The Rationale behind Oxfam's Call for a Pause in the Bombing Campaign

Posted: 18 October 2001

In question-and-answer format, Oxfam outlines our motivation behind the recent call for a pause in bombings in Afghanistan.

An incident on Monday October 15th finally made it impossible for aid agencies to do their job in Afghanistan. On Monday, around midday GMT, a missile exploded near a World Food Program (WFP) depot in Kabul, injuring one person. A convoy of 250 tons of food was being loaded at the time, and was to have gone to an Oxfam distribution site in Hazarajat. This delivery would have been the first food into the Oxfam Hazarajat project since September 11. Tuesday October 16th, a missile exploded in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) compound in Kabul.

Does this mean you don't support the war on terrorism?
After the appalling events of September 11th, of course the world has to stop terrorism. But we need to make sure innocent people in Afghanistan don't become casualties of any action against terrorism.

Why has it taken you so long to call for a pause to the bombing?
Agencies have been able to do limited work up until now, working through local staff & with WFP. But now, after 5 weeks, we've run out of WFP food, borders are closed, we can't speak to our staff & time has almost run out. That's why we're calling for a pause now.

What are you calling for?
1. A pause to the bombing and hostilities, immediately and for as long as it takes to replenish stocks for the winter.
2. Guarantees from all parties that military forces will not target or impede aid convoys.
3. The Taliban to stop making extra charges on convoys, to allow aid workers to monitor the aid effort and to allow aid agencies to resume communications.

If you are able to get in food, how many people will this "pause" actually save?
The scale of deaths which would result is difficult to predict, but it would be a scale of human suffering which is both completely unacceptable, and, even today, avoidable. We already know that a million people will have no access to food aid as soon as winter closes access. At least half of these are considered to be acutely needy--they are dependent on any food aid they may have left which will have run out by the end of the year.

Why a pause and not a full stop?
To meet the urgent humanitarian need we must get enough food in before winter. It is a question of vital timing. It is not for us to judge what action is necessary to combat terrorism. But it is up to us to take action when we know that there is a risk of vast suffering among innocent civilians.

How long a pause are you asking for?
Ideally, as long as it takes to get the right amount of food in before winter. Winter sets in in about 4-6 weeks from now. We do not want to put any specific date on how long the pause should last. We are also asking for guarantees from all the parties to the conflict not to impede the humanitarian effort, and this is important as well as the idea of having a pause in the bombing.

Aren't you being naive? You don't really expect hostilities between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance to stop just because Western aid agencies say so?
The Northern Alliance said on Sunday that they would not attack Kabul yet, for different reasons. There is clearly no full-scale offensive. But the current conflict is an obstacle to life-saving aid. That's why it must be suspended.
Even if the conflict is not suspended, we'd hope that all the warring parties would publicly guarantee that they will do nothing to get in the way of the aid program. That would not be enough, but it would help.

Kosovo took 70 days; why do we expect Afghanistan to be resolved sooner?
Nobody expects that. The US and UK have honestly said that they are unlikely to achieve all their aims in Afghanistan until well into 2002. It would therefore seem that little would be lost, and very many lives saved, if they suspended their military action now to allow the aid in before winter.

Won't a pause in hostilities just prolong this war & therefore prolong the suffering? Aren't you sacrificing the long term peace of Afghanistan for a short sighted quick fix?
We're talking about peoples' lives. If we don't get aid in now we won't get enough aid in before next spring, and millions of people will go through unimaginable suffering; tens of thousands will probably die. But it's not just about the people who will die. Many more may survive but they will go through a hellish winter of severe hunger compounded by freezing cold. People are already being forced to eat grass, to boil up wild roots and even to eat animal food. As malnutrition sets in, peoples' hair falls out, sores on their skin become infected, they become vulnerable to disease. Disease rather than starvation per se is what kills more people in the end. For many of the people who survive, their lives will be unimaginably grim.

Won't a suspension simply give the Taliban time to regroup & strengthen?
There may be some risk here, but set against this is the certainty that tens of thousands of civilians could die if the military action is not suspended, if aid does not get through much more quickly. There has been a commitment by the US, the UK and their allies to ensure the humanitarian need is met. We are only asking that they meet this commitment.

Why are humanitarian agencies getting involved in military & political strategy?
We are not. We have consistenly only spoken out on issues relating to the humanitarian crisis and the real needs of ordinary people.

Could humanitarian agencies be accused of supporting the military operation? Why are you helping to fund the terrorists?
We are not, we are providing aid to civilians. Our operations are independent and impartial, based solely on human needs, and we work in areas controlled by different parties. We have our own staff there (120) who have continued working as well as they can throughout (until recently distributing food to over 120,000 people). In addition, Oxfam has 11 long-term development partner organizations in Afghanistan we continue to work with.

Aren't you feeding the fighters?
Our food distributions are based on surveys of areas where people are in dire need. They are targeted to these areas and our distributions are monitored by our own staff. Within those populations the people at most risk of illness or death from lack of food are children, the elderly and women, especially pregnant women. Until recently we have been able to deliver food aid effectively, but now our operations are virtually paralysed. We are calling on all parties in the military action for guarantees so we can resume our humanitarian assistance in an impartial and independent manner. There have been two reported cases so far (as of Oct 18) of Taliban taking over United Nations warehouses. However, the United Nations regained control of these buildings and no food was stolen.

