RE: Draft XG Charter

I do not believe Karin's statement is only "partially true" but rather
"mostly" or "usually" true - which is an important distinction.  Using the
term "permission" rather than "invitation" may help us arrive at concensus
on thjis issue.

All international organizations - including UN agencies - operate only at
the invitation and with the permission of the host governments.  Once they
have a registered office in the country, that does not mean that they can
carry out any program within the country without the host government's
permission.  UN agencies, international organizations and NGOs have detailed
negotiations with governments over the scope of their programs to be carried
out - not carte blance to do whatever they want. 

It is true that established international organizations are better
positioned to respond to natural disasters or other emergencies, but again
they usually do so with the permission and with notification to the host
government.  It goes a bit beyond manners - as cowboy organizations are
likely to find their official programs suspended or revoked or not renewed
at the end of the year - if they offend the host government agreement for
their operations. 

You point out some very specific and limited exceptions.  The international
communities response to civil conflicts without host government permission -
is an extremely rare occurrence - as you point out Northern Iraq, Southern
Sudan - you could add Bosnia-Herzegovina and Somalia to the list as well -
and these steps were taken only after much difficult discussion and
negotiation and then only under the banner of the UN (or Coalition forces)
authority and with very specific rules being put in place to respect
sovereignty to the extend possible.  These are very rare exceptions to the
rule of operating only with host government permission.

There are certainly international organizations that once established in
country - will be able to respond to a disaster.  But they should continue
to do so only with the permission of the host country.  Failing to do so is
not good practice.

Best regards,
Mark

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-disaster-management-ont-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-disaster-management-ont-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of Paul Currion
> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 8:10 AM
> To: public-disaster-management-ont@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Draft XG Charter
> 
> Thanks for raising this, as it is quite important in the 
> overall system.  However I would argue that it is only 
> partially true, for the following reasons:
> 
> 
> 1.	The situation is slightly different for the three main 
> branches of the humanitarian community (UN, Red Cross and 
> NGOs) since their legal statuses are different.
> 	
> 2.	Where an agency already has a registered office in a 
> specific country, there is little a government can do to 
> prevent them to responding to an emergency.  Such an office 
> will usually be the vehicle through which that organisation 
> will act precisely because it doesn't require permission - 
> it's already in the country.  [The only recourse a government 
> has in this instance is to limit the movements of that 
> organisation (by imposing a travel permit requirement, for 
> example) or ejecting it from the country altogether (as 
> Rwanda did in the mid-1990s).]
> 3.	Where there is a civil war or other complex emergency, 
> the situation is slightly different and agencies may well 
> enter a country without any permission from the government - 
> southern Sudan and northern Iraq in the 1990s would have been 
> examples of this.  However this might also apply in a country 
> where there is a natural disaster on top of an existing 
> conflict - confusing!
> 	
> 
> In practice, an organisation's response to a disaster is not 
> so much based on an "invitation" from the government than it 
> is based on that government not preventing that organisation 
> from working in the country.  This is obviously different for 
> offers of assistance from other governments, which have 
> diplomatic implications that go beyond the purely humanitarian.
> 
> Shutting up now!
> 
> cheers
> 
> Paul C
> 
> 
> Kristin Hoskin wrote:
> 
> 
> 	International organisations, including those supplied 
> by other governments, come in when they are "invited". They 
> are essentially guests and have no rights to impose aid or 
> support except where this has been prearranged. They don't 
> just come in when domestic organisations and governments 
> can't cope either (that would be considered invasion). 
> 	
> 	In summary the point I want to articulate is that many 
> organisations and governments have standing overseas support 
> arrangements but with the exception of nations that are under 
> civil war it would be rare for aid to be provided as a "guns 
> a blazin' hero on a white horse saving the day" approach. It 
> isn't a matter of politics so much as a matter of manners and 
> appreciation that those on the ground know what they need and 
> that others will supply what is asked for. It is worth 
> stating that this is quite distinct from long term recovery 
> aid packages which I would not consider a part of assisting 
> emergency management but of assistance to social and economic 
> recovery. 
> 	
> 
> 
> --
> Paul Currion
> 
> UK / CELL: + 44 79 46 82 45 46
> UK / LAND: + 44 20 71 93 71 67
> MSN / SKYPE / YAHOO / IRC: paulcurrion
> Web / www.humanitarian.info / www.currion.net
>

Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 04:15:39 UTC