Back when I was volunteering with Dalia Association doing aid reform advocacy, we made this short film (about 4 minutes) so that you can hear for yourself how “aid” can hurt — directly from the Palestinians most affected.
I’d love to hear your views about the film and the issues it raises and, most importantly, what do we do now that dependence on a hegemonic aid system is undermining Palestinians’ rights to self-determination in development?
My latest article appeared in This Week in Palestine, September 2012. Check out the amazing issue on the theme of “Alternatives” in Palestine. For your convenience, I’ve posted the article below. Please tell me, are there alternatives to dependence on international aid?
Most people I know believe that Palestine is changing, and not for the better. Even those who enjoy a higher standard of living than in the past have a lower overall quality of life. The Palestinian commitment to community is eroding, and individualism and materialism are seeping into the void. The main culprit? Palestine is dependent on international aid.
The billions of dollars circulating through the Palestinian economy may lull us into temporary complacency, but without dignity, empowerment, and a just peace, the promise of development is false. I think most people know this, but can’t imagine the alternative. Well, the alternative to dependence on international aid is simple: don’t depend on aid. Want to know how?
1-Focus on priorities not opportunities
We don’t need so many traffic police crowding up the manara, and we don’t need so many democracy workshops. Yes, there are opportunities to get funding for those things, but we should resist being enticed into implementing others’ agendas. Our own priorities, decided democratically, can bring focus and passion back into daily life.
2-Live more simply
Investing in our collective future rather than short-term individual gain requires us to live more simply. When we borrow money for cars and houses that we can’t pay off without inflated, donor-funded salaries, we have relinquished our independence. If we give up our cappuccinos and drink tea with maramiya, we will spend less and need less.
3-Value Palestinian resources
Too many people buy into the myth that Palestinians are deficient. Think about it: Palestinians live all over the world, speak many languages, and are well connected to people with influence. Palestinians are highly educated and experienced in every field of human endeavour, from science to the arts to politics. Palestinians are drawn together by a shared history, a cultural legacy, a shared future, and endurance. Where is the deficiency? If we calculate the value of Palestinian resources, we will realise that international aid is but a small supplement to the resources available in ourselves and in one another.
4-Share
We can spend less and need less simply by sharing. Two part-time employees can share a computer. Two companies can share office space. We can share our time as volunteers. We can use our public spaces for multiple purposes. Eliminating waste and duplication is a big step toward reducing dependence. Also, eliminating “leakage” to Israel by purchasing Palestinian-made products and complying with boycotts is another way keep Palestinian resources in the community.
5-Cultivate alternative sources of funding
We can inspire solidarity and investment rather than charity by ending complicity, stamping out corruption, and consistently acting with integrity. We can increase local giving by establishing systems for small, regular contributions. Private sector philanthropy can be more strategic and should include international companies that sell to the Palestinian market. Diaspora philanthropy can engage Palestinians around the world in service and the building of long-term endowment funds.
6- international aid selectively
In those cases in which we choose to accept international aid, it should be on Palestinian terms and in ways that don’t promote dependence. Most importantly, we should not be complicit in wasting resources! Palestinians should refuse funds that are tied to use of overpaid foreign consultants who bring little added value or to the purchase of unneeded commodities from the donor country. Refusing bad aid is a national imperative.
7-Remember Palestinian history and culture
Some may find it difficult to imagine alternatives to dependence on aid, but Palestinian history and culture are rich with examples of self-reliance. During the first Intifada, Palestinians didn’t ask, “What can I get?” but “What can I give?” Even the most simple of impulses, to send a plate of grape leaves to a neighbour makes the point. Today, many, many Palestinians give money, time, and love for the Palestinian cause. We must remember and celebrate these aspects of Palestinian history and culture.
8-Be even more innovative
While we mine Palestinian history and culture for examples of self-reliance, we can also learn from innovations in other parts of the world. I heard that a young person in Tokyo can help an aging neighbour and “earn” hours that his or her own aging parent can use to buy help from a young neighbour in Osaka. I’ve seen thriving bartering clubs where members offer skills ranging from dentistry and cooking to babysitting and language lessons, and they receive the same number of hours in services from other members of the club. I experienced a listserv where people in a community posted things they no longer need: office supplies, strollers, or computers, and others come by to pick them up off the front stairs-no charge. There is a lot of exciting innovation happening in Palestine, but there is also much room for innovation, so we depend less on international aid.
