicines. If you add all the people dying for the same reason in all the hospitals in the southern provinces, the number becomes very serious."

-----------
Only recently did the U.S. and international community acknowledge the refugees crisis. It took intense lobbying, multiple public awareness campaigns, tens of op-eds and several Congressional hearings, but eventually the scope and implications of the crisis were appreciated by one and all: The State Department created a displacement task force, the U.S. upped its quota for accepting Iraqi refugees, the Senate included $65 million in their version of the supplemental to deal with the crisis and the international community collectively provided millions more.

With tens of thousands of Iraqis being displaced within Iraq every month, I can only hope that it will not take as long to begin effectively addressing the crisis now that people are becoming aware of its scope. It is a good sign, however, that the Senate version of the supplemental provides $65 million for just Iraqi IDP's alone. We can only hope that whatever ultimately happens to the Senate version -veto or no veto- this provision makes it through to the final spending bill.

"Iraqi Volunteers, Iraqi Refugees: What is America's Obligation?"

I went to a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia hearing yesterday concerning the plight of the millions of displaced Iraqis, both within and outside Iraq. The panelists testimonies covered a number of topics: personal stories of Iraqi civilians who have aided the U.S. and therefore are facing extreme danger; the millions of Iraqis living outside of the country and the humanitarian crisis in which they find themselves; the challenges lawmakers must confront in backing legislation that funds acceleration of the resettlement process; as well as the need for the U.S. to finally come to terms with the humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq and accept the moral responsibility of addressing it.

The first panel consisted of Ellen Sauerbrey, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. The second panel was made up of Major General Paul D. Eaton; George Packer, staff writer at The New Yorker; Kristele Younes, refugee advocate at Refugees International; and a former employee of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad who, for security purposes, had to go by the alias "Sarah."

The common theme of the hearing was that it has taken the Administration and lawmakers far too long to acknowledge and address the suffering of displaced Iraqis, especially those who have risked their lives by working with American and Coalition forces. Assistant Secretary Sauerbrey attempted to explain why admitting Iraqi refugees into the U.S. is such a lengthy process and why the Administration has not taken legislative or monetary steps to provide relief and safety for the 3.9 million displaced Iraqis. She explained that the Presidential determination for resettlement this year is 70,000 inclusive, and that 10% of that--or 7,000 spots--is designated for Iraqis. Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, suggested that 7,000 is UNHCR's capacity for processing refugees, not ours. He went on to state that there is a nonpartisan consensus that the problem should be addressed and that questions should be asked.

Chairman Gary L. Ackerman of New York agreed, stating that if lawmakers and the Administration were serious about processing Iraqi refugees it could be done. Sauerbrey argued that since 9/11, and the Immigration of Nationality Act, the process has gotten much longer for Homeland Security to conduct security clearances. Four to six months is the average length of time for someone to go through the process of asylum.

Many obstacles are facing Iraqis as they seek refuge. For example, there is no way of processing IDPs for resettlement; they must first leave Iraq under extremely dangerous conditions and then apply through UNHCR in a neighboring country. If someone has paid a ransom for a kidnapped family member, or paid off the insurgency for their own lives, the U.S. considers this "providing material support to terrorists"and the individuals will not be granted visas under the provisions of the PATRIOT and Real ID Acts. Iraqis who worked or are still working with the U.S. are not allowed housing in the Green Zone, and no protection is given to them. Only 500 Special Immigrant Visas are given a year, and only to direct hires of the government; this is not including the countless Iraqis who worked for contractors and subcontractors.

Major General Eaton explained that 70,000 Chinese and 80,000 Indian immigrants were accepted into the United States in 2006. He urged lawmakers to immediately identify Iraqis who have helped the U.S. and grant them asylum, regardless of quotas. George Packer argued that, "We cannot allow more Iraqis to die while we fine-tune refugee settlement." His first recommendation was to make in-country processing available, or at the very least, to ensure safe transfer to neighboring countries. Kristele Younes warned lawmakers that the problem stretches farther than Iraqis who have aided U.S. efforts; the millions living in Syria and Jordan, and those displaced within the country should not be forgotten. She urged an increase in funding for local Iraqi and International NGOs, as well as fully endorsing UNHCR recommendations.

