Dealing with the military - a double edged sword for NGOs

Coalition forces have all but declared victory in Iraq, yet there has not been any significant movement of humanitarian relief. Instead there are looted hospitals without medicines struggling to treat the sick and the injured.

So why the delay? Why haven't organizations such as World Vision started their work?

The reality is that the situation in Iraq is still unstable from a humanitarian perspective, and the UN - whose guidance we rely on to say when to enter a country safely - are still unable to go into parts of Iraq to undertake even the most basic of security assessments. The recent delivery of food took four days to travel 300 kms from Jordan to Baghdad and faced danger at several stages along the journey.

The situation is concerning for all, including governments and the military.

The allied forces have tried to fill the void and undertake some humanitarian work, and indeed the delivery of vital supplies should be commended.

The airlift of medical supplies, delivered by the RAAF, will undoubtedly be welcomed in Iraq. However as we saw from the chaotic food distribution images from a few weeks ago, the military don't have the expertise to distribute emergency aid. Nor should they be expected to - it's not their job.

It is the job of aid agencies.

But the recent military airlift highlighted the level of instability within Iraq, requiring an armed presence to ensure the safe landing and unloading of these supplies.

The answer would seem clear - why not work with the military to deliver humanitarian aid?

The reality is that in this conflict, aid agencies are facing unprecedented challenges.

For the first time we have a coalition of governments and military forces who want to play an active role in delivering humanitarian assistance themselves.

Aid agencies are having to decide how closely to work with the military, and it is not an easy decision.

On one hand, we need a secure environment in which to work and to be able to deliver food, water, shelter and care without the risk of being shot, blown up or kidnapped.

But to work effectively and genuinely help Iraqis rebuild their lives and communities, we need to be impartial. A neutral presence free from the taint of any political or military objective.

We've previously delivered relief working alongside peacekeeping and occupying military forces who ensured our safety, but this conflict is posing problems that we haven't really had to face before.

Humanitarian assistance was closely linked to military objectives for the first time in Afghanistan.

There planeloads of bombs were followed by planeloads of relief supplies. From a practical standpoint alone this was not very effective, with food falling into inaccessible and in some cases mined land. The supplies would undoubtedly have reached more people who needed them if the program had incorporated aid expertise.

But a key difference between Afghanistan and this conflict is the different political backdrop. Then the world was still reeling from the events of September 11 and there was less international debate over the military action in Aghanistan.

Now in Iraq, there are attempts to align humanitarian assistance even more closely to military strategy and political objectives.

Some agencies have already vowed not to work in cooperation with the military and will work only under a UN mandate, yet others believe the humanitarian imperative outweighs the concerns over who ends up administering Iraq.

We believe there are two immediate imperatives in addressing the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

The first is for aid agencies to be allowed in to deliver emergency relief. For this, we need the military to focus on establishing law and order as quickly as possible. We need them to clear the ground of landmines and unexploded ordnance.

This will give us the physical security to get on with our job.

The second need is "safe humanitarian space" so agencies fulfilling their tasks do not themselves contribute to further conflict - even unintentionally.

This is an independent environment free from military or political influence. It is essential to ensure longer-term aid is possible in genuine partnership with Iraqi communities.

It may be difficult for agencies like World Vision to build relationships with the community if we are seen to be linked to the military.

The UN is the most appropriate organization to oversee humanitarian work in Iraq. They have more than 50 years experience in providing assistance in post-conflict environments such as Rwanda, Bosnia, East Timor and Afghanistan.

They have first-hand knowledge of how to cope with complex humanitarian emergencies such as this. Specialised organisations within the UN can focus on the differing needs of children and refugees. They have the infrastructure and relationships to deliver food safely, quickly and fairly. This is experience that can not be mimicked or replaced.

Just as important as their experience though is the UN's neutrality. They provide a multilateral framework for humanitarian assistance, genuinely independent from the aims of any government, religious or political influence. This is also essential for humanitarian relief to be effective.

The military have done what the set out to do. We now need to get on with ours.