* * * *
I remember one of my first bus rides after I moved to Palestine. The bus was nearly empty. The driver wasn’t earning much. Maybe he didn’t even earn enough to buy fruit to bring home. Then we drove by an old fellaha walking on the side of the road. She was a short, round woman in a traditional embroidered dress. She carried fruit in a basket on her head in the heat. It was obvious she was taking her wares to the market but didn’t have the money for bus fare. Our near-empty bus passed her by.
This problem is one of unexploited latent resources. The unused seats on the bus are a resource, but they don’t bring value if unused. The fruit the woman fails to sell is a resource, but has no value if it is tossed in the garbage because people don’t earn enough to buy fruit. The answer to this conundrum is simple: the woman should pay her bus fare in fruit. Unfortunately, it’s hard (really hard!) to modify the way we think and live-especially after years of being trained by the international aid system that money is the only resource that has value. Other obstacles include common beliefs that “We are poor; we can’t give. We are entitled to international aid. Why shouldn’t they give us money since we’re occupied?” And, “Why should I help for free when other people are getting rich?” We must think differently about ourselves, our resources, and one another.
Every time I speak in public I tell the story of the women’s rights activist in Nablus who asked me to help her raise money from donors so she could hire doctors to give lectures on health topics to local women. She said she had been trying to fund the project for years without success. I pointed out that there are many, many doctors in Nablus. Each could give a lecture once a month for free as part of his or her community service. There was no need to focus on the resource she didn’t have (money), when the resource she needed (doctors) was available locally at no cost. How come that wasn’t obvious to her? How come it isn’t obvious to us all?
During my recent visit to the United States, I had the honor of being interviewed on a weekly radio program called This Week in Palestine (no relation to the Palestinian print publication This Week in Palestine). “This Week in Palestine” is a 45-minute weekly program which airs every Sunday from 8:00 am to 8:45 am EST on WZBC 90.3 FM Boston College Radio Newton MA. The program is an integral part of Truth and Justice radio, a weekly news program which airs between 6-10 am EST every Sunday.
You can listen to my segment at http://archive.org/details/ThisWeekInPalestineInterviewWithNoraLesterMurad. I talked a bit about why I moved to Palestine, the founding of Dalia Association, and problems with the international aid system.
“This Week in Palestine” (TWIP) provides news, opinions and interviews from a Palestinian perspective. The program is a direct outgrowth of participation in the Boston Social Forum in 2004 at UMASS Boston. The program has been on the air for over eight years with local Boston activist Sherif Fam as the host until his untimely death in 2010. The program continues in his loving memory with a team of four co-hosts: Salma Abu Ayash, John Roberts, Chadi Salamoun and Despina Moutsouris. On May 15, 2011 the Community Church of Boston honored TWIP and Truth and Justice Radio with their annual Sacco and Vanzetti Award for promoting truth with justice in the local community. TWIP proudly supports Palestinian self determination, refugee rights, and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. The archive of past radio shows can be found on the following website: www.tinyurl.com/twiplist2. The radio station website is www.wzbc.org
“Normalization” is a much-misunderstood word. Essentially, normalization refers to activities that make relationships (e.g., cultural, business, academic, etc.) between Palestinians and Israelis “normal” and not defined by conflict.
Normalization sounds like a good idea, doesn’t it? Palestinians and Israelis studying together, dancing together, playing sports together, engaging in joint business ventures — aren’t these good? If Israeli and Palestinian relationships become “normal,” won’t the Palestinian-Israeli conflict end and won’t peace reign in the Middle East?
But most of the Palestinians I know are adamantly against normalization, and while many internationals think it’s because Palestinians don’t like Israelis as people, that’s not the reason. The reason why Palestinians (and me) are against normalization is because it’s pursued as a substitute for a political settlement. Moreover, many of these efforts are shockingly naive. I’ve spoken to people who want to do joint Israeli-Palestinian acupuncture, Israeli-Palestinian meditation, and other activities that sound harmless, but scratch a bit and you’ll often find a colonial attitude underneath: “I will bring Palestinians and Israelis together and they will realize that we’re all human beings and the conflict will be ended through my intervention!”
