| |
Contributions from
the Column
Facts and trends
No agreement on generic exports
Worldwide privatisation of education
Widespread protest against impending war with Iraq
Zimbabwe: "Against Mugabe but for the people"
IMF waters down insolvency law proposal
EU Commission proposes seemingly generous reduction of agricultural subsidies
Malaria
02/2003
|
|
Who does humanitarian aid help?
Zimbabwe: "Against Mugabe but for the people"
Von Monika Hoegen
Klaus Schmitz, chief medical officer of the international arm of the Malteser Hilfsdienst, a Catholic aid organisation founded by the Order of Malta and the German Caritas network, covered hundreds of kilometres on his travels in Zimbabwe. He saw a broken country, he saw mismanagement, corruption, inoperative farms and a government that brutally suppressed criticism and used hunger as a weapon. But he also saw the many sick and undernourished people who are desperately dependent on outside aid. So there is no doubt in Klaus Schmitz's mind: aid for Zimbabwe must not be stopped.
Help in times of dictatorship – does it actually reach the people who need it or does it merely help shore up the regime? Isn't the work of external aid organisations exploited by potentates like Mugabe for political or propaganda purposes? How politically neutral can and should humanitarian aid be? These were questions put to panellists at a discussion jointly arranged by the Malteser Hilfsdienst and the organisation HELP on 10 December in Cologne. And the answers they elicited – from Cap Anamur Committee founder Rupert Neudeck, ex-German ambassador to Zimbabwe Richard Ellerkmann and former ARD Africa correspondent Sabine Bohland – were almost identical: humanitarian aid and politics must be kept separate. Only then can humanitarian aid be provided under difficult conditions for the good of the people.
HELP chief executive Wolfgang Nierwetberg also argued that aid should continue. His watchword: "Against Mugabe but for the people". Calling a halt to aid activities would make the situation even worse, he warned. Only Rupert Neudeck adopted a different position. He held that "any humanitarian organisation should also be a human rights organisation" and doubted that humanitarian aid and commitment to human rights could be separated. In countries like Zimbabwe, he said, aid organisations should definitely cooperate with forces outside the government and work to strengthen democratic structures.
One conclusion to emerge from the debate was that humanitarian aid and active commitment to democracy and human rights often calls for a division of labour: aid agencies operating in a country are basically compelled to be neutral to avoid jeopardising their mission for the people they are trying to help. So any criticism of the situation within the country needs to be voiced at international level by politicians and organisations that are not active in the country.
|