"Sarah" relayed her personal story of working with the U.S. and being hopeful that she would be a part of the liberation and democratization of Iraq. She now lives in Jordan, unable to return to her home in Iraq. She did not receive protection while working for the CPA, and was eventually fired when her job was given to a Jordanian citizen. Today, "Sarah" lives in fear, with nowhere to go; she is considered by many of her countrymen to be a traitor and a spy. She said that she does not regret having worked with the Americans in Iraq, only that she trusted the U.S. government, but they never trusted Iraqis.

Real initiatives must be taken to address the plight of the 3.9 million displaced Iraqis. General Eaton asked that our government act with the dignity and respect that the Iraqi people deserve. Chairman Ackerman explained that:

If the world's only superpower cannot protect Iraqis from the danger we put them in, then we are facing a bigger problem than I thought.

He stated that there must be funding and legislation put forth to back the rhetoric of concern coming from the Administration.

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.

Developments

• The IMF has extended its $700+ million for another 6 months Mr. Takatoshi Kato, Deputy Managing Director and Acting Chair, stated:

"Iraq is entering a crucial period in its economic recovery. Despite very difficult political and security circumstances, the Iraqi authorities have taken important measures to keep their economic program on track...Corruption and violence need to be brought under control to unlock Iraq's oil wealth. More forceful actions are needed, especially in the area of smuggling."

• Radar Online has an interview with a former linguist who worked in Iraq. "The [linguists] are looked down on in the army as prima donnas who need a slap-down. They don't see it as a tool. Patriot missiles are seen as a tool"

• and the NY Times has a story on how difficult it is for Iraqis to find refuge in the U.S.:

"For days, he trekked from Iraq to Turkey and from Turkey to Greece. He slipped through remote rural villages and crossed a river’s rushing waters to escape the violence that had left his cousin dead and his father in hiding.

Finally, after paying smugglers to get him on flights to Spain, Brazil, Guatemala and Mexico, he joined the crush of Spanish-speaking migrants on a bus ride to America’s doorstep."

Jobs...Jobs...Jobs

Last week, in his first press conference since the "surge" began, Gen. Petraeus warned that (1) it’s still too early to tell whether the military surge is working, and (2) regardless how successful the U.S. military may be, the military’s role will always be limited in what it can achieve – i.e. there has to be more progress in the Iraqi economic and political arenas and at best, current U.S. military forces can only buy Iraq more time, they are not the solution.

EPIC has heard from returning soldiers over and over again that the ongoing failure to create jobs is a major contributing factor to violence, including attacks against U.S. forces. According to a recent classified study conducted by the U.S. Defense Department’s Joint Warfare Analysis Center, improving the quality of life of Iraqi citizens reduces the level of violence in Baghdad. Citing military sources, the New York Times reports: “…the study found that a 2% increase in job satisfaction among Iraqis in Baghdad correlated to a 30% decline in attacks on allied forces and a 17% decrease in civilian deaths from sectarian violence.”

Although an economic surge may require a modest increase in U.S. spending this year and the next, it will save the U.S. billions of dollars over the longer term by effectively reducing conflict which will in turn reduce Iraq’s dependence on U.S. combat forces. For an estimated $100 million, we can support the reactivation of most of Iraq’s 193 state-owned factories and put more than 150,000 Iraqis back to work. Imagine what that can do for the quality of life in communities that largely depend on those factories for their livelihood, and how that in turn can reduce conflict and save American lives. Tackling soaring unemployment and stimulating local economies can do far more to stem violence than military operations and at a fraction of the cost.

This past weekend, President Bush sent a letter redirecting $3.2 billion in funds in support of U.S. troops in Iraq. While a considerable portion of these funds are for the military, Bush did include $100 million for restarting state-owned factories that will employ Iraqis. This is a huge step. Once a factory is back up and running, creating jobs and benefiting the community, the need for continued U.S. military involvement and protection diminishes. Why? Because it shifts the community against anyone who might bomb the factory or otherwise take away the jobs and income that their community needs. In short, the community becomes less likely to cooperate with illegal armed groups and more likely to cooperate with local authorities working to secure the area. And community members who directly benefit from the factory’s reopening are more likely to even take things a step further by voluntarily participating in the protection of the factory and community.

$20 Billion More? Ok, but Still Ignores Needs of Iraqis

The Wall Street Journal reports on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's proposed new spending bill.