This week, I had occasion to attempt to influence an internationally-known cultural figure who wants to initiate joint Israeli-Palestinian cultural activities. This is what I shared in my note to her:
There are essentially three related reasons not to bring Palestinians and Israelis together for cultural activities:
1-There is no “cultural” problem between Israelis and Palestinians. There is only a political problem.
Joint cultural activities distract from conflict resolution rather than contribute to it. They come from an erroneous analysis that we need to advance personal relationships between people BEFORE we resolve conflict when, in fact, we cannot advance personal relationships between people UNTIL we resolve the conflict. This is because the problem is not one of misunderstanding, but rather, structural inequality. Can you imagine bringing slave owners and slaves together to dance? No. You would have to end the structural inequality first and then folks could dance together. Now, Palestinians are not slaves, but there are currently 2.5 million Palestinians under military occupation in the West Bank, another 1.5 million under occupation and blockade in Gaza, and another 1.5 million who are colonized as second class citizens inside Israel. The rest of the 11 million Palestinians worldwide are refugees, dispossessed of their internationally enshrined rights by Israel’s unwillingness to abide by UN resolutions. This is structural inequality. I hope there will be a time when we can all dance together, but now is not that time.
2-Joint activities are over-funded and have lost credibility.
Unfortunately, there are many, many people who hold the fantasy of bringing Palestinians and Israelis together and then magically, one or the other group will say, “I’m sorry” and the conflict will be over. That’s one reason why there is so much funding for joint activities, like summer camps, theater projects, etc. Another reason is that some governments (the US included) invest in joint cultural activities precisely because they are irrelevant to conflict resolution. They don’t want all-out war, but they profit greatly from the lack of peace. The Israelis, who cannot get international development aid since they aren’t a “developing country”, run around looking for Palestinians to sign on as “partners” (usually on paper only) in order to access the funds that are set aside for joint “peacebuilding.” It’s an industry, a scam. For this reason, most of these activities have been discredited, and that makes even the genuine ones suspect.
3-There is a cultural boycott against Israel.
One of the most important Palestinian, nonviolent civil resistance activities ever is the movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS). It is patterned after the international boycott against apartheid in South Africa, which, along with the local grassroots movement, played a major role in isolating South Africa to the point where Apartheid was too costly and power-sharing became a viable alternative. The PACBI website now features Alice Walker’s refusal to re-publish Color Purple in Israel until the occupation is over. There is also a campaign against Circe du Soleil because they are performing in Tel Aviv in violation of the cultural boycott. Many big stars are boycotting, and many others who have performed in Israel despite the boycott have been subject to international media campaigns.
What do you think? Should internationals support the Palestinian call for an end to normalization ? Or is normalization the path to peace? Should internationals support Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions? Or does the BDS movement exacerbate the conflict?
This is a post I wrote for Why.Dev: committed to getting development right, a really important online community that thinks critically and constructively about development. The post is co-authored with Renee Black of PeaceGeeks, a Canadian NGO that is working with Dalia Association right now. I’ve been the main contact person with PeaceGeeks on Dalia Association’s behalf, and I initiated the post because it’s nice to share a positive experience every once in a while!
Nora Lester Murad, volunteer, Dalia Association:
Something is definitely wrong in NGO-INGO relations. Tension keeps popping up at global meetings and in social media exchanges. Some of it, I think, is the same power struggle as that between locals and donors (e.g., who decides how resources are used, who decides what “success” means, etc.), but there’s another aspect that’s about who “we” are as civil society, and how we manage power and privilege within “our” family. From my experience in Palestine, the disconnect is getting wider. Too often, internationals focus on projects and outputs that make sense in their organisational and funding context, but fail to take responsibility for their collective impact on local civil society – we are getting weaker and less sustainable as a result of international “aid.”
I find myself thinking about these issues all the time. I talk to colleagues around the world. I raise these issues whenever I write or speak at meetings. And the response I get is very challenging.
