View previous stories
	World Humanitarian Day by World Health Organization   Aug 2010   Thousands of humanitarian workers, either with local organizations or international bodies like WHO, strive during crises, to ensure survivors have access to the most basic human rights, including health, shelter and food.   Veronica Riemer: You’re listening to the WHO podcast and my name is Veronica Riemer. In this August 19th edition, we celebrate the annual World Humanitarian Day and ask WHO staff working on emergency response, "what does it mean to be a humanitarian worker?"   With Pakistan''s flood crisis playing out before our eyes, and the shocking memories of Haiti''s devastating earthquake fresh in our minds, the importance of humanitarian work is abundantly clear.   Thousands of humanitarian workers, either with local organizations or international bodies like WHO, strive during crises, to ensure survivors have access to the most basic human rights, including health, shelter and food.   In recognition of their commitment, the theme for this year''s World Humanitarian Day is "I am a humanitarian worker". The date marks the bomb attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad in 2003, which killed 22 staff members including Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN Special Representative to Iraq.   One of WHO''s many humanitarian workers is Dana van Alphen, who arrived in Haiti hours after the January 2010 earthquake that killed and wounded hundreds of thousands of people. She is based in Panama with the emergency action unit for the Caribbean of the Pan-American Health Organization. We asked her what it takes to be a humanitarian worker in the middle of major disaster.   Dana van Alphen: You have to be able to forget about yourself and that is not so easy in a Western society. You have to be able to be flexible enough and remind yourself why you are here, because you are here for those people.   Veronica Riemer: Roderico Ofrin is the humanitarian action focal point in WHO''s South-East Asian Regional Office and a veteran of multiple emergencies, including the 2001 conflict in East Timor and the 2004 Asian tsunami. We asked what World Humanitarian Day means to him.   Roderico Ofrin: World Humanitarian Day it''s about those nameless health workers who have served their population, their health facility in those difficult times.   I was in Timor in 2001. Many nurses then who still had to struggle with rebuilding their houses or grieving for relatives they lost or who were on the other side in West Timor. We know of a nurse in Aceh (after the 2004 Tsunami) in one of the health facilities who cried during her break because she lost a lot of relatives, but she was still doing her work in between. For her it was therapy.   Veronica Riemer: The role of humanitarian workers is not only vital after a natural disaster, but also during times of political tension and conflict. In July 2010, in Kyrgyzstan, violence displaced tens of thousands of people virtually overnight, sparking a humanitarian crisis that had serious health implications. WHO''s representative to Kyrgyzstan, Okon Moldokulov tells us about some of the challenges faced.   Oskon Moldokulov: One of the major impacts is of course is food security because when people displaced from their homes they are affected from lack of food. They are losing their access to health facilities because when they are moving from one place to another one access to health is going at a low level. In terms of health, they are also facing problems with hygiene, sanitation, lack of drinking water supply.   Veronica Riemer: WHO country representative, Custodia Mandlhate, led the response of the organization and the health sector to Zimbabwe''s unprecedented cholera outbreak of 2008 and 2009. This occurred during a time of political tension in the country, but Custodia says humanitarian action must be regarded with neutrality at all times.   Custodia Mandlhat: For me, being a humanitarian is to embrace the humanitarian principles. The well-know humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality and independence. And it is also saying that we should care and that we are the health custodians in our United Nations family.   So we talk about saving lives. You don''t talk about political orientation, sex, religion and colour, and you care. And you are concentrating yourself on saving lives.   Veronica Riemer: The scale of some disasters is so large, and the obstacles to provide support so immense, that some may question the effectiveness of humanitarian relief. But Michelle Gayer, from WHO''s Disease Control in Humanitarian Emergencies department, says how effective and appreciated humanitarian care can be.   Michelle Gayer: We can make a huge difference to the daily lives of people and it is about making sure you provide something that is value added, something that supports people''s daily lives and alleviates their suffering. I think everyone can contribute to some extent, whether it is just donating money to actually getting out there and providing care in which ever way you can. It definitely can make a difference and I have seen it make a difference in very difficult conditions as well. Visit the related web page
