August 27, 2012
“Uh oh, we goofed,” is an admission you are very unlikely to hear from the Harper government, especially when it comes to its behaviour internationally. Recent events in the Harper Government’s approach to Syria are no exception. The conclusion from the now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t support for Canadian Relief for Syria is that Foreign Minister John Baird, International Cooperation Minister Julian Fantino, and the Prime Minister himself, aren’t very interested in effective humanitarian aid, respect for international agreements and conventions, or even good humanitarian practice.
The civil conflict in Syria has resulted in thousands of deaths, thousands of wounded, and hundreds of thousands of displaced persons, some of whom have fled to neighbouring countries as refugees. It is a very complex humanitarian emergency, with politico-religious elements, external players with agendas that have little to do with Syria’s long-term stability, risks to regional peace and security, and major challenges in delivering assistance to ordinary people trying to get on with their lives. As is so often the case, many countries are making loud announcements of humanitarian assistance as a substitute for meaningful political action.
In Canada’s case, as well as commitments to multilateral humanitarian agencies (which face serious funding shortfalls as they attempt to meet soaring need both inside and outside Syria), the Harper government in early August decided to allocate $2 million to an organization called Canadian Relief for Syria (CRS), established by Syrian expatriates with extensive medical credentials, or so we are told. Notwithstanding Stephen Harper’s claim that the government had carried out “due diligence” on CRS, it seems that Baird’s office actually offered this organization support, rather than wait to hear from the humanitarian aid professionals as to the fledgling outfit’s bona fides and ability to deliver according to established norms and standards for assistance. (It is worth noting that while the government was prepared to generously fund a brand-new organization that does not yet have charitable status, it was conducting a witch-hunt against well-established charities whose messages it does not like.)
Then, several days later, the offer was withdrawn, for reasons that don’t make much sense. The government said it didn’t want to pay for warehouses and infrastructure, but CRS said it had never proposed warehouses and infrastructure.
Experience counts for a great deal in the provision of humanitarian aid in complex, conflict-related situations. As do the fundamental principles of humanitarian aid: humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence, enshrined in international humanitarian law. These aren’t just words, they are issues at the heart of delivering effective humanitarian aid that meets the needs of those affected by the conflict, especially women and children, while ensuring that their dignity is respected. These principles facilitate access by humanitarian workers to affected populations, and help ensure the safety of those workers.
So just what was the Harper government trying to do in throwing money – a lot of it – at Canadian Relief for Syria? Humanitarian aid professionals would almost certainly have recommended sticking with trusted, known organisations already present in the region, if not in Syria, organisations like the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Program, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, UNICEF and Doctors Without Borders. Why not encourage CRS to work with experienced agencies and help increase their impact and effectiveness?
If Canada wants to help, and make a difference, this “ready, fire, aim” approach isn’t the way to do it. If the Harper government wants to support opposition to the Assad regime in Syria, it is making a major mistake in attempting to find a humanitarian fig leaf for it.
Canada should use Canadian humanitarian aid budgets to help experienced partners deliver their programs. Support for the opposition to the Syrian regime may well be justified, but not at the expense of humanitarian principles and humanitarian need.