People say: “We understand your criticisms, but what do you suggest we do differently?”
In other words, knowing what’s wrong in NGO-INGO relations isn’t enough. We need to know how to do it better. But sadly, while I’ve had many bad and neutral experiences, I haven’t had many good ones. That’s why I’m happy to share my recent experience with PeaceGeeks, a Canadian NGO that is helping Dalia Association, a Palestinian NGO, to run an online competition.
What is PeaceGeeks doing right?
1- They called us.
PeaceGeeks contacted Dalia Association, first by email and then by Skype. As the English-speaking volunteer, I was asked to respond (we had never heard of them). Because we didn’t initiate a request for money, the dynamics lacked that sense we often feel of begging, trying to impress, of being evaluated.
2-They show respect for our leadership.
Having already read Dalia’s website, PeaceGeeks asked questions about our organisation and the context we work in. They were in learning mode; we were the experts. They also shared honestly about their organisation and their previous work. This left me feeling like there was a chance to create something together rather than being forced to take or leave a pre-packaged project on someone else’s terms.
3-They bring expertise we don’t have and at a high level.
PeaceGeeks is a collective of technical volunteers. They have expertise we don’t have. That feels very different than working with an INGO that only has money to offer.
4-They respect our timeline and limitations.
We have not been able to move as fast as PeaceGeeks. They are a huge team ready to implement ideas right away. Dalia is a small, grassroots NGO that doesn’t even have sufficient English capacity. So far, PeaceGeeks has been flexible and willing to move more slowly, making the effort to bring Arabic speakers onto their team, and understanding of our need for collective decision-making processes.
5-They are creative and responsive.
When we had difficulty coming up with the name for our philanthropy competition, they offered to incorporate a brainstorming activity into a volunteer recruitment event they were holding in Canada. Then they did extra outreach to recruit Canadian-Palestinians to participate as volunteers.
6-They act like partners.
At all steps in the process, they have shared with us what is happening on their end. For example, they explained how their board decides which projects to take on, and what kind of scrutiny we’d be subjected to. They also copy us on notes to their team so we are in the loop.
Our project—a competition to recognise Palestinian philanthropy around the world—is just starting, and there are much more work to do with PeaceGeeks around the technological interface, social media, and design. It’s a lot, and we might not be able to pull it off without help. So how do I feel so far having PeaceGeeks on our side? Hopeful.
Renee Black of PeaceGeeks:
PeaceGeeks began working with Dalia after a great chat where we could see both a clear vision of what they wanted to accomplish, and a clear role we could play a role in helping them to achieve it. Dalia is tackling a complex set of intertwined systematic issues. In the short term, they aim to challenge the perception that Palestinians are takers and not givers. The long-term objective is to engage more Palestinians in philanthropy and on questions on the effective use local resources to address local issues, towards reducing dependency on international aid and strengthening local accountability.
Breaking this unsustainable and disempowering pattern is no simple task. Dalia has chosen to begin addressing this problem through a contest that asks Palestinian youth to identify examples of Palestinian philanthropy in its various forms, whether it be sharing money, time, resources, talents and networks. They want a culture among youth who see that they have a role to play in addressing issues that affect their communities.
After meeting with Dalia, we identified three key areas where we could help make this contest possible. First, they needed a web developer to help create the website pages for the contest on their website and to train their web team in Jordan in how to replicate and manage these pages. Second, they needed a campaign name, brand and logo to help communicate the contest to stakeholders. Third, they needed help in building the capacities of their staff to make effective of use social media and blogging tools to spread the word about the contest to youth and solicit submissions. And all of this needed to happen in a very short time frame because of cutoff from one of their donors.
At first, we weren’t sure if we would be able to help because of the short turn-around time, but the project quickly piqued the interest of our volunteers, and within three days, we recruited web developer Scott Nelson, Arabic-speaking graphic designer Neeveen Bhadur and social media expert Carey Sessoms. We are now recruiting an experienced Arabic-speaking blogger to help Dalia to understand how blogging can help with their work. Along the way, we have been talking to Dalia about their evolving situation and making sure that the help that we are providing is timely and relevant.
