Donor governments say robust counter-terror measures are vital and non-negotiable, but NGOs say donors have become so eager to stop aid falling into the hands of terrorists that they’re preventing assistance from reaching those who really need it.
The problem isn’t new, but the growing reach of counter-terror legislation in 2019 – into travel, banking, grant-making, and field-based operations – made it a significant legal hazard for NGOs working in conflict zones where sanctioned groups operate.
Large aid donors, particularly the United States, have become more vigilant in safeguarding against aid theft by extremists. Aid agencies have to commit to detailed provisions to mitigate the risk. Those clauses are multiplying and donors are pushing the risk downstream. That includes, for example, checking names of individuals and organisations in the field against the thousands listed by the US government.
This year the UK and the Netherlands considered new measures to make it harder for their citizens to join extremist groups overseas. The laws would criminalise any visits to certain places with permission from the state. Aid workers and journalists objected, saying they had legitimate reasons to visit and not be marked as extremists. (The UK law was modified at a late stage; the Dutch one is under consideration in the upper house.)
A swathe of legal. administrative, and bureaucratic measures amount to a suffocating package, say NGOs.
Donors like DFID (the UK aid department) and USAID argue that they are simply protecting taxpayer money from abuse and limiting terrorist access to resources. They say their measures provide enough leeway for principled humanitarian action to reach civilians living in areas controlled by extremists, but they say they have a “zero-tolerance” policy for aid theft and misuse.
These and related issues, including sanctions, were a coverage priority in 2019. Some highlights:
In its efforts to keep aid resources out of the hands of the extremists of Boko Haram, NGOs say the US government has gone to new extremes. A new clause inserted in US funding contracts proved a step too far for UNICEF. They turned down the money and didn’t sign.
Some NGOs have been vocal in accusing the United States in particular of over-reach that stops legitimate aid getting through. We asked the top investigator for USAID whether his efforts were counter-productive or proportionate.
A pro-Israel lawyer has launched a string of cases against NGOs he claims have been helping terorrist groups in violation of their agreements with the US government donor agency, USAID. On 18 December, he dropped this case against Oxfam, which threatened up to $160 million in damages. Here’s how it works.
When the families of so-called Islamic State fighters were driven into camps in Syria, UK aid policy-makers halted most cash-based aid in the region. The change of heart stemmed from fears of leakage to terrorists and fears of bad PR: “Nobody [in the aid world] wants to be part of a Daily Mail story,” one analyst said.
NGOs working on the ground in Syria, independent experts, and the UN Human Rights Council’s special rapporteur say the sanctions aren’t smart enough and are doing just what Western countries said they wouldn’t: impeding aid.
A new US anti-terror law forced the majority of American-funded aid operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to grind to a halt.
In October, TNH chaired a panel at the Humanitarian Congress in Berlin on the expansion of counter terror restrictions. Lawyers and NGO practitioners from the Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontières, and others explain the latest ways neutrality is getting squeezed: prohibited places, criminalised people, and the limits of waivers.
BEHIND THE HEADLINES: 10 Crises to Watch in 2020
Save the date: Our Ten humanitarian crises and trends to watch in 2020 has now been published. Please join us at 3pm CET on January 20 for a special webinar, Behind the Headlines: 10 Crises to Watch. Hear from our specialist editors about the crises and trends we think will shape the agenda in 2020. Get the inside scoop on our most read annual feature. Ample time will be made for Q&A. Register for the webinar now.
We uncovered the sex abuse scandal that rocked the WHO, but there’s more to do
We just covered a report that says the World Health Organization failed to prevent and tackle widespread sexual abuse during the Ebola response in Congo.
Our investigation with the Thomson Reuters Foundation triggered this probe, demonstrating the impact our journalism can have.
But this won’t be the last case of aid worker sex abuse. This also won’t be the last time the aid sector has to ask itself difficult questions about why justice for victims of sexual abuse and exploitation has been sorely lacking.
We’re already working on our next investigation, but reporting like this takes months, sometimes years, and can’t be done alone.
The support of our readers and donors helps keep our journalism free and accessible for all. Donations mean we can keep holding power in the aid sector accountable, and do more of this.