Når verdensorganisationens humanitære arbejde, politiske initiativer og militære fredsmissioner skal spille sammen, kniber det – som vi har set i Somalia
LONDON, 13 January 2012 (IRIN): Putting all UN operations in a country under a single management structure is not as simple as it might sound.
In some countries, different parts of the UN may be negotiating with rebels to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid, while their colleagues might be involved in planning military assaults against the very same groups.
Neutrality, impartiality (upartiskhed) and independence are regarded as humanitarian principles, but are not the priorities of UN political or peacekeeping missions, and many humanitarian staff believe integration helps to erode them, hampering their ability to help people in need.
Given ongoing tensions between UN agencies, the UK’s Overseas Development Institute and US-based public policy group The Stimson Center have carried out an independent study exploring the impact of integration on humanitarian response.
The study concludes that the new coordination model has drawbacks and some surprising benefits.
Coordination, or the lack of it, became an issue in the 1990s, as UN peacekeepers, political missions and humanitarian agencies found themselves working side-by-side in conflict-affected countries.
The report’s authors detail UN operations in three countries – Afghanistan, Somalia and the DR Congo (former Zaire) – as they struggled to comply with (overholde/leve op til) a policy of greater integration in various forms.
Afghanistan, Somalia and DR Congo
Læs videre på http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=94647
