ANNEX
Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary
of State for International Development to House of Commons:
HUMANITARIAN CONTINGENCY PLANNING FOR
IRAQ
I welcome the International Development Committee's
report on humanitarian contingency planning in Iraq. The House
may welcome a summary of the principles my Department has applied
in our planning, our current level of preparedness and constraints
on it, and our assessment of the international community's planning.
I set out my position in a written memorandum to the Committee
before I gave evidence on 12 February. We will respond in due
course to the report's detailed recommendations, some of which
have already been addressed or are already Government policy.
I want to set out to the House now how our planning has developed
in the last month.
The Government's objectives on Iraq were set out
to the House in a written statement by Jack Straw on 7 January.
These include as an immediate priority to continue to support
humanitarian efforts to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people.
We have worked to encourage contingency planning for a range of
scenarios, including the possible resolution of the crisis without
conflict. My responsibilities as Secretary of State for International
Development include helping minimise the risk of humanitarian
suffering as well as alleviating it when it occurs, and this has
guided our planning. We have had extensive discussions across
Government about how military strategy can minimise and mitigate
the risks of conflict to the Iraqi people.
In the event of conflict in Iraq, my Department would
have two humanitarian roles. One is to help advise the Ministry
of Defence and the armed forces on how best to discharge their
humanitarian responsibilities under the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
The other is to use the funds, expertise and influence available
to us to support the direct delivery of impartial humanitarian
assistance by the international humanitarian community. I will
summarise what we are doing in both capacities.
In the event of conflict and the occupation of Iraqi
territory by the UK military, the occupying forces would have
humanitarian responsibilities under the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
It is likely that in the first stages of any conflict, UN agencies
and NGOs would not be fully operational, particularly if there
is a credible threat of the use of chemical or biological weapons.
Military forces thus might have primary responsibility for the
initial delivery of humanitarian assistance. They are also likely
to play a key role over a longer time period in providing a secure
environment for other organisations to deliver humanitarian assistance.
My Department has been advising the Ministry of Defence and the
armed forces on these issues for some time. We have recently agreed
the secondment of a fulltime CivilMilitary Humanitarian
Adviser to the Headquarters UK 1 Division in Kuwait, and are also
providing advice to the National Component Headquarters in Qatar.
We are considering additional support. We are discussing with
the armed forces the use of military Quick Impact Projects in
the period immediately after any conflict, which DFID would consider
funding where there are clear humanitarian needs.
The principles we apply in delivering humanitarian
assistance to Iraq are the same as anywhere else. They are not
determined by the nature of the conflict, or subject to military
strategy or diplomatic considerations. We will respect international
humanitarian law and relevant human rights laws and conventions.
We will allocate our assistance impartially based on the best
possible assessment of need. We will state clearly the standards
we aspire to and how we are accountable for our assistance. We
will respect the neutrality and independence of our humanitarian
partners. Where moral dilemmas in the delivery of humanitarian
assistance arise, often requiring fast and difficult decisions,
with lives at stake, we will be explicit in the analysis which
guides our choices, and communicate this openly.
It is the Government's policy to support the work
of international humanitarian agencies, particularly those of
the United Nations, to take the leading role in responding to
humanitarian emergencies. My Department's regular funding to the
UN and other humanitarian agencies includes provision for emergency
preparedness for a variety of contingencies across the world.
On 10 February I announced I was supplementing this funding with
an additional £3.5m contribution to support UN humanitarian
contingency planning for Iraq. This money has been allocated to
a range of UN agencies including the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the
World Food Programme, the World Health Organisation, the UN Office
for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the United Nations
Security Coordinator (UNSECOORD). I decided last week to provide
a further £6.5m to supplement our existing funding for the
Iraq planning work of these agencies, and support a small number
of NGOs in their contingency preparedness. For UN agencies to
maintain a high level of preparedness for a range of scenarios
is prudent, but this has continuing recurrent costs. We are keeping
this situation under regular review and maintain close contact
with UN agencies and other donors about how far UN appeals have
been met.
This £10m of new funding is in addition to the
UK's ongoing humanitarian programme in Iraq. Since 1991 DFID has
provided over £100m of bilateral assistance, and DFID's contributions
through the EC have been an additional £15m. In 20023
we expect to spend over £8m. Much of this supports the work
of NGOs operating in Northern Iraq. Humanitarian work in the North,
where the Oil For Food programme is run by the UN and the Kurdish
authorities are keen to collaborate with a range of international
organisations, is much easier than in the Centre/South. Despite
sanctions, humanitarian indicators such as maternal mortality
and child mortality have improved much faster in the North under
the Oil For Food programme. But my Department is also funding
the work of UNICEF, the International Committee of the Red Cross
and CARE in Baghdadcontrolled Iraq. These organisations
do essential technical work improving water and sanitation systems,
repairing health facilities, and building the capacity of the
Iraqi people to maintain their own infrastructure.