Here is the breakdown:

• $4.0 billion defense spending, including $1 billion for military operations in Afghanistan
• $3.1 billion relocation of U.S. troops from overseas bases being closed in Europe and Asia
• $2.5 billion homeland security
• $1.7 billion veteran's healthcare
• $8.7 billion domestic spending including farm disaster aid, and Gulf Coast recovery

In all, she hopes to add $20 billion to the administration's $99.6 billion 2007 supplemental request. The bill also sets a timeline for withdrawal. From the press release:

To pressure Iraqi leaders to make the compromises necessary to end the chaos that has resulted from their lack of performance to date, the proposal establishes a timeline for ending U.S. participation in Iraq’s civil war.

• By July 1st, 2007 the President must certify that Iraq is making meaningful and substantial progress in meeting political and military benchmarks including a militia disarmament program and a plan that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqi factions. If he does not certify - troops must begin immediate redeployment and U.S. troop involvement in the Iraq civil war must be completed by December 2007 (180 days).

• By October 1st, the President must certify that Iraqis have achieved key benchmarks. If he does not make the second certification, troops must begin immediate redeployment to be completed by March of 2008 (180 days).

• Even if he makes both certifications, the Administration must start redeploying the U.S. Military from Iraq by March 1, 2008, and complete the redeployment by August of 2008 (180 days).

The bill also prevents the President from initiating offensive military operations against Iran without the approval of the Congress.

I certainly can't fault Pelosi for what she has included in this bill: it is apparent to all that more attention needs to be paid to Afghanistan, U.S. veterans must be taken care of properly, and current U.S. soldiers should certainly receive all the proper equipment they need.

As the press release states, "This bill meets every possible obligation for our troops..." But what about the Iraqis? The misguided policies of the U.S. have been instrumental in creating the current crises in Iraq including a 60% unemployment rate, and a displaced population of 3.7 million. Pelosi suggests an addition of $20 billion to an already bloated war budget and could not think to include at least $428 million for economic and humanitarian assistance?

Hopefully Congress will heed the call of those 40 organizations and include these funds in the 2007 Supplemental. And while I am sure everyone would like the U.S. to withdraw its troops from Iraq, we should not set timelines that ignore political and economic progress in Iraq. Instead our withdrawal ought to be contingent on these two factors. In other words when we withdraw our troops from Iraq, it must be done responsibly.

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%.

Iraqi Displacement Crisis Update

Erik Gustafson, the executive director here at EPIC, sat down last Friday to talk to Columbia University Radio's Lisa Desai about the dramatic policy shift that will allow 7,000 Iraqi refugees to come to the U.S. (listen to the broadcast). Prior to last week's announcement of the change, many U.S. officials were refusing to acknowledge that displacement was actually happening in Iraq. Now, by extending an invitation to 7,000 displaced Iraqis and pledging $18 million to assist millions fleeing the violence, the U.S. is certainly taking a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, as Iraq’s displacement crisis continues to grow at an alarming rate, much more will be needed. Given the role that the U.S. has played in helping to create the crisis, it is essential that the U.S. increase funding for the international relief operations of the UN Refugee Agency and other multilateral groups, covering at least 50% of their needed funds.

The good news is that the U.S. has the ability to fill the funding gaps facing these aid organizations. The US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) is calling on our leaders to provide $250 million for refugee assistance and resettlement. To put that figure into perspective, take a look at these projected U.S. spending figures for the current fiscal year:

Bullets: $851 million
Agricultural Subsidies: $16.623 billion

That means that the $250 million that USCRI is calling for is only 2.9% of what the U.S. will spend on bullets this year. And it is only 1.5% what the U.S. will spend on agricultural subsidies. It is clear that the Bush administration and Congress have the ability to mitigate the suffering of the displaced—the question is, how long will it take until they do more about it?

Childhood as a War Casualty

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has recently featured some highly disturbing stories detailing the impact of the war on Iraqi children. The photo on the left is from one of these articles, which discusses Doctors Without Borders operations in Jordan through the story of Shams, an infant who at six month of age was blinded by a car bomb blast near her family's home in Baghdad. Her mother died in the explosion.

Fast forward a year, and Shams and her father are now in a Jordanian hospital awaiting treatment from a plastic surgeon from Doctors Without Borders. While the surgery aims to lessen Shams' physical disfigurement caused by the car bomb, there is no possibility of restoring her vision. Her optic nerves have been destroyed to the point where she can no longer even perceive lightness or darkness.