We see our role as enablers of change. We can’t lead initiatives to address issues affecting people in other places. But what we do is help organisations like Dalia to get the tools and capacities they need to execute projects, better manage their resources or reach and engage their constituents effectively so they can solve local issues. And in the process, our volunteers get an incredible opportunity to both learn about how communities around the world are solving local problems and playing a role in helping them do it.
Check back for a follow up post in three months or so as we look back honestly about what worked and what didn’t. Meanwhile…
What are your experiences with local NGO-INGO relations?
I write a lot about international aid to Palestine because, in my view, the international aid system and dependence on it has a lot to do with continued Palestinian oppression.
When I wrote about the recent UNICEF procurement scandal, I was mainly concerned with how donor funds end up in Israel, the entity responsible for the hardship that donor funds purport to ease. Then I read Electronic Intifada’s coverage of the same issue. The anonymous author took a different angle. S/he implied that desalination of Gaza’s water isn’t even the right approach! Although I have no expertise in water, I decided to try to understand it enough to provoke some more constructive discussion using the UNICEF story as an example — but only one of very many — of how messy aid and development are in Palestine.
First question: How did the decision get made to spend an estimated 386 million US dollars to remove salt from Gaza drinking water? UNICEF told me their decision to pursue a 10 million desalination project was in response to a study released by the Palestinian Water Authority. In other words, they say they are responding to local, Palestinian decision-making about how to deal with Gaza’s water problems.
The Palestinian Water Authority kindly shared the truly impressive document, “The Gaza Emergency Technical Assistance Programme (GETAP) on Water Supply to the Gaza Strip, Component 1 – The Comparative Study of Options for an Additional Supply of Water for the Gaza Strip (CSO-G). The Updated Final Report [Report 7 of the CSO-G], 31 July 2011.” (I can email it to you upon request.) It describes the process and outcomes of a rapid planning process in 2011 that resulted in nine interrelated water project proposals. The report describes how all the options were generated, analyzed and categorized based on criteria. A follow-up conversation with David Phillips, the report’s writer, was also enlightening.
After a lot of thought, here’s where I now stand (until convinced otherwise):
First, the report says desalination is urgently needed. But everyone seems to agree that desalination would not be “urgently needed” if it weren’t for Israel’s continuing occupation and blockade and the non-conclusion of the permanent status negotiations about water. If there were no political problem, Gaza and Israel would share water resources fairly, and Gazans wouldn’t be drinking salty, polluted water. So, the desalination option accommodates Israel’s siege — it is a bandage that does not address the root causes of the problem.
Moreover, desalinating water, while alleviating suffering of Palestinians, would also reduce pressure on Israel to comply with customary international water law and International Humanitarian Law. In fact, this is a major reason it was rejected, up till now, by Palestinians and why Israel has supported the desalination option. For these reasons, desalination is a politically costly option, and one that should only be pursued in the context of broad public input. Has there been broad public input? Not according to critics of the decision.
Second, large-scale desalination isn’t possible without guaranteed, uninterrupted energy, which doesn’t exist in Gaza (due to the Israeli siege). Therefore, the feasibility of the large-scale desalination option relies on costly, short-term “fixes” (e.g., generators) that may or may not be allowed in to Gaza by Israel. In the context of the Israeli siege on Gaza and Israel’s repeated destruction of Gazan infrastructure (including the donor-funded airport, power plant, schools, etc.), the desalination option is of questionable feasibility.
Third, there are many parties involved that have pre-existing interests in desalination and privatized approaches to water, including France, Israel and possibly Spain, making their support for desalination in Gaza a potential conflict of interest. Enhanced scrutiny to ensure integrity of all actors is critical.
Fourth, there is a dangerous pattern of inaction (or ineffective action) followed by a crisis, which is then used as an excuse for poor process. In the case of the final report that is now being used as the defining Palestinian policy document, it was an initiative of the consultant! The consultant approached Norway, and Norway funded it. The “opportunity” was offered to the Palestinian Authority. No matter how common this process is, it’s bad process and contradicts international best practices in local ownership of development. (I am completely impressed with the quality of the consultant’s work, but this doesn’t excuse the process.) Please note this: this pattern of crisis creation is built in to the “humanitarian” response system that claims to maintain credibility by staying out of politics. Humanitarian actors (who are funded, let’s be honest, by political interests, may see an impending problem, but they don’t get really involved until it’s gotten so bad that it’s a humanitarian crisis. Then, because there is a “crisis” there is justification for less local control, fast decision-making, and over-spending on “alleviation,” rather than a genuine political effort to resolve the underlying injustice.