My Department is now holding weekly confidential
meetings with NGOs to share information on our and their contingency
planning, and discuss areas of mutual cooperation such as preserving
humanitarian independence. We are making contingency preparedness
funding available to those who have carefully thought through
the complexities of the humanitarian environment and are likely
to be able to play a significant role in the early stages after
any conflict.
DFID believes that the UN, through the Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs should play the leading
role in the coordination of humanitarian activity, including in
the vital function of the pooling and sharing of information about
priority needs. The UN is best able to reassure implementing agencies
of the independence of humanitarian decisionmaking. My Department
is funding OCHA to prepare for this role in Iraq, including through
support for the creation of a Humanitarian Information Centre
headquartered in Larnaca, to which we will be seconding a specialist.
We are also supporting the UN Joint Logistic Centre through further
secondments.
DFID's strategy for responding to the humanitarian
needs following any conflict will be determined by events which
cannot be predicted. Retaining sufficient flexibility at this
stage to deploy our finite financial and human resources where
they are most needed is essential. We are deploying operational
humanitarian staff to key locations in the region now so we can
take rapid and wellinformed decisions when required about
future deployment.
We have brought DFID's stockpile of nonfood
items, vehicles and equipment to immediate readiness, and are
procuring additional supplies. We are positioning some of these
stocks in Kuwait and elsewhere in the region, where they could
be used by a variety of implementing partners. This is in addition
to the prepositioning done by UN agencies and others which we
are helping to fund.
DFID is working closely with the Ministry of Defence,
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Treasury to assess
the possible costs of humanitarian assistance in the event of
conflict. The unmet needs could be enormous. The precise cost
will depend on the extent of damage and displacement caused by
any conflict, and particularly on disruption to the Oil For Food
programme (OFF). We have put considerable effort into discussing
how to minimise that disruption. Contingency planning includes
looking at how disruption to the delivery of essential services
provided by OFF can be minimised. The Government expects a leading
role for the UN in such circumstances. We are working with others
on detailed ideas for a possible further UN Security Council Resolution
to ensure OFF could continue to operate in a modified form after
any conflict.
As well as close liaison with UN agencies whose contingency
planning we are already contributing to, my Department has maintained
dialogue with a range of other governments. The Office for Reconstruction
and Humanitarian Affairs in the US Department of Defense is now
leading American planning on humanitarian issues which would arise
after any conflict. DFID has a secondee in ORHA; the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence have also seconded
staff. My officials are in close contact with their US counterparts
on a range of humanitarian issues. The Government is aware of
the plans of a large number of other countries and international
organisations who would contribute to immediate humanitarian assistance
in Iraq in the event of conflict. Most would do so according to
humanitarian principles regardless of who the belligerents were
and on what basis conflict started. Coordination of planning is
politically sensitive for many of them at this stage. The UK will
encourage wider international coordination as quickly as these
political sensitivities allow.
My assessment of the overall level of preparedness
of the international community to cope with the humanitarian challenges
which may lie ahead in Iraq is that it is limited, and this involves
serious risk. UN agencies have made sensible plans with the resources
at their disposal. The USA has put a lot of effort into its planning
but lacks recent on the ground experience of work in Iraq, and
I am concerned by optimistic assumptions about how quickly the
UN and NGOs might be able to do postconflict work. The UK
military's humanitarian planning has been proceeding quickly in
recent weeks but their Geneva Convention obligations could be
huge.
Many donors have not engaged fully with the detail
or the scale of the potential humanitarian challenges. There are
currently serious humanitarian crises in Afghanistan, the West
Bank/Gaza, southern Africa, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and both the
international humanitarian system and DFID resources are highly
stretched. We could do more with a little more time. But ultimately
no preparation would be enough to cope with the scale of the worstcase
scenarios 16 million people currently dependent on Oil
For Food handouts deprived of their monthly ration for a sustained
period, the complete collapse of water and sanitation systems
in a largely urban country of 25 million people, and the possible
use of chemical and biological weapons on the civilian population.
That is why it is so important to minimise those risks.
My Department is also considering the longer term
reconstruction and reform issues. It is clear that a UN mandate
will be required to provide legal authority for the reconstruction
effort, and to make possible the engagement of the International
Financial Institutions and the wider international community.
Efforts are being made to ensure that a suitable mandate is put
in place.
13th March 2003
| 