This article, from last November, describes conditions in Iraq--lack of sanitation, good quality food, medicines, doctors, clean water, and not to mention the violence--that have put the country's children in a very precarious state. Unfortunately, since November, things have not improved and increasing levels of violence and dwindling funding are forcing the few remaining NGOs that administer aid to Iraqi children to leave the country. Under extreme physical, psychological and developmental stress, Iraqi children turn to drug use and prostitution, according to another article on the UN site:

"Sami Rubaie, 12, lives on the streets of Baghdad. He said he ran away from home because he could not stand the beatings he got from his father for not bringing home enough money from begging all day. He soon turned to glue sniffing. To support his habit, he recently joined a gang and now men have sex with him in exchange for glue and money.

“'I cry every time a man has sex with me and they usually hit me because I am crying. After I do it, my boss gives me a good quantity of glue and around US $3 dollars for food. I know what I’m doing is wrong but it’s better than living with daily beatings from my father for not bringing him enough money,' Sami said."

The Guardian has an article in which some experts speculate on the long-term psychological impact that the violence will have on Iraq's children:

"Lynne Jones, a child psychiatrist with the International Medical Corps who studied children under war in Bosnia, said: 'Children are often incredibly resilient. In a number of studies, trauma in children in war zones has tailed off quite rapidly once the violence dies down.' Their continued wellbeing depends on the kind of environment in which they live after that, and the values of their families or parents, she said.

... Dr Hassan told the Guardian of his fears for Iraq's current young generation. 'Do not make the mistake of blaming the occupation and the recent war for all of this,' he said. "For more than three decades, young Iraqis have been forced to learn how to kill. We must now learn instead about dialogue and compromise. Otherwise, we will continue to produce psychopathic personalities for whom violence is simply a means of negotiating daily life.'"

Such reports starkly emphasize the need to increase humanitarian aid in Iraq. In doing so, we can start to alleviate the suffering of child victims by increasing the resources and services available to them. With an increase in funding for organizations like the UNHCR and the IOM, US legislators will not end all the horrors in Iraq, but they can do something to help the most innocent victims of this war.

Iraq's Deputy Health Minister Arrested

Some of you may have heard that Deputy Health Minister Hakem Abbas al-Zamili was arrested yesterday morning as part of a raid. That he was a criminal is no real surprise. As a senior member of al-Sadr's political party and by extension militia, al-Zamili was known for having flooded the Health Ministry’s payroll with militants, embezzled American money meant to pay for Iraq’s overworked medical system and used Health Ministry facilities and services for sectarian kidnapping and murder.

The surprise is that Prime Minister Maliki who relies on al-Sadr and his party for support, has yet to intervene on behalf of the Deputy Health Minister. You may remember last November when Maliki sided with al-Sadr and demanded that the US remove a blockade of Sadr City. It seems, at this moment anyway, that perhaps Maliki was earnest when he declared a crackdown on militia violence. Then again The Guardian is reporting that Maliki was with the Health Minister when he heard the news of the arrest. According to the Health Minister, Maliki condemned the raid as illegal and a violation of Iraq's sovereignty. Whether Maliki was putting on a show for the Health Minister's benefit is anybody's guess, but the fact that the DPM of Health remains in custody today is promising.

I should also take this opportunity to stress that the Health Ministry is one of several corrupt ministries responsible for wasting billions of US dollars. A seemingly simple solution to this would be to channel funds through the provincial directorates instead of these national ministries. Read more about this idea here.

IOM Report on Iraqi IDPs

I just got back from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) where I sat in on a presentation by the International Organization for Migration's Iraq Displacement Specialist, Dana Graber, on the IOM's just-released Iraq Displacement 2006 Year in Review. While I encourage all of you to read the report in full, here is a brief outline of what it includes.

The IOM has been working in Iraq since 2003, monitoring internally displaced persons (IDPs) and contributing to emergency aid programs like Mercy Hands, directed by Kaldhoon Ali, who was kind enough to sit down recently for an EPIC Ground Truth Project interview. As you know, the the level of sectarian violence in Iraq has grown rapidly since the February 2006 bombing of al-Askari shrine, and in turn, this rise in violence has caused a sharp spike in number of IDPs. While the Iraqis with greater wealth and resources manage to flee the country to safer places like Jordan or Syria, thereby achieving refugee status and protections under international law, IDPs lack the ability to do the same and consequently are much more vulnerable. Currently, there are 370,000 IDPs in Iraq. This number has been growing at an alarming rate, with a January average of 1,000 new IDPs every 24 hours.