	Afghanistan: an uncertain future for humanitarian work by Reto Stocker International Committee of the Red Cross   18-08-2010   On the occasion of World Humanitarian Day and in reaction to recent attacks on humanitarian workers, Reto Stocker, the ICRC''s head of delegation in Afghanistan, discusses how humanitarian work in the country has evolved and what shape it may take in the future.   Mr Stocker, World Humanitarian Day will be celebrated on 19 August. What is the main challenge for the ICRC in its humanitarian work?   Being close to those in need is the most important and the most challenging aspect of our work in Afghanistan. We can only deliver our services by physically being where it matters most.   Parties to an armed conflict – whether regular armies or armed groups – have an obligation under international humanitarian law, the body of rules that protects those not or no longer fighting, to grant humanitarian organizations access so that they can bring aid to those who need it. In Afghanistan, most places were easily accessible until the military intervention in 2001. Early in 2003, the country became significantly more dangerous for humanitarian personnel, a development that culminated in the murder of an ICRC delegate. That marked the end of humanitarian access as we knew it, and the beginning of a full-fledged insurgency.   By initiating or resuming substantive dialogue with all warring parties, not taking sides and not discriminating among those we set out to serve, we at the ICRC have managed to assist war-affected people in many places – often in partnership with the Afghan Red Crescent Society, which is active in most parts of the country – and to expand our presence in the north and south. The ICRC''s humanitarian operation in Afghanistan is currently its largest in the world in terms of resources committed.   The ICRC often refers to itself as a neutral intermediary in armed conflict. Can the ICRC also help other organizations to deliver important services to people in this dangerous environment?   Yes, we do sometimes help other humanitarian organizations that have a crucial service to offer but find it hard to deliver it because of the complex and unsafe environment. For example, for some time now we have been helping out with a crucial vaccination campaign by getting parties to the conflict to agree that it is needed and to allow it to go ahead.   International humanitarian law recognizes the need for a neutral and independent intermediary that all parties to conflict can turn to. In precisely that role, we assist in hostage releases, evacuate battlefield casualties, and put families in touch with relatives detained by the opposite side, to mention just a few of our activities.   Has it become easier or more difficult for humanitarian organizations to reach people in need of aid? In other words, how much of a challenge has it become to obtain access?   The degree to which we have been able to reach people in Afghanistan in order to deliver crucial humanitarian services to them has evolved considerably over the years since 2002. Immediately after the 2001 military intervention, many humanitarian organizations were encouraged to integrate humanitarian activities into the overall military and political strategy of stabilization and reconstruction, an approach that we at the ICRC did not follow. That led to some aid agencies being perceived as not having solely humanitarian objectives. As a result, their access to certain parts of the country was hampered.   Recently, however, many humanitarian organizations have sought to distance themselves from the political and military realm, in order to work along purely humanitarian lines while adopting a neutral and impartial approach. This is a recognition on their part that the only way for humanitarian organizations to operate across front lines is to have exclusively humanitarian motivations and not to take sides. This has led over the past three to four years to greater acceptance of some of the organizations, which, as a result, have had better access.   Just recently, several medical staff from an international aid agency were killed in the north of the country. Have you considered using armed guards or taking similar measures to protect your staff?   First of all, there is no such thing as absolute security in Afghanistan – not for us at the ICRC and not for anyone else.   To come back to your question, the answer is no. We do not have armed guards protecting either the offices or the residences used by our 1,600 staff, and we do not use bullet-proof vehicles. We believe that our security derives mainly from the trust and acceptance we enjoy in Afghanistan. Building higher walls around our offices or hiring armed guards would, in our view, be counter-productive and would distance us from – rather than bring us closer to – those we are here to serve.   Lastly, what''s the outlook for the months and years to come? Will the ICRC and other humanitarian organizations continue to be able to reach people who need their help throughout this large and rugged country?   Two main factors are likely to influence what happens.   On one hand, the degree to which ordinary people and the warring parties come to accept that humanitarian organizations are truly neutral and impartial, that they are performing their tasks for purely humanitarian reasons, will matter a lot.   On the other hand, armed groups and other parties to conflict seem to be proliferating. In our experience, it is easier to reach people in a given place when you have only two or three distinct parties to negotiate access with than when you have a different armed group for each region, district or even village.   Ordinary people, as always, pay the price. More armed groups usually means more violence and suffering, and therefore more need for the aid provided by organizations such as ours. More armed groups also means significantly more difficulty faced by organizations like the ICRC seeking to reach the victims, therefore leaving even more people needing help, and so on. It''s a tragically vicious circle. Unfortunately, we are concerned that that is the way things could be headed. Visit the related web page
	View more stories