Editor’s note: In partnership with Stratfor, the global intelligence company, WorldNetDaily publishes daily updates on international affairs provided by the respected private research and analysis firm. Look for fresh updates each afternoon, Monday through Friday. In addition, WorldNetDaily invites you to consider STRATFOR membership, entitling you to a wealth of international intelligence reports usually available only to top executives, scholars, academic institutions and press agencies.
Humanitarian relief agencies have about three weeks to deliver aid before harsh winter conditions take hold in Afghanistan.
Anticipating this, agencies are asking the United States to halt its bombing campaign against the Taliban regime to free up Afghanistan’s borders to refugees. Disagreement over who is to blame for the starvation of thousands of Afghans will likely turn U.N. Security Council members against one another in coming months, constraining U.S. military objectives in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
By spring, the United Nations will reverse its stance on U.S. bombing operations, prioritizing humanitarian goals such as protecting civilians over U.S. military objectives in Afghanistan. This will serve as a nucleus for mainstream opposition that could fracture the U.S.-led coalition in the Middle East.
Criticism of U.S. and Pakistani policies has come from all sides of the relief sector. Speaking in Brussels Oct. 16, U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Ruud Lubbers cautioned the United States against waging war against Afghans in its bid to eliminate al-Qaida. He then issued a formal plea Oct. 17 for the United States and Britain to withdraw forces from the area, Deutsche-Presse Agentur reported. Oxfam International, Christian Aid, Action Aid and Islamic Relief called Oct. 18 for a suspension of the bombing campaign.
Some nongovernmental organizations have not limited themselves to blaming the United States and Pakistan for complicating the humanitarian mission – accusing them instead of complicity in the mission’s potential failure.
For example, Morten Rostrup, president of the International Council of Doctors Without Borders, wrote in the International Herald Tribune on Oct. 18 that U.S. military “food drops are a superficial and misleading gesture.” He argued that by taking on humanitarian operations as part of its military campaign, the United States creates the impression among Afghans that non-allied or independent relief agencies have military agendas.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch appealed to Pakistan and other U.N. member states to permit freer movement of refugees along their borders. The groups assert that Pakistan’s move to restrict refugee camps to border regions largely inhabited by Pushtun tribes – which are sympathetic to the Taliban – will generate resentment and could aggravate ethnic tensions.
U.S. officials show no signs of softening the blows against Afghan targets. Concerning requests to suspend the bombing campaign, Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem, deputy director of operations for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, says the Taliban is to blame for the humanitarian crisis, according to media reports.
The United States and relief agencies are playing a shell game of finding fault for the imminent humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan. The United States will lose.
International media are the relief sector’s secret weapon against Washington. As winter deepens, bringing temperatures of minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 20 degrees Celsius) thousands of civilians could starve, and impassable roads will compromise relief efforts – both military and NGO. The United States must halt its military campaign – at least temporarily – before Ramadan in order to head off a disaster, according to the agencies. Unless the U.S. shifts its military strategy in Afghanistan away from civilian concentrations and toward more focused, coordinated, ground and tactical air operations, media characterizations of the U.S. bombing campaign will soon turn extremely negative.
In forums hosted by the International Center for Humanitarian Reporting, executives from BBC and other media have struggled since the mid-1990s to define a constructive role that journalists can play in humanitarian efforts. With a clear opportunity now available, BBC is playing quarterback to relief agency complaints about the U.S. military campaign. This stems from the industry’s search of a role rather than from a partisan agenda.
The relief sector is poised to win the media contest. No matter where blame actually may lie, come January the international media spotlight will shine on the failure of the humanitarian mission in Afghanistan. Christian Aid already has said 600 civilians in Afghanistan have died of starvation. This figure will likely multiply in coming months – building pressure on the United Nations, where some member states are likely to deflect criticism onto Washington.
Some of the criticism stems from the United Nations’ ongoing difficulties in protecting civilians during times of conflict – an increasingly hot topic for the body during the past 18 months. U.N. General Assembly resolutions have criticized the Security Council for relying too heavily on extra-budgetary funding and for lacking the analytical and operational capabilities to prevent conflict. Bulgaria, Norway and Ireland – all slotted as non-permanent Security Council members in 2002 – are highly critical of the United Nations’ failure to protect civilians in wartime.
Momentum could easily build within the Security Council, polarizing member nations. Based on prior statements and U.N. voting records, Norway will likely stir up debate over Afghanistan, with Ireland, Bulgaria and newcomer Syria opposing the United States. France and China remain wildcards.
Fractures are developing within the United Nations. UNHCR, UNICEF, the U.N. World Food Program and Security Council Chairman Richard Ryan have called repeatedly for member states to disburse funds pledged to Afghan relief efforts. Operating budgets for Afghanistan are conditioned on promises of aid, not cash in hand, and member states have been slow to honor their pledges. U.N. relief efforts are regularly underfunded, jeopardizing humanitarian missions, but this circumstance is less likely than U.S. military action to draw media fire.
Facing another failure in shielding civilians from conflict, the United Nations likely will attempt to intercede in the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan. Veiled criticism of Washington will surface in moves by the General Assembly and the Security Council to ensure the U.N.’s humanitarian objectives take precedence over U.S. military goals.
Although the United Nations as an organization may be unable to sway U.S. policy in Afghanistan, it will serve as the nucleus of mainstream opposition for states in the Middle East that are uncomfortable with U.S. actions but which find it difficult to openly oppose Washington.
Countries like Iran and Egypt – already calling for a major U.N. role in dealing with international terrorism – will find new strength in the U.N.’s shifting position. They could quickly be joined by critically important coalition members such as Saudi Arabia or other Gulf states, rendering continued U.S. military action politically and operationally difficult – if not impossible – military goals.