According to Ms. Graber, the most violent areas, which are in the center of the country, are the source for over 70% of Iraq's total IDPs for 2006. They are abandoning their homes not just because of direct threats on their lives--which take the form of everything from texts messages on mobile phones to threatening graffiti--but also because of general crime and military operations. The report contains detailed data sets that deal with the most prominent IDP issues: resettlement intentions, shelter options, property issues, food and fuel availability, health care accessibility, and the impact of displacement on women and children.

Ms. Graber concluded her sobering presentation with some information about the future of IOM funding. IOM and other organizations simply lack the funding to cope with the increasing scale of this crisis, she said. Through its humanitarian programs, IOM has assisted 30,000 families in Iraq since 2003, with 22,000 of those families receiving assistance since the February 2006 bombing of al-Askari shrine. Yet in the fifth year of this war, donor fatigue has taken a toll on funding levels. In 2006, IOM only received 25% of their requested funding. Ms. Graber shared that two organizations that work closely with IOM in providing humanitarian assistance have decided to shut down their operations in Iraq because of a lack of funds and the increasingly precarious security situation.

The State Department's PRM and USAID-OFDA, which provided the funding for the IOM report (as did IOM member states the Netherlands and Australia) have been very interested in the report's findings. Ms. Graber says that this information will be used by these and other organizations to lobby for continued, and hopefully increased, funding from Congress.

Interview with President of Iraqi NGO

Just a heads up, EPIC just published an interview with Khaldoon Ali, the president of Mercy Hands, an Iraqi NGO that works to assist the ever-increasing number of internally displaced people (IDP's) in Iraq. A good read. Beyond covering the IDP crisis and the works Mr. Ali's organization does to mitigate it, the interview also offers some insight into the challenges Iraqi NGO's themselves face- from lack of funding to meddling national ministries. I found particularly interesting the fact that Khaldoon Ali refuses to accept funding from the US.

Here is that part of the interview:

epic: Have you received funding directly from the United States?

Khaldoon: We haven’t. As a demonstration of our neutrality, we are not willing to accept funding from parties involved in the conflict. It is also a matter of principle. In my experience, the U.S. has not been completely honest about its spending in Iraq.

I will give you a personal example. Not long ago, I was approached by an acquaintance who works with the U.S. to appropriate funds to Iraqi NGOs, and he offered to give me money. He said that his job is to give money to Iraqi NGOs and report back to Washington that it was spent to support democracy in Iraq’s “hot areas,” like Baghdad and Anbar province. He asserted to me that some NGOs were taking millions of U.S. dollars and simply sending fake “progress” reports back to the U.S.! When he reported these incidents of fraud, his supervisor said that as long as the money was being spent, he didn’t care. I was outraged.

Rather than receive direct assistance from the U.S., Mercy Hands only takes funds from multilateral agencies, like the UN, and some international NGOs. Though funding is sometimes scarce and difficult to come by, it is a more honest means, and it is a way to ensure that my organization does not fall into a trap that could hurt us more than help us in the end.

Can Iraq Deliver? (funding)

To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs." - From President Bush's Jan. 10 address to the nation

How on earth can Bush pledge that the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on anything? In 2006, the Iraqi government had a budget of $6 billion, but in the end was only able to spend 20% of that. In early December I referenced this article by the NYT which explained:

"The country is facing this national failure to spend even as American financial
support dwindles. Among reasons for the problems...is a strange new one: bureaucrats are so fearful and confused by anticorruption measures put in place by the American and Iraqi governments that they are afraid to sign off on contracts.

...the stringent measures they had favored to slow the rampant corruption may be
especially daunting for bureaucrats who have little experience with Western-style
regulations and oversight. Those officials say that Iraqis who have seen their
colleagues arrested and jailed in anticorruption sweeps are reluctant to put their own name on a contract."

Other factors include a high government turnover, security problems, actual corruption and a lack of Iraqis skilled at writing contracts and managing complex projects. I am sure that the Iraqi government is committed to delivering a better life for Iraqis, I'm just not sure that given the aforementioned issues, Bush can rely on these Iraqi billions.

Bush also declared:

"We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform."

But will the countries that make up this compact be willing to provide Iraq with significant funds without being sure if Iraq can even utilize them?

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.