How can Oxfam avoid minefields?
Our staff are all Afghan and know their local areas extremely well. We are also in contact with mine-clearing and mine-education agencies, who have representatives in most large villages where they help people map minefields and teach children to be aware of mines. As part of a reconstruction effort we are calling for the de-mining of Afghanistan and better regulation of the small arms trade to reduce the numbers of small arms in the country and region.

Why not persuade people to migrate to where food is?
There are already millions of displaced people in Afghanistan and they are perhaps the most vulnerable, because they have already migrated to flee drought and war. People want to stay in their homes and near their fields as long as they can because those are their assets and they still have something to fall back on. If people migrate the stress of walking may well damage them further, and then there is the problem that when they arrive they may gather together in places where there is little shelter or clean water. This may well cause more deaths than if they had stayed at home.

How much can you influence the Taliban to see your point of view?
We are calling on all the parties to the conflict, including the Taliban, to ask them to give guarantees to respect and not impede in any way the humanitarian effort. On the ground inside Afghanistan we know that our staff are able to work with local authorities who may be reasonably accommodating and sympathetic to our work.

What do you think of the US air drops and food packages?
The motives behind dropping food parcels may be good. However, we believe air drops by military forces are not an appropriate way to deliver assistance. Humanitarian assistance must be kept independent from military response in order for aid agencies to keep their vital impartiality. If agencies are seen to be part of the military operation, their staff on the ground could be placed in danger. Also air drops are not really relevant to the scale of need. We know that at least 2.5 million people currently need food and maybe 5.5 million will within a few months. An air drop of 36,500 daily rations is only a couple of percent of the people who need food. Furthermore, air drops cannot be effectively targeted. The food may be taken by people who do not need it. There may be drops into minefields. There are also questions about how appropriate the food is. Afghans do not eat peanut butter, for example, and may not do so even if hungry.
But we think the UN should begin to investigate the possibilities of airlifts as a last resort, if trucking cannot be found. The difference between airlifts and airdrops is that an airlift uses a cargo plane rather like a giant truck i.e. it delivers food to an airfield where it can be stored in a warehouse and distributed, whereas an airdrop distributes food in a more or less random way. But airlifting is extremely expensive and we don't know if the planes are available or if the airfields are useable.

Where is my money actually going to go to?
We have staff on the ground to distribute food immediately and we can scale up to feed over half a million people, we believe, which would cost several million dollars. We are working through the U.N. to find alternative methods of getting food into the country. Oxfam has asked for a pause in the bombing which is the cause of disrupting food distribution. If our plea is successful, then we need to gear up and get on with it very quickly which will take money. Similarly in Pakistan, we have been asked to provide water and sanitation for 100,000 people. The borders are now closed but Oxfam is hopeful that security will improve and the borders will open. At that time, we must be able to respond immediately.

The latest activity of Oxfam International Afghanistan program:
1) An Oxfam emergency flight from the UK, carrying 40 ton of emergency equipment and aid items (worth $350,000), has arrived in Islamabad, Pakistan. On this flight were 1,000 buckets, water tanks which will hold 280,000 liters of water and malnutrition kits.
2) Oxfam International is planning to provide clean water for 50,000 people in refugee camps in Pakistan. If more refugees come into Pakistan, this will increase to providing clean water for 250,000 people in 25 camps along the Pakistan border for a six month period (at a cost of approximately $8 million).
3) Our experienced drought team, carrying out the assessment with the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) and the Pakistani government, expects to have to drill a number of tube wells for the sites, to as much as 1000 feet deep.
4) An assessment of current non-governmental organization (NGO) capacity inside Afghanistan is encouraging: in areas like Central and East it reports 80% of staff at work, 100% in the north-east.

Many say it's not the bombing that's preventing the humanitarian effort--that it's much more complicated and not a straight cause and effect.
We are not saying that the bombing is the only factor--there are others. But we have very clear evidence that fear of being caught in an American missile or bomb attack is making truckers, loaders and other local staff too scared to deliver food. There have already been two explosions on or near food aid warehouses--one where an Oxfam convoy was being loaded, one on a Red Cross depot.

Isn't the WFP is getting enough in?
Sadly, the evidence proves that that's not so. A month after September 11 only 5,000 tons of food had been delivered by WFP into Afghanistan. We will be updating our figures today. The figures we have clearly show that in the last month, much too little food has moved into Afghanistan. We hope this will now change but on current rates millions of people will not get enough food before winter sets in.

The Pentagon and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair have said there will be no pause in the bombing. So where does this leave your call?
The question is, where does this leave the people of Afghanistan? Aid agencies have reached the point where it is simply unrealistic for us to do what we need to do in Afghanistan. We've run out of food to deliver, the borders are closed, we can't reach our staff, time has almost run out. That's why we're calling for a pause. If the Pentagon or anyone else can find an alternative way for aid agencies to be able to do their job, then let's do it. But if there is no pause in the bombing, and no alternative is found, we have to make it clear that tens of thousands of people will probably die and there will be unimaginable suffering for millions more.