Fifth, there is a serious distortion of the concept of “consensus.” In this case, as in all others I’ve studied, the internationals consider the Palestinian Authority as proxy for public support. But given that the PA has neither de jure nor de facto jurisdiction, and given that the PA was installed and is maintained by donors, and given that there are few if any real accountability mechanisms that people can use in relation to the PA, is the international position credible? In this case, like most others, it is hard to imagine there was very much of a local consensus process, when the final report isn’t even available in Arabic.
Sixth, I was pleased when the report identified the first screening criterion as “political” but disappointed when they elaborated it to mean: “Is this option available/feasible in the current political environment?” This is the HEART of the problem with humanitarian aid—they continue to put feasibility above rights. This makes humanitarian response complicit. If we desalinate because fair and legal sharing of resources isn’t acceptable to Israel, then we are enabling the current situation. No, not just enabling it, we are funding it! In fact, this report, like nearly all the other “technical” documents, identifies the problem as political but is not willing to focus their analysis and strategy on achieving a political solution. (But don’t we need a plan to follow when the political solutions fail, you ask? Yes, in theory, but when the political solutions fail for 64 years, then you have to ask if compromise isn’t part of the problem.)
Consider this: The report says, “The principles of customary international water law – which bind all States, whether or not they have signed specific conventions – support a case that the Gaza population should receive a much higher volume of fresh water from the resources shared with Israel. Unfortunately, however, no progress has been made in the negotiation arena on this matter, to date.” (p. 18) But does the report suggest specific ways to hold Israel accountable for its non-compliance with international customary water law? It does NOT!
And consider this circular logic that seems embedded in the report (and in the whole aid system): “We threw out the best option of fair allocation because it wasn’t feasible, so we’re instead accepting the desalination option (which was rejected in the past because it compromises our negotiating position), which relies on materials, parts and electricity that Israel may or may not allow into Gaza, which means that it too isn’t feasible.”
Where is the end to this craziness?
On March 24, 2012, The Times of Israel reported, “Israeli Companies Win UN Bids to Reconstruct Gaza, Angering Palestinians.”
I was angry too. Furious, in fact.
How could UNICEF, with a mandate to “…help Palestinian children access education, protection, health and safe drinking water” re-direct Palestinian aid money to Israel, the perpetrator of the attacks and siege that caused the damage that UN agencies are suppose to alleviate?
The Times of Israel cited the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi as the source. Soon after, WAFA Palestinian News and Info Agency said Palestinian contractors would boycott if Israeli companies were allowed to participate in tenders, and PressTV said Palestinian contractors had already decided to boycott. Gaza.Scoop.ps even reported that UNICEF had responded to criticism by insisting on dealing with Israeli companies in Gaza.
As far as I can figure out, all of these reports are wrong. The truth seems to be both more innocent and, at the same time, more troubling.
To clarify, UNICEF issued a media release on May 28 that said:
“The priority and policy of UNICEF office in the occupied Palestinian territory is to purchase goods and services from qualified Palestinian manufacturers, authorized dealers and companies. We only buy from other providers when goods are not available”, Ms. Gough said.
When purchasing goods or services, UNICEF follows the joint United Nations guidelines and buys goods directly from manufacturers or authorized dealers in a timely, cost effective manner. All purchases are made through a competitive bid process among prequalified suppliers based in the area of operations.”
And a more recent release from the Coastal Municipalities Water Utility says:
“Moreover, a lot of the materials and the equipment that needs to be supplied are of dual use and it is not possible to supply it in through Israeli crossing by the Palestinian suppliers because of the blockade. Hence the donor organizations always conduct the purchase of items from the source and then transport it through the crossings using its own United Nations coordination channels. Based on the above, it was clear that UNICEF has followed the correct procedures according to its regulation and guidelines set for the organization. And also UNICEF has given every possible priority to the local Palestinian product and always worked and still working according the Palestinian strategic needs for water and sanitation, which meets the top Palestinian interest.”
From this, it is apparent that:
1- UNICEF has a policy of preferring Palestinian contractors and vendors. In fact, upon consultation with UNICEF, I found out that all UN agencies have preference for local procurement, primarily because local procurement is more likely to be timely, less costly to transport, and more likely to result in undamaged receipt. I admit that was not able to confirm this in the UN Procurement Manual, because the manual (2010) is 286 pages and I simply didn’t have time to read it all.
2- UNICEF followed all its internal procedures in this case, which includes empowering Palestinian counterparts to make the final decision. (At the same time, following internal procedures isn’t really the point if the internal procedures are flawed.)
And most importantly,
3- No decision in this case has yet been made. Get that? According to UNICEF, the contract for the desalinization units has not yet been awarded!
So why is the UNICEF procurement event such a big scandal? Why was it blown into a major case?
Because questions about Israel profiting from international aid are real. And because questions about the international community’s role in complying with or challenging Israeli policies against Palestinians are legitimate.
Read anything by Shir Hever of Alternative Information Center or Who Profits? and you’ll see that both occupying Palestinians and providing aid to Palestinians under occupation are big, profitable businesses.
Unfortunately, it’s not so easy to simply insist on the purchase of Palestinian goods. What if, as in this case, Palestinians don’t make the product? What if Israeli won’t let the product in? What if refusing to coordinate with Israel means that the desalinization project doesn’t happen, and, as a result, Palestinian children don’t have clean water to drink?
It’s a complicated problem!
As you may know, international aid in general is under scrutiny, and procurement is an important element. Eurodad, a European advocacy organization, released their policy brief, How to Spend It in advance of the recent Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. They told me that an estimated 60% of aid goes to procurement and an estimated 2/3 of that goes to multinationals in OECD (meaning relatively rich) countries. That certainly gives insight into who is profiting from international aid, doesn’t it?
In my opinion, Eurodad and other aid reform advocates need to look more carefully at the occupied Palestinian territory. They already acknowledge that we need to rethink what “value for money” means in conflict-affected situations. Will they go further and suggest that Israeli companies be excluded from the list of “authorized” vendors for aid-funded tenders? Will the international community take seriously critics’ position that it is unethical for Palestinian aid to reach the coffers of the occupier?
I tried to ask this question directly to the United Nations Ethics Office. They didn’t answer my email, and when I called, I just got this:
+19173679858 on 2012-05-30 at 17.08
What do you think?
This Week in Palestine, no. 165, January 2012
Available for free at http://www.thisweekinpalestine.com/
I arrived in Busan, Korea, on November 25, awed by the neon lights and by the possibilities. Global leaders were holding the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF4) organised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and I was an official delegate! It was the most important global meeting on aid policy since the Accra Agenda for Action was endorsed in 2008 and the Paris Declaration in 2005. Both were game changers in their own ways, although Palestine, distinguished as “most aid dependent” by many measures, reaped only negligible benefits. But the HLF4 in Busan was much more promising….
Toolkit (104 pages), January 2012, by Christina Bermann-Harms and Nora Lester Murad
Available for free in English, Spanish and French at www.cso-effectiveness.org/-toolkits,082-.html
The Toolkit is one of the major outputs of the Open Forum process. It is designed for civil society organizations of all types and in all places that wish to put the Istanbul Principles into practice to make their own development work more effective.
Development, 2011, 54(4), pp. 514-19.
Available for purchase ($30 USD) at http://www.palgrave-journals.com/development/journal/v54/n4/pdf/dev201188a.pdf
In this scholar-practitioner journal dedicated to critical views on international development, I use my own experience to expose the incompatibility of the common ‘development’ worldview with political realities in Palestine; and I critique the development community for playing along with the charade that Palestine is “post-conflict.” Using the findings of research with grassroots civil society organizations, I show how dependence on development cooperation often contributes to the denial of Palestinians’ right to self-determination. I argue for honest self-reflection by the international development community, the Palestinian Authority, and Palestinian civil society to end complicity with efforts that maintain structural inequality rather than challenge it.