SUBSCRIBE to e-NEWSLETTER     PUBLICATIONS     EVENTS     FOR MEDIA     EXPERTS        

Latest Blog Entries

The Threat Behind the Homegrown Threat
Suraj K. Sazawal
April 16, 2012
U.S. Should Heed UN Call for Mediation Strategy in Armed Conflicts
Kay Guinane
March 5, 2012
The Sahel Does Not Have to be the Next Somalia
Suraj K. Sazawal
February 15, 2012
Flawed Counterterrorism Policy Puts Aid Workers in More Danger
Nathaniel J Turner
February 1, 2012
more

Featured Items

Deadly Combination: Disaster, Conflict and the U.S. Material Support Law

The politicization of disaster response in conflict zones obstructs timely and effective aid delivery and also jeopardizes the safety of aid workers. A new report from the Charity & Security Network, Deadly Combination: Disaster, Conflict and the U.S. Material Support Law, considers two cases: The 2011 famine in Somalia and the summer 2010 floods in Pakistan. In both cases, by giving priority to military objective, the U.S. impaired effective aid delivery by humanitarian organizations, exacerbating the hardship caused by disasters.

The current U.S. government response to disasters occurring alongside terrorist organizations is, at best, a 'wink and nod' gesture that allows for limited access for humanitarian groups (and no legal protections) and, at worst, a blanket ban on any humanitarian operation.

Professor: U.S Law Prevents Aid from Reaching Somalis

When war-torn Somalia was ravaged by famine last year some observers were quick to blame al-Shabaab for blocking humanitarian assistance from reaching civilians in southern Somalia. Ken Menkhaus, professor of political science at Davidson College, says it was not the only reason.

"There are plenty of western countries, including my own government, who would like to see the conversation stop right there and say it was all al-Shabaab’s fault." The other bottleneck, Menkhaus said, was U.S. policy which "de facto criminalizes any transactions in southern Somalia." Humanitarian organizations were forced to suspended food aid delivery to the millions of people trapped in drought- struck areas controlled by al-Shabaab for fear of violating the Patriot Act. 

Recent forecasts indicate that Somalia could soon be facing another food crisis in the country this year. Common sense reforms would allow aid groups to operate without fear of prosecution and help avoid another humanitarian catastrophe, he said.
Governments Not the Only Major Players in Global Assistance

Private philanthropy and remittances to the developing world now dwarf official government aid to many developing countries, according to the 2012 Index of Global Philanthropy and Remittances.  In 2010, the nearly $39 billion in private philanthropy from charities, foundations, corporations, and universities given to developing countries “exceeded U.S. official government aid by almost $9 billion.”

Produced by the Hudson Institute's Center for Global Prosperity, the index says donor governments will need to find ways to better collaborate with public and private groups, in order to maximize the effectiveness of their limited resources. This “reflects the diverse, new world of international development where forprofits, nonprofits, churches, universities, families and individuals can and are contributing to international relief and development in the developing world.”
Legal Uncertainty Shrinks Humanitarian Space

Could a conflict mediator be sentenced to prison for 15 years for having taught people connected to a listed terrorist group how to use peaceful means to resolve their grievances? That is what is feared by humanitarian, peacebuilding and civil rights’ organizations since the Supreme Court upheld a broad interpretation of the ban on “material support” to a foreign terrorist organization in June 2010.

Since then, many non-state actors, including employees of international aid groups and U.S. military personal, are uncertain as to whether their non-violent activities could result in criminal prosecution under U.S. law. In Engaging for Peace: What Are the Legal Limits to Working with Terrorists?, Noah Bialostozky, an attorney at White & Case, says the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s decision demonstrates the need for further legal clarity to “to ensure an appropriate balance between the isolation and engagement in terrorism prevention strategies.”
more