Measuring Commitment to Best Practice
HRI
NEWS
Interview with Gilles Gasser
Humanitarian Crisis in Lebanon
In July 2006, Lebanon suffered the consequences of an armed conflict in which the Shiite group, Hezbollah, faced Israel. The harsh attacks brought the country into an acute humanitarian crisis whose consequences would take years to surpass. Gilles Passer analyzes the results of a war that, in the words of Kofi Annan, caused, “death and suffering on a wholly unacceptable scale.”
What were the distinguishing characteristics of the crisis in Lebanon?
First of all, the humanitarian crisis was very short given that the war lasted only 34 days. Also, the Lebanese civil society was very responsive, very pro-active in the first phase of the crisis. It is very organized and has a wide variety of resources to respond rapidly to emergency situations. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that the crisis was not only humanitarian, but also a crisis of protection. In other words, it was not only providing humanitarian aid to the most vulnerable populations, but also offering protection to the civilians, victim of the bombing and used as a human shield in the conflict. It was also necessary to ensure that humanitarian organizations could access the most vulnerable people trapped in combat zones. And to all this, is the additional component of the unique characteristics of an area as turbulent as the Middle East.
How can the neutrality required of humanitarian action be maintained in a historically conflict-torn region?
It is practically impossible. The different humanitarian actors have very diverse political agendas. When delivering the aid, the humanitarian organizations receive very specific instructions and parameters. For example, there were countries, like the United States that prohibited working with Hezbollah since it is considered a terrorist group and due to its connections to Iran and Syria. Others, however, accepted contacts with Hezbollah in a practical way because they know that it is very complicated to work in Southern Lebanon without Hezbollah. The situation in Lebanon became further complicated when Golf countries with their own political agenda provided massive assistance. The politicization of humanitarian assistance is a very complex issue that is intensified when one of the key actors in the field is considered a terrorist organization. In the end, the beneficiary is the most vulnerable when really it should be the greatest challenge for humanitarian aid. This is an issue that donors and humanitarian actors should consider.
Was coordination complicated in this context?
Yes, especially in such a short crisis with a wide variety of actors in the field. This is a very important factor. 34 days is the minimum time period needed to analyze what is happening and organize the coordination. Also, just when the coordination was beginning to work, the ceasefire took place, which meant that donors had to modify their strategies.
Then there was coordination with civil society?
This was an issue criticized by the actors involved in the process. The United Nations, NGOs and the donors admitted that there was minimal coordination with local actors. At the beginning of the crisis there was an attempt to include local NGOs in the coordination, but it was one mistake after another – meetings were held in English without interpreters, the UN checked into a luxurious large hotel in Beirut, which surprised local and international NGOs – they distanced the Lebanese civil society from the coordination.
Before the war began, Lebanon was a country of average development. How has the conflict deteriorated the overall situation of the country?
Lebanon is the country with the greatest tourist potential of the region. Beirut, in particular, and Lebanon, in general, were prepared for tourism. The war caused massive destruction of infrastructure that further debilitated the Lebanese government. The damage to the water system, the electricity network, bridges, roads and public services were enormous. This situation created grave logistical problems to get the humanitarian aid to the affected population due to the armed conflict. From an economic point of view, the war was a terrible blow, mainly because it undermined the confidence placed in tourism as the motor of growth. Regarding the socio-political context, the country is in a very concerning situation. The war made Hezbollah an unavoidable actor of the country’s reality, whose alliances with Syria and Iran are rather worrisome. The political game in Lebanon is highly complex. Also, after the war, the divisions between factions are deep and worrisome.
The majority of the displaced return to their homes. What is the reality of their situation?
The current situation is critical. 80% of some towns were destroyed. The water system and the electricity network were destroyed. The consequences are so tragic that reconstruction, not rehabilitation is necessary. Also, many of the bombs did not explode and numerous landmines are still active. The persistence of this threat to human lives even limits agricultural production and therefore, food for the families. Demining and informing about the situation of the mines is the immense task the United Nations Mine Action Service faces is.
With this outlook, what are the challenges Lebanon is facing?
On a humanitarian level, I think the main challenge is the mines. It is essential to provide the necessary protection so that people can return to their homes and farm. If this is not guaranteed, the population will continue depending on humanitarian aid. Also, the country has to reconstruct mentally, heal the injuries from the war, which does not occur with concrete, food and medicine alone. Confidence needs to be given to a population that has been condemned by conflicts since 1975. The biggest challenge is still for Lebanon to recover its complete sovereignty, strengthen its government, reform its institutions and unite the good-willed Lebanese around a table of dialogue. A